Three Things To Take Away From Supreme Court Decision

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

1. There's no credible way to spin this as a "win" for limited government.

Folks such as Wash Post columnist George Will and legal theorist Randy Barnett, to name two of many on the conservative and libertarian ends of things, are working hard to say the real silver lining in the SCOTUS decision is the clear language the court used in limited Congress' use of the Commerce Clause. As Will put it, "At least Roberts got the court to embrace emphatic language rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale for penalizing the inactivity of not buying insurance."

 

Yeah, well, when Chief Justice Roberts closed a window, he opened a door. Sure, I'd like to have some of what I assume Roberts and the rest of the Supes were smoking when they signed off on the it's-a-tax-not-a-penalty decision, but medical is illegal even in states where it's legal (wha?). That's due to the decision in a slightly older Supreme Court case, Raich v. Gonzalez, which showed the Commerce Clause to be infinitely stretchable when need be.

 

Will may be right that yesterday's decision may spark a backlash in favor of smaller government (or at least one that calls a tax a tax), but anybody who thinks government at any level will feel even the slightest bit limited by the ruling is flat-out wrong.

 

2. Hey Republicans: Mitt Romney is the worst possible candidate you could have right now.

Before the ruling was even clearly reported, Republican and Democratic "strategists" (can't we call them something more accurate and less flattering?) were all claiming that yesterday's decision sealed the deal for their preferred party.

 

Let's leave aside the large and unchanged fact that Obamacare remains unpopular (most recent polls show majorities of Americans opposed to it and the number rises among those who say they are "well-informed"). The 2012 election will largely turn on the overall state of the economy, not whether the crux of Obamacare is recognized tax now rather than a mandate (though I must admit that now it's a tax, I kinda miss the broccoli mandate).

 

More to the point: Obamacare is essentially Romneycare on steroids (hmm, are those covered under the new law?), so having the architect of the latter blasting the former for doing what Romney crowed about doing in the Bay State is a tad confusing. It doesn't help that Romney, whose vagueness when it comes to spelling out anything about any of his policies is muy legendary, is vowing to "repeal and replace" Obamacare immediately upon taking office. The repeal part is self-explanatory (if not fully convincing) but what's he gonna replace it with? And if it's not a real market-driven plan that dismantles not only Obamacare but Medicare, why am I listening?

 

3. Health care will continue to cost more and more.

One of the two major selling points of the new law was that it would "bend the cost curve down." Do Obamacare supporters seriously think that increasing government involvement in health care is going to keep costs low? Medicare, a single-payer system run by the federal government, is the single-biggest factor in rising entitlement costs; by design, the program's payroll taxes and premiums don't cover anything like the full cost of services (indeed, it's something like 50 percent, with the rest be covered by general tax revenue and borrowing). Medicaid is a classic case of Paying More for Less. That is, costs keep going up while outcomes are truly dismal for the folks trapped in the system: "A University of Pennsylvania study, for example, reported that colon cancer patients in Medicaid have a 2.8 percent mortality rate, compared with 2.2 percent for the uninsured. A study of Florida’s Medicaid patients found they were more likely to have late-stages of prostate cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma at diagnosis than the uninsured."

 

As CNN's Erin Burnett noted on OutFront last night, the "Affordable Care Act" has virtually no cost control mechanisms in place and a recent analysis by the firm Bradley Woods projects that insurance premiums will rise about 7.5 percent annually under the law.

 

Watch Burnett discuss the Supreme Court ruling with me, RedState's Erick Erickson, Buzzfeed's Ben Smith, and CNN's Roland Martin

 

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/29/3-essential-takeaways-from-the-obamacare

[Maverick 791]

"A University of Pennsylvania study, for example, reported that colon cancer patients in Medicaid have a 2.8 percent mortality rate, compared with 2.2 percent for the uninsured. A study of Florida’s Medicaid patients found they were more likely to have late-stages of prostate cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma at diagnosis than the uninsured."

 

That's a scary number.

 

1. There's no credible way to spin this as a "win" for limited government.

 

This author apparently hasn't met Phailadelphia. You should introduce the two.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

1. There's no credible way to spin this as a "win" for limited government.

 

Untrue. Aside from Roberts' written ruling against expansive use of the Commerce Clause, the decision to prevent the government from forcing states to accept conditions for federal funding is huge, and one of the most overlooked aspects of this ruling.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/why-the-supreme-courts-medicaid-decision-is-a-very-big-deal/259134/

Q: I'd love to hear your opinion on what this means, not only for Medicaid, but for this broad swath of federal programs that use incentives to get cooperation from the states.

A: I think the bigger concern is for other cooperative federal spending programs. This is the first time the Supreme Court has ever invalidated a condition on federal spending on the grounds that it coerced the states. That's a big deal. That's a really big deal. The court has a couple times in the past suggested that there might possibly be a condition that's coercive. But it's never found something coercive until now.

 

The grounds on which they found this Medicaid expansion to be coercive are not entirely easy to figure out. But they are problematic for other federal spending laws, for other cooperative federal programs. I could foresee, and I do foresee, that there will be a number of challenges over the next months and years to a number of cooperative federal spending programs, like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, particularly depending on what changes ultimately get made to No Child Left Behind and what kind of regulations get imposed on states for federal education funds. I think there could be challenges to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. There could be challenges to the civil rights statutes that impose conditions on the states that accept federal funds, like the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits disabilities discrimination. So there are lots of possibilities that are opened up by this ruling to challenge well-entrenched cooperative federal spending programs. Those opportunities didn't exist before today because the court had never a condition on federal spending coercive to the states.

 

2. Hey Republicans: Mitt Romney is the worst possible candidate you could have right now.

 

Well that was true regardless of the outcome of this case.

 

3. Health care will continue to cost more and more.

 

There's way too much grey area to determine that kind of statement right now. The CBO has already published a couple of studies showing the decreased overall costs the Affordable Care Act will afford us, ranging from taxes to other fees and such associated with rising pharmaceutical costs, uncompensated care, and competition. Your premiums are unlikely to decrease, sure, but it's important to keep in mind that this is only the first step in a major overhaul of the US health care system. Hopefully over the next decade we will see an introduction of price controls, more aggressive attempts to reform the efficiency with which health care is performed, which will reduce administrative fees significantly; and (fingers crossed) a separation of the employer-health coverage conundrum, perhaps one of the biggest barriers to free competition in the insurance market.

 

You don't overhaul a market this large in one piece of legislation. The PPACA simply got the ball rolling down hill and it will be the responsibility of the next 2-3 administrations to ensure its completion.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[Thanatos 2,847]

Again, Roberts thinks the law is a bad one. He simply believed the government had the constitutional authority to pass it.

 

The way to keep this law from actually going into effect is to put up guys who are going to vote to repeal it, if you really feel that strongly about it.

 

Honestly, I'd rather we get out of the middle east.

 

The Republicans all say it will cost more, the Dems all say it will cost less. Who knows which is right? To make a blanket statement saying that it will definitely cost more is just ignoring one-half of the evidence presented.

 

Phail brought up the point about denying the Feds the power to force states to accept conditions in order to get federal funding, so no need to go into that further.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

My primary concern is still that insurance premiums are going to go way up, and the middle class is going to get screwed. And if it does happen, by the time we realize it, we'll be stuck with four more years of Obama.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Untrue. Aside from Roberts' written ruling against expansive use of the Commerce Clause, the decision to prevent the government from forcing states to accept conditions for federal funding is huge, and one of the most overlooked aspects of this ruling.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/why-the-supreme-courts-medicaid-decision-is-a-very-big-deal/259134/

 

That's one of the most awesome* parts of the decision.... They rule that it's not okay for the feds to coerce states into joining certain programs, but it's okay when they force the same regulations on each individual.

 

Previously, if the states didn't comply with certain things the feds wanted, they were going to pay for it. It's great that that is no longer the case, but this decision makes it so if WE, each individual, don't do what the feds want.. WE will suffer the penalties, not the state.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's great that Roberts is and wants to go back and revise the Dole Doctrine, but... In the end, he rules that even though the feds can't do it to states, they sure as hell can do it to the people.. As long as it's disguised as a "tax".

 

Roberts was COMPLETELY two-faced and incredibly inconsistent in his decision.

 

Win for States?

Loss for Liberty?

 

We all lose.

 

* - I am being completely facetious, if it wasn't apparent

Edited June 30, 2012 by Favre4Ever

[Brownage 7]

Again, Roberts thinks the law is a bad one. He simply believed the government had the constitutional authority to pass it.

 

The way to keep this law from actually going into effect is to put up guys who are going to vote to repeal it, if you really feel that strongly about it.

 

Honestly, I'd rather we get out of the middle east.

 

The Republicans all say it will cost more, the Dems all say it will cost less. Who knows which is right? To make a blanket statement saying that it will definitely cost more is just ignoring one-half of the evidence presented.

 

Phail brought up the point about denying the Feds the power to force states to accept conditions in order to get federal funding, so no need to go into that further.

 

If your primary wish is to get out of the Middle East, Barack ain't your boy. You may point to the Iraq withdrawal, but the majority of the troops stationed in Iraq just moved back next door to Afghanistan. And you honestly believe with all the shit in Libya, Egypt, and Syria that we'll just stay out of it completely? Don't hold your breath. Obama's foreign policy might as well be a Xerox copy of Dubya's.

 

The Republicans saying it will cost more are correct. This bill is intended to add thousands, if not millions of people to health insurance (whether they like it or not) without adding any doctors or extra facilities. You know what that does? Economics 101. Demand goes up - price goes up. A tax, one that a majority won't have to pay even, will NOT fund itself. So I'll leave it to you to guess who's going to pay for it. Hint: Look in a mirror.

 

 

My primary concern is still that insurance premiums are going to go way up, and the middle class is going to get screwed. And if it does happen, by the time we realize it, we'll be stuck with four more years of Obama.

 

But it's completely against my own self interests as a middle class citizen to not vote Democrat! What are you talking about? Obama will take care of me, I'm sure.

[Thanatos 2,847]

If your primary wish is to get out of the Middle East, Barack ain't your boy. You may point to the Iraq withdrawal, but the majority of the troops stationed in Iraq just moved back next door to Afghanistan. And you honestly believe with all the shit in Libya, Egypt, and Syria that we'll just stay out of it completely? Don't hold your breath. Obama's foreign policy might as well be a Xerox copy of Dubya's.

 

The Republicans saying it will cost more are correct. This bill is intended to add thousands, if not millions of people to health insurance (whether they like it or not) without adding any doctors or extra facilities. You know what that does? Economics 101. Demand goes up - price goes up. A tax, one that a majority won't have to pay even, will NOT fund itself. So I'll leave it to you to guess who's going to pay for it. Hint: Look in a mirror.

 

And what, Romney is? The Republicans and Democrats are both at fault here. I didn't vote for Barack and I wouldn't in a million years. He is simply too much against what I hold to be my principles.

 

Also, I suggest you look into the bill. Sure, it does what you say, but it doesn't do only what you say it does. It does try to cover for those extra people. How well, I don't know. I brought that up in the other thread as being my major problem with the bill.

 

But there are plenty of studies on both sides of the issue, and frankly, you strike me as a very conservative guy, so of course you're going to give more credence to the republican side of things, in general.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Maverick 791]

And what, Romney is? The Republicans and Democrats are both at fault here. I didn't vote for Barack and I wouldn't in a million years. He is simply too much against what I hold to be my principles.

 

Also, I suggest you look into the bill. Sure, it does what you say, but it doesn't do only what you say it does. It does try to cover for those extra people. How well, I don't know. I brought that up in the other thread as being my major problem with the bill.

 

But there are plenty of studies on both sides of the issue, and frankly, you strike me as a very conservative guy, so of course you're going to give more credence to the republican side of things, in general.

 

Brownage and common sense makes it pretty clear, but I'll reiterate the point:

 

Look in a mirror.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Brownage and common sense makes it pretty clear, but I'll reiterate the point:

 

Look in a mirror.

 

Common sense would make it clear, if you weren't ignoring how they try to cover for it. If all they did was what Brownage said they were doing, then yeah, it would be stupid to suggest it wasn't going to raise prices everywhere by a ton.

 

But that's not all they're doing.

 

Read what's in the bill, then comment on how effective you think the measure is. If you don't even bother to read how they're trying to cover it, then please don't comment on something you haven't even bothered to look at.

[Maverick 791]

Common sense would make it clear, if you weren't ignoring how they try to cover for it. If all they did was what Brownage said they were doing, then yeah, it would be stupid to suggest it wasn't going to raise prices everywhere by a ton.

 

But that's not all they're doing.

 

Read what's in the bill, then comment on how effective you think the measure is. If you don't even bother to read how they're trying to cover it, then please don't comment on something you haven't even bothered to look at.

 

Who the fuck are you to tell me if I read it or not? Tell me sport, what did I have for lunch today? Suggestion #1 on how to socialize on a message board properly: Don't tell people what they did if you really have no fucking clue if they did it. You set yourself up to look like a moron.

 

Suggestion #2: Learn to separate politics/religion and sports on this forum. Since YOU told ME that I didn't read the bill, I'll assume you're smart enough to know the phrase "Don't mix politics and religion with family." We'll use that phrase for our lovely message board here. I can already tell you fail to do that by your post in the other topic towards me. You won't be a likeable guy if you can't separate the two and carry a grudge simply because we don't share the same political views.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Alright guys, let's not let the corrupt politicians make us lose our heads.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Who the fuck are you to tell me if I read it or not? Tell me sport, what did I have for lunch today? Suggestion #1 on how to socialize on a message board properly: Don't tell people what they did if you really have no fucking clue if they did it. You set yourself up to look like a moron.

 

He has a point though...you wouldn't write a book report over a book you haven't read, would you? Otherwise, the audience will know whether or not you've read the material. In this case, it's fairly obvious you haven't bothered to familiarize yourself with the legislation in depth, making your value judgments on the subject mostly ignorant of what's actually happening.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[SteVo+ 3,702]

He has a point though...you wouldn't write a book report over a book you haven't read, would you?

 

Haven't you been to college? Happens all the time.

[Maverick 791]

He has a point though...you wouldn't write a book report over a book you haven't read, would you? Otherwise, the audience will know whether or not you've read the material. In this case, it's fairly obvious you haven't bothered to familiarize yourself with the legislation in depth, making your value judgments on the subject mostly ignorant of what's actually happening.

 

Again, how is it fairly obvious I haven't familiarized myself with the legislation? Are you guys actually capable of reading all of the content in my posts and not singling out the parts you choose to attack?

 

You guys are making it out like I'm the lone soul who has this point of view. It's not like I'm saying shit that isn't being said other places in the media, internet, etc. Look at other articles and comments people are writing about this decision other than DU. Majority rule =/ Correct. Just because there's a bunch of liberal dumbasses on this board doesn't mean your view is correct.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Common sense would make it clear, if you weren't ignoring how they try to cover for it. If all they did was what Brownage said they were doing, then yeah, it would be stupid to suggest it wasn't going to raise prices everywhere by a ton.

 

But that's not all they're doing.

 

Read what's in the bill, then comment on how effective you think the measure is. If you don't even bother to read how they're trying to cover it, then please don't comment on something you haven't even bothered to look at.

 

All you are doing in this thread is telling people to read the bill...

 

Take a stand on the issue, and instead of telling people what to do in vague generalities... Refute what they are saying using the bill as your source.

 

Debating is GREAT and lively discussion. Even if it gets heated sometimes, it can still be a lot of fun. But making posts over and over telling people that they are wrong (or not necessarily correct) and that they should read the bill isn't exactly debating.

 

Add depth, logic, and reasoning to your posts and debates. It will be a lot more fun for everyone involved.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Favre4Ever

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Again, how is it fairly obvious I haven't familiarized myself with the legislation? Are you guys actually capable of reading all of the content in my posts and not singling out the parts you choose to attack?

 

You guys are making it out like I'm the lone soul who has this point of view. It's not like I'm saying shit that isn't being said other places in the media, internet, etc. Look at other articles and comments people are writing about this decision other than DU. Majority rule =/ Correct. Just because there's a bunch of liberal dumbasses on this board doesn't mean your view is correct.

 

As Churchill said: "Capitalism's inherent vice is the unequal sharing of blessings... Socialism's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

 

We've been headed down the socialism road for a long time, but we just got in a faster car.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Who the fuck are you to tell me if I read it or not? Tell me sport, what did I have for lunch today? Suggestion #1 on how to socialize on a message board properly: Don't tell people what they did if you really have no fucking clue if they did it. You set yourself up to look like a moron.

 

Suggestion #2: Learn to separate politics/religion and sports on this forum. Since YOU told ME that I didn't read the bill, I'll assume you're smart enough to know the phrase "Don't mix politics and religion with family." We'll use that phrase for our lovely message board here. I can already tell you fail to do that by your post in the other topic towards me. You won't be a likeable guy if you can't separate the two and carry a grudge simply because we don't share the same political views.

 

It seems pretty obvious that you haven't read a summary of the bill, at least, or are willfully ignoring parts of it, if you did read said summary, or perhaps forgetting about those parts, if I'm feeling generous.

 

Not sure how my post failed to separate sports and politics/religion. I probably do share most of your political views, I simply don't care for how you articulate them. You use language that is so over-the-top in nature that it's pretty hard to take you seriously.

 

And thanks for the advice on how to conduct myself on a social message board, but I've been here for nearly two years now, so I think I can handle myself.

 

All you are doing in this thread is telling people to read the bill...

 

Take a stand on the issue, and instead of telling people what to do in vague generalities... Refute what they are saying using the bill as your source.

 

Debating is GREAT and lively discussion. Even if it gets heated sometimes, it can still be a lot of fun. But making posts over and over telling people that they are wrong (or not necessarily correct) and that they should read the bill isn't exactly debating.

 

Add depth, logic, and reasoning to your posts and debates. It will be a lot more fun for everyone involved.

 

I have taken several positions in these two threads. If you want me to repeat everything I say in one thread in the other, well, I can copy-paste everything, if you really want.

 

I have multiple other posts dealing with various topics around this bill, such as having interstate insurance if its the same company, a lengthy post on Roberts' decision, hoping that Roberts' wording, (his gutting of the Commerce Clause), will keep a dangerous precedent from being set, and a discussion back and forth with Stevo on separation of powers.

 

Here is the pertinent post on this particular issue, using the bill itself as a source, as you requested:

 

As far as the bill itself, THIS is the problem I have with it, not the mandate part, not really. As of 1/1/2014:

No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history. ( Citation: Page 45, sec. 2704, Page 46, sec. 2701, and Page 57, sec. 1255 )

That is simply not economically feasible in our current state. You cannot force a private company to take people regardless of their pre-existing conditions. It will drive insurance costs through the roof, and it doesn't seem to be properly accounted for. Apparently, they think the mandate tax will cover this... but I really don't see that.

 

Phail replied, and I am still considering his argument.

 

It's not a "common sense" issue, it's a very vague one.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Thanatos19