Funny thing is the health care industry is already working hard to comply with the law. I'm not sure what they'll do if it's struck down. There's alot of investment in going along with this thing.
If it gets struck down it's going to cause a massive amount of problems, the most important being the incredible amount of money that is just gone because of businesses planning for the last three years.
Funny thing is the health care industry is already working hard to comply with the law. I'm not sure what they'll do if it's struck down. There's alot of investment in going along with this thing.
If it gets struck down it's going to cause a massive amount of problems, the most important being the incredible amount of money that is just gone because of businesses planning for the last three years.
I just had a thought. I realize it's somewhat absurd, but...anyway...
What if SCOTUS strikes down the law, and Obama says, "You know what? Fuck you! It's still a law."
Funny thing is the health care industry is already working hard to comply with the law. I'm not sure what they'll do if it's struck down. There's alot of investment in going along with this thing.
If it gets struck down it's going to cause a massive amount of problems, the most important being the incredible amount of money that is just gone because of businesses planning for the last three years.
I just had a thought. I realize it's somewhat absurd, but...anyway...
What if SCOTUS strikes down the law, and Obama says, "You know what? Fuck you! It's still a law."
Can that even happen?
No. I mean yeah, but then he'd be impeached and rightly so. The check on the court is the Congress passing a better (read: more constitutional) law.
Funny thing is the health care industry is already working hard to comply with the law. I'm not sure what they'll do if it's struck down. There's alot of investment in going along with this thing.
If it gets struck down it's going to cause a massive amount of problems, the most important being the incredible amount of money that is just gone because of businesses planning for the last three years.
I just had a thought. I realize it's somewhat absurd, but...anyway...
What if SCOTUS strikes down the law, and Obama says, "You know what? Fuck you! It's still a law."
Can that even happen?
As far as I know it's only happened once. Andrew Jackson.
I get what you're trying to say but I still think your problem is not measuring like for like. Luton probably isn't that much worse (or better) than many older inner city hospitals in the US.
The surrounding areas of Luton are pretty nice and upper-middle class for them to have to use such a grim hospital. Luton Hospital is worse than Harlem General and Parkland, two of the most notoriously icky hospitals in America, both of which I've been at.
Still, Luton Hospital isn't a slaughterhouse. The care given there is probably just as competent as anywhere else. It's just not something an American who pays $10,000 a year for health insurance isn't going to stand for, and why healthcare reform in America is exceedingly difficult.
Americans will almost always choose "expensive, pretty, and comfortable" over "cheap, ugly, and reliable."
The thing is, for what we're spending, an American public health system could still be considerably more opulent than a drab british hospital and cheaper than what we're spending. Lets get some teeth behind medication price negotiation, for one.
override367 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I get what you're trying to say but I still think your problem is not measuring like for like. Luton probably isn't that much worse (or better) than many older inner city hospitals in the US.
The surrounding areas of Luton are pretty nice and upper-middle class for them to have to use such a grim hospital. Luton Hospital is worse than Harlem General and Parkland, two of the most notoriously icky hospitals in America, both of which I've been at.
Still, Luton Hospital isn't a slaughterhouse. The care given there is probably just as competent as anywhere else. It's just not something an American who pays $10,000 a year for health insurance isn't going to stand for, and why healthcare reform in America is exceedingly difficult.
Americans will almost always choose "expensive, pretty, and comfortable" over "cheap, ugly, and reliable."
The thing is, for what we're spending, an American public health system could still be considerably more opulent than a drab british hospital and cheaper than what we're spending. Lets get some teeth behind medication price negotiation, for one.
To sum it up in simple terms, this won't work because the people who vote are old, and old people are Republicans, and Republicans are completely ignorant and will cut off their nose to spite their face.
My grandparents are scared to death of Obama stealing their Medicare, and yet continue to vote for people who openly want to destroy Medicare.
I get what you're trying to say but I still think your problem is not measuring like for like. Luton probably isn't that much worse (or better) than many older inner city hospitals in the US.
The surrounding areas of Luton are pretty nice and upper-middle class for them to have to use such a grim hospital. Luton Hospital is worse than Harlem General and Parkland, two of the most notoriously icky hospitals in America, both of which I've been at.
Still, Luton Hospital isn't a slaughterhouse. The care given there is probably just as competent as anywhere else. It's just not something an American who pays $10,000 a year for health insurance isn't going to stand for, and why healthcare reform in America is exceedingly difficult.
Americans will almost always choose "expensive, pretty, and comfortable" over "cheap, ugly, and reliable."
The thing is, for what we're spending, an American public health system could still be considerably more opulent than a drab british hospital and cheaper than what we're spending. Lets get some teeth behind medication price negotiation, for one.
To sum it up in simple terms, this won't work because the people who vote are old, and old people are Republicans, and Republicans are completely ignorant and will cut off their nose to spite their face.
My grandparents are scared to death of Obama stealing their Medicare, and yet continue to vote for people who openly want to destroy Medicare.
I don't know what to do about that.
Incremental improvements to the ACA until one day we realize that we're single payer in all but name?
If the ACA gets struck down it will be another few decades before anyone tackles healthcare reform. It could well destroy the credit of the United States, because steps need to taken immediately.
Now I know that ACA doesn't do nearly enough about costs, but its a start, a start we won't get again anytime soon if it dies.
I'm very disappointed and confused by the White House's insistence to call this a penalty rather than a tax. Why? So they can have the case heard before the law goes into effect?
The popular pro-Constitutionality arguments in favor of the individual mandate are simple, and they all boil down to one thing: it's a tax. Even if you call it a penalty, it's indistinguishable from a tax.
If it were a tax, they could justify it under the general welfare and necessary and proper clauses. But now that it's not a tax, according to the solicitor general, those clauses aren't relevant.
It's just retarded and makes me wonder if they want it to sink.
If only the individual mandate gets struck we could have a pretty clear path to single-payer. Seems an awfully big gamble though.
I'd like to believe that this is a savvy political gambit on the part of the White House, but I'm a bit too jaded for that. I think they just got overconfident.
I have been pointedly ignoring the consipracy theorist in my head, but he won't shut up suggesting that this whole effort was designed to explode from the beginning, leaving only single payer as a viable option.
Considering it was a conservative idea from the start, that would be the Xanatos gambit of all time if true.
At any rate, I'm a little disheartened by how many people here are disheartened by the court looking at this case, or the state of american jurisprudence. We kind of have to go by what the constitution says, no matter how much people might find it inconvenient.
I do kind of wish they had just called it a tax though, or even just levy a general tax and give exemptions for having insurance, which would be almost completely unobjectionable on legal grounds.
At any rate, wait until the actual opinions come out, then rail on the justices for being idiots.
The constitution is not a suicide pact, furthermore this decision has a real shot at deciding the election. The last time the court decided an election things went so well.
override367 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I've forgotten, actually. But there has to be some reason we're doing this.
It's easy. The AMA, private hospital corporations, and insurance companies make a shit-ton of money. And that money buys lobbyists. And that buys politicians. Who in turn lie to their constituents.
But the Supreme Court's purpose is to decide whether a law is constitutional based on the Constitution. To them it is a suicide pact and their only reason to exist.
I largely think the Constitution is an outdated piece of paper that is unfairly treated as canon passed down by Jesus Jefferson and Washington Christ, but this is where we're at. The Supreme Court decides if a law should exist based upon their interpretation of that document.
The supreme court decides what and when it hears cases.
It should have passed on this until after the election because it shouldn't be deciding election issues right before them
The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be a political body. They're supposed to be neutral and whether it affects an election or not is not their concern.
The supreme court decides what and when it hears cases.
It should have passed on this until after the election because it shouldn't be deciding election issues right before them
The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be a political body. They're supposed to be neutral and whether it affects an election or not is not their concern.
Sure the court isn't a political body.
What was it that happened in 2000 again?
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
The supreme court decides what and when it hears cases.
It should have passed on this until after the election because it shouldn't be deciding election issues right before them
Both sides seem to want a decision now, it's not just the SCOTUS.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I am still listening to today's hearings, but so far, I am incredibly disappointed in Verrelli. Clement absolutely killed on Tuesday. I still predict 6-3 in favor of the mandate, but 5-4 against but 5-4 in favor of severability isn't impossible (I don't think Kennedy will strike down the entire act).
Despite the fact that no republicans voted in favor of the act, they were involved in the crafting of the bill, and all of the political capital that existd to take on healthcare reform has been expended. If we lose the ACA, I think we lose any shot at health care reform for the foreseeable future.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
The whole idea that we can't change parts of the constitution due to some idea that the founders were THAT far seeing is rather silly. For its time, it was pretty good, but obviously if it was perfect we wouldn't have all those niggling amendments.
Also, you can't possibly know, for certain, what anyone was thinking without talking to them, for fuck's sake. So sick of stupid shit like this from hampering our ability to evolve as a country and a people.
I just cannot understate how disheartening it is to watch a group of old men argue whether or not a common sense law fits within the boundaries of power as dictated by some pseudo-holy, yet incredibly outdated document.
Waaaaaaay late to the party, but I want to address this.
The Constitution was intended to be a living document. If it is incredibly outdated, then it is so because we, as citizens, and our elected officials, have failed to update it to the modern era. The Constitution is meant to be changed, that was its purpose. I'll quote Jefferson:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
When a thing is struck down as unconstitutional, the nation should immediately turn to the question of legitimacy. Should this thing which currently is unconstitutional be constitutional? If so, the Constitution can and should be amended to make it so.
I'm very disappointed and confused by the White House's insistence to call this a penalty rather than a tax. Why? So they can have the case heard before the law goes into effect?
The popular pro-Constitutionality arguments in favor of the individual mandate are simple, and they all boil down to one thing: it's a tax. Even if you call it a penalty, it's indistinguishable from a tax.
If it were a tax, they could justify it under the general welfare and necessary and proper clauses. But now that it's not a tax, according to the solicitor general, those clauses aren't relevant.
It's just retarded and makes me wonder if they want it to sink.
If only the individual mandate gets struck we could have a pretty clear path to single-payer. Seems an awfully big gamble though.
I'd like to believe that this is a savvy political gambit on the part of the White House, but I'm a bit too jaded for that. I think they just got overconfident.
I have been pointedly ignoring the consipracy theorist in my head, but he won't shut up suggesting that this whole effort was designed to explode from the beginning, leaving only single payer as a viable option.
Considering it was a conservative idea from the start, that would be the Xanatos gambit of all time if true.
At any rate, I'm a little disheartened by how many people here are disheartened by the court looking at this case, or the state of american jurisprudence. We kind of have to go by what the constitution says, no matter how much people might find it inconvenient.
I do kind of wish they had just called it a tax though, or even just levy a general tax and give exemptions for having insurance, which would be almost completely unobjectionable on legal grounds.
At any rate, wait until the actual opinions come out, then rail on the justices for being idiots.
The constitution is not a suicide pact, furthermore this decision has a real shot at deciding the election. The last time the court decided an election things went so well.
I don't even understand what some of you mean by your responses to me. What does 'it's not a suicide pact' mean? I'm not saying I'm an originalist or anything, I'm saying that the supreme court has to decide whether laws are constitutional, which some people seem to be saying it shouldn't be doing.
And the rest of this is just silly nonsense. What are you suggesting they do instead? There are frequently heavily politicized cases. Should they just ignore all of them?
you guys are making me nervous/nauseous over here.
If none of you can agree on what direction this is going to go in by now...
damn that's just plain old disheartening.
Some lawyers I talk to on another forum basically think the Mandate is already dead and the SCOTUS is just trying to decide exactly what way it's gonna get murdered.
I just cannot understate how disheartening it is to watch a group of old men argue whether or not a common sense law fits within the boundaries of power as dictated by some pseudo-holy, yet incredibly outdated document.
Waaaaaaay late to the party, but I want to address this.
The Constitution was intended to be a living document. If it is incredibly outdated, then it is so because we, as citizens, and our elected officials, have failed to update it to the modern era. The Constitution is meant to be changed, that was its purpose. I'll quote Jefferson:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
When a thing is struck down as unconstitutional, the nation should immediately turn to the question of legitimacy. Should this thing which currently is unconstitutional be constitutional? If so, the Constitution can and should be amended to make it so.
you guys are making me nervous/nauseous over here.
If none of you can agree on what direction this is going to go in by now...
damn that's just plain old disheartening.
Some lawyers I talk to on another forum basically think the Mandate is already dead and the SCOTUS is just trying to decide exactly what way it's gonna get murdered.
That's the impression I got from listening to the justices' questions.
Judge based on the law, not make up bullshit because of party affiliation. Which this court has a nasty habit of doing.
I don't know if it has ever been true that Supreme Court justices rule according to anything other than political preference.
Don't forget that most justices are very old. I feel like there's a good chance Kennedy will make his decision on, like, how his joints are feeling that day.
He was smart enough to realize that after his life, people would look back and realize he did some heinous, reprehensible shit. And they would make the shit he did illegal and immoral, and he was totally cool with that.
He was smart enough to realize that after his life, people would look back and realize he did some heinous, reprehensible shit. And they would make the shit he did illegal and immoral, and he was totally cool with that.
I mean it doesn't get much wiser than that.
Indeed. If only we all had such foresight and humility.
So, yeah, at the end of the day, I think there's a lot of things that are unconstitutional, like the ACA. But I don't think any of them should be.
Actually, really with healthcare, I think instead of employer-based, we should have state-based. You go single-payer based on state, and the federal government manages between the states. Bam, done.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I will say that I don't think the government's lawyer was very good. He kept letting himself stumble through responses, I guess it must have been nerves. I mean, he was arguing in front of the Supreme Court so that'll happen.
Of course the pro repeal lawyers weren't very good either, but it wasn't their case to lose.
I will say that I don't think the government's lawyer was very good. He kept letting himself stumble through responses, I guess it must have been nerves. I mean, he was arguing in front of the Supreme Court so that'll happen.
Of course the pro repeal lawyers weren't very good either, but it wasn't their case to lose.
Yeah, it did kind of feel like the justices themselves are arguing the case among themselves.
I will say that I don't think the government's lawyer was very good. He kept letting himself stumble through responses, I guess it must have been nerves. I mean, he was arguing in front of the Supreme Court so that'll happen.
Of course the pro repeal lawyers weren't very good either, but it wasn't their case to lose.
Yeah, it did kind of feel like the justices themselves are arguing the case among themselves.
Basically that's what they always do as I understand it.
Oh well, I guess. If this goes down it'll just be that much more important to get Obama re-elected. Hopefully this will motivate the base.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I will say that I don't think the government's lawyer was very good. He kept letting himself stumble through responses, I guess it must have been nerves. I mean, he was arguing in front of the Supreme Court so that'll happen.
Of course the pro repeal lawyers weren't very good either, but it wasn't their case to lose.
He is the Solicitor General. Arguing in front of the Supreme court is his job. I was extremely disappointed with his performance.
you guys are making me nervous/nauseous over here.
If none of you can agree on what direction this is going to go in by now...
damn that's just plain old disheartening.
Some lawyers I talk to on another forum basically think the Mandate is already dead and the SCOTUS is just trying to decide exactly what way it's gonna get murdered.
That's the impression I got from listening to the justices' questions.
Kennedy did not seem that big on severability today, and I really don't think he wants to strike down the entire law, so there is a good chance he upholds. Alito may also uphold the mandate, simply because he believes in deference to the legislature. Even Scalia is a possibility, if he can find an answer to Kennedy's question about limits on congressional power. If any one of them goes in favor, Roberts will too, and since there is no chance of moving the liberal justices, Roberts may try to swing people in support, because he hates 5-4 decisions, and this may be the most important case of his entire court.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I will say that I don't think the government's lawyer was very good. He kept letting himself stumble through responses, I guess it must have been nerves. I mean, he was arguing in front of the Supreme Court so that'll happen.
Of course the pro repeal lawyers weren't very good either, but it wasn't their case to lose.
Yeah, it did kind of feel like the justices themselves are arguing the case among themselves.
Basically that's what they always do as I understand it.
Oh well, I guess. If this goes down it'll just be that much more important to get Obama re-elected. Hopefully this will motivate the base.
God I hope so.
I'm more worried that this will depress the base.
The one big ornament that we can hang on the tree and not only did it get blown to hell in a handbasket, but from the snippets and things that I'm hearing/reading, the SG didn't do a particularly good job of defending/fighting for it.
I'm honestly emotionally upset about this. And praying, somewhere in the back of my mind, that single payer is the long game victory. But we have to be able to save the long game in the meantime. and I am just not sure if we can get the base motivated if the ACA goes down.
Posts
If it gets struck down it's going to cause a massive amount of problems, the most important being the incredible amount of money that is just gone because of businesses planning for the last three years.
I just had a thought. I realize it's somewhat absurd, but...anyway...
What if SCOTUS strikes down the law, and Obama says, "You know what? Fuck you! It's still a law."
Can that even happen?
No. I mean yeah, but then he'd be impeached and rightly so. The check on the court is the Congress passing a better (read: more constitutional) law.
As far as I know it's only happened once. Andrew Jackson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia
And even that is a kinda sorta not really.
The thing is, for what we're spending, an American public health system could still be considerably more opulent than a drab british hospital and cheaper than what we're spending. Lets get some teeth behind medication price negotiation, for one.
To sum it up in simple terms, this won't work because the people who vote are old, and old people are Republicans, and Republicans are completely ignorant and will cut off their nose to spite their face.
My grandparents are scared to death of Obama stealing their Medicare, and yet continue to vote for people who openly want to destroy Medicare.
I don't know what to do about that.
or the people we hurt
or the gross inefficiency
or the lack of any actual motivating factor is
I've forgotten, actually. But there has to be some reason we're doing this.
Incremental improvements to the ACA until one day we realize that we're single payer in all but name?
If the ACA gets struck down it will be another few decades before anyone tackles healthcare reform. It could well destroy the credit of the United States, because steps need to taken immediately.
Now I know that ACA doesn't do nearly enough about costs, but its a start, a start we won't get again anytime soon if it dies.
The constitution is not a suicide pact, furthermore this decision has a real shot at deciding the election. The last time the court decided an election things went so well.
It's easy. The AMA, private hospital corporations, and insurance companies make a shit-ton of money. And that money buys lobbyists. And that buys politicians. Who in turn lie to their constituents.
I largely think the Constitution is an outdated piece of paper that is unfairly treated as canon passed down by Jesus Jefferson and Washington Christ, but this is where we're at. The Supreme Court decides if a law should exist based upon their interpretation of that document.
It should have passed on this until after the election because it shouldn't be deciding election issues right before them
The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be a political body. They're supposed to be neutral and whether it affects an election or not is not their concern.
Sure the court isn't a political body.
What was it that happened in 2000 again?
Both sides seem to want a decision now, it's not just the SCOTUS.
Despite the fact that no republicans voted in favor of the act, they were involved in the crafting of the bill, and all of the political capital that existd to take on healthcare reform has been expended. If we lose the ACA, I think we lose any shot at health care reform for the foreseeable future.
Also, you can't possibly know, for certain, what anyone was thinking without talking to them, for fuck's sake. So sick of stupid shit like this from hampering our ability to evolve as a country and a people.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Waaaaaaay late to the party, but I want to address this.
The Constitution was intended to be a living document. If it is incredibly outdated, then it is so because we, as citizens, and our elected officials, have failed to update it to the modern era. The Constitution is meant to be changed, that was its purpose. I'll quote Jefferson:
When a thing is struck down as unconstitutional, the nation should immediately turn to the question of legitimacy. Should this thing which currently is unconstitutional be constitutional? If so, the Constitution can and should be amended to make it so.
I don't even understand what some of you mean by your responses to me. What does 'it's not a suicide pact' mean? I'm not saying I'm an originalist or anything, I'm saying that the supreme court has to decide whether laws are constitutional, which some people seem to be saying it shouldn't be doing.
And the rest of this is just silly nonsense. What are you suggesting they do instead? There are frequently heavily politicized cases. Should they just ignore all of them?
If none of you can agree on what direction this is going to go in by now...
damn that's just plain old disheartening.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
It shouldn't be. No one can say what the Court will decide until it decides, least of all a bunch of nerds on the internet.
Some lawyers I talk to on another forum basically think the Mandate is already dead and the SCOTUS is just trying to decide exactly what way it's gonna get murdered.
except for the minor quibble that this shouldn't even really be an issue in a sane society.
I don't know if it has ever been true that Supreme Court justices rule according to anything other than political preference.
Jefferson was truly among the best of men.
That's the impression I got from listening to the justices' questions.
Don't forget that most justices are very old. I feel like there's a good chance Kennedy will make his decision on, like, how his joints are feeling that day.
He was smart enough to realize that after his life, people would look back and realize he did some heinous, reprehensible shit. And they would make the shit he did illegal and immoral, and he was totally cool with that.
I mean it doesn't get much wiser than that.
Indeed. If only we all had such foresight and humility.
Actually, really with healthcare, I think instead of employer-based, we should have state-based. You go single-payer based on state, and the federal government manages between the states. Bam, done.
Of course the pro repeal lawyers weren't very good either, but it wasn't their case to lose.
Yeah, it did kind of feel like the justices themselves are arguing the case among themselves.
Basically that's what they always do as I understand it.
Oh well, I guess. If this goes down it'll just be that much more important to get Obama re-elected. Hopefully this will motivate the base.
He is the Solicitor General. Arguing in front of the Supreme court is his job. I was extremely disappointed with his performance.
The large majority of cases the supreme court decides don't fall along partisan lines.
Kennedy did not seem that big on severability today, and I really don't think he wants to strike down the entire law, so there is a good chance he upholds. Alito may also uphold the mandate, simply because he believes in deference to the legislature. Even Scalia is a possibility, if he can find an answer to Kennedy's question about limits on congressional power. If any one of them goes in favor, Roberts will too, and since there is no chance of moving the liberal justices, Roberts may try to swing people in support, because he hates 5-4 decisions, and this may be the most important case of his entire court.
God I hope so.
I'm more worried that this will depress the base.
The one big ornament that we can hang on the tree and not only did it get blown to hell in a handbasket, but from the snippets and things that I'm hearing/reading, the SG didn't do a particularly good job of defending/fighting for it.
I'm honestly emotionally upset about this. And praying, somewhere in the back of my mind, that single payer is the long game victory. But we have to be able to save the long game in the meantime. and I am just not sure if we can get the base motivated if the ACA goes down.
And that is what's got me disheartened.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad