***Official Thread - SCOTUS OBAMACARE Decision*** [Archive]

jkjsooner

6/25/2012, 08:25 AM

Let's get this started right!

My prediction:

Individual Mandate goes down in flames.
Rest of Obamacare is upheld.

I think that would be a win for Obama. (I mean that only relative to the possibilities not a win in general terms.)

It would be interesting to see what happens if the law is kept intact except for the mandate. I think something would have to be done to fix the preexisting condition loophole that the mandate at least attempted to solve but I'm not sure if a solution would be politically viable.

The Republicans would be determined to scrap the whole thing which would not get past Obama. Some of the more irresponsible Democrats would probably be happy to keep the loophole in place. Others would want a more constitutionally palatable "mandate" such as a flat tax increase with a credit for those who have insurance.

And I'll say it again. A health insurance tax with offsetting credit for the insured would result in an identical outcome but would be entirely constitutional as the courts have long ruled that the federal government can raise taxes to fund programs and provide credits to encourage certain behavior. It seems pretty darn arbitrary to me but I guess I'm in the minority.

OULenexaman

6/25/2012, 10:08 AM

no ruling today for this one...

badger

6/25/2012, 01:50 PM

Obamacare cartoons (http://www.cagle.com/news/will-Obamacare-survive/)

More Obamacare cartoons (http://www.cagle.com/news/revisiting-obamacare/)

For those of you concerned before clicking, there are both liberal and conservative cartoonists on those links :)

Curly Bill

6/25/2012, 01:56 PM

The individual mandate goes down, just like Michelle on a cheeseburger.

Midtowner

6/25/2012, 02:08 PM

soonercruiser

6/25/2012, 10:31 PM

I'm predicting an "Unofficial" Thread!

SCOUT

6/25/2012, 11:52 PM

As I said in another thread, Justice Kennedy's drafting a pro-federalism opinion in the Arizona immigration case bodes well for the individual mandate.

To rule against it, we're asking the SCOTUS to create from whole cloth a new exception to the federal government's otherwise unlimited power to control interstate commerce.
The federal government shouldn't have unlimited power in anything. The idea that the constitution was designed to limit the power of government is a direct contradiction to your line of thought. Hardly whole cloth.

badger

6/26/2012, 08:15 AM

I like that the SCOTUS can limit the elected branch of government's power. Plus, President Obama really can't blame the SCOTUS for turning back some of his legislation. His own SCOTUS appointees were sometimes the ones writing up the SCOTUS decisions afterwards. And some of those decisions have not been divided down "party lines," either.

Midtowner

6/26/2012, 08:27 AM

The federal government shouldn't have unlimited power in anything.

And yet it does. I guess you'd say that the federal government's ability to wage war or conduct foreign policy should be checked by the states? What you suggest here is just silly when practically considered. Of course the federal government has unlimited power in certain areas--many areas. That's federalism. This isn't some sort of confederacy like the EU. Thank God it's not, the EU is teetering on failure because of its weak central government.

The idea that the constitution was designed to limit the power of government is a direct contradiction to your line of thought. Hardly whole cloth.

Okay then, and I can't believe I'm attempting to have a serious conversation with someone who said something as plainly silly as what you just said, what constitutional principle or case law or whatever are you determining that there is no authority for an individual mandate from? How is the mandate not the regulation of channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce? If the EPA states that all power plants must install scrubbers, which they can pursuant to their enabling statute which is constitutional under the commerce clause, how is that not exactly the same as the individual mandate?

The only way the 'conservative' wing of the court wins here (and I put that in quotes because there's nothing conservative about what I'm about to suggest) is if they decide the Constitution is living/breathing and make up a brand spankin' new exception to the commerce clause.

dwarthog

6/26/2012, 08:58 AM

And yet it does. I guess you'd say that the federal government's ability to wage war or conduct foreign policy should be checked by the states? What you suggest here is just silly when practically considered. Of course the federal government has unlimited power in certain areas--many areas. That's federalism. This isn't some sort of confederacy like the EU. Thank God it's not, the EU is teetering on failure because of its weak central government.

Okay then, and I can't believe I'm attempting to have a serious conversation with someone who said something as plainly silly as what you just said, what constitutional principle or case law or whatever are you determining that there is no authority for an individual mandate from? How is the mandate not the regulation of channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce? If the EPA states that all power plants must install scrubbers, which they can pursuant to their enabling statute which is constitutional under the commerce clause, how is that not exactly the same as the individual mandate?

The only way the 'conservative' wing of the court wins here (and I put that in quotes because there's nothing conservative about what I'm about to suggest) is if they decide the Constitution is living/breathing and make up a brand spankin' new exception to the commerce clause.

From my non-legal perspective, EPA can control, via the interstate commerce clause, because power plants are engaged in the commerce of delivering power.

However, if I am not currently engaged in healthcare via the purchasing of insurance, then how can I be obliged to do so by the commerce clause?

sappstuf

6/26/2012, 09:12 AM

And yet it does. I guess you'd say that the federal government's ability to wage war or conduct foreign policy should be checked by the states? What you suggest here is just silly when practically considered. Of course the federal government has unlimited power in certain areas--many areas. That's federalism. This isn't some sort of confederacy like the EU. Thank God it's not, the EU is teetering on failure because of its weak central government.

Okay then, and I can't believe I'm attempting to have a serious conversation with someone who said something as plainly silly as what you just said, what constitutional principle or case law or whatever are you determining that there is no authority for an individual mandate from? How is the mandate not the regulation of channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce? If the EPA states that all power plants must install scrubbers, which they can pursuant to their enabling statute which is constitutional under the commerce clause, how is that not exactly the same as the individual mandate?

The only way the 'conservative' wing of the court wins here (and I put that in quotes because there's nothing conservative about what I'm about to suggest) is if they decide the Constitution is living/breathing and make up a brand spankin' new exception to the commerce clause.

The SCOTUS isn't perfect and have made many mistakes that they have had to go back and fix. It isn't hard to at least see the point that the previous ruling that you could not grow wheat in your backyard for your own consumption because of its effect on interstate commerce was overly broad and needs to be stepped back.

olevetonahill

6/26/2012, 09:14 AM

The individual mandate goes down, just like Michelle on a Watermelon/ BarBq sammich.

FIFY

jkjsooner

6/26/2012, 10:04 AM

From my non-legal perspective, EPA can control, via the interstate commerce clause, because power plants are engaged in the commerce of delivering power.

However, if I am not currently engaged in healthcare via the purchasing of insurance, then how can I be obliged to do so by the commerce clause?

You're not. You have every right to pay the tax penalty.

I understand the technical argument that a penalty is not the same as a tax with credit. If the mandate fails this is going to be an important distinction.

Your argument in no way relies on this distinction because of this it fails. The federal government has every right to tax you and give you a credit to encourage you to get insurance. You are no more or less "obliged" to buy that insurance than if we call it a tax penalty.

Midtowner

6/26/2012, 10:05 AM

From my non-legal perspective, EPA can control, via the interstate commerce clause, because power plants are engaged in the commerce of delivering power.

However, if I am not currently engaged in healthcare via the purchasing of insurance, then how can I be obliged to do so by the commerce clause?

Because of the fact that you are going to be engaged in healthcare at some point unless you are one of those religious wackadoos who believes medicine is of the debbil. The argument that you're not participating in that market is a totally temporary argument because at some point, you will have to choose between participating or expiring at a young age. The commerce clause won't compel you to participate in the marketplace, your wishing not to die will inevitably lead you to it at some point.

Midtowner

6/26/2012, 10:07 AM

The SCOTUS isn't perfect and have made many mistakes that they have had to go back and fix. It isn't hard to at least see the point that the previous ruling that you could not grow wheat in your backyard for your own consumption because of its effect on interstate commerce was overly broad and needs to be stepped back.

If you throw that law out, you throw out the underpinning for any federal law preventing the growing of marijuana (or whatever) for ones own consumption. This is the sort of distinction both Scalia and Roberts have argued strongly in favor of--i.e., a strong federal control over interstate commerce.

With Scalia's recent dissent, while always entertaining, I find him to have really gone off the deep end. His dissent was anything but judicial. It was more punditry than anything else. It seems he's been drinking the koolaide at those Koch summits.

sappstuf

6/26/2012, 10:10 AM

You're not. You have every right to pay the tax penalty.

I understand the technical argument that a penalty is not the same as a tax with credit. If the mandate fails this is going to be an important distinction.

Your argument in no way relies on this distinction because of this it fails. The federal government has every right to tax you and give you a credit to encourage you to get insurance. You are no more or less "obliged" to buy that insurance than if we call it a tax penalty.

Under the guise of implementing the law, the Internal Revenue Service has announced it will impose a tax of up to $3,000 per worker on employers whom Congress has not authorized a tax. To make things more interesting: If the IRS doesn't impose that unauthorized tax, the whole law could collapse.

The Act's "employer mandate" taxes employers up to $3,000 per employee if they fail to offer required health benefits. But that tax kicks in only if their employees receive tax credits or subsidies to purchase a health plan through a state-run insurance "exchange."

This 2,000-page law is complex. But in one respect the statute is clear: Credits are available only in states that create an exchange themselves. The federal government might create exchanges in states that decline, but it cannot offer credits through its own exchanges. And where there can be no credits, there is nothing to trigger that $3,000 tax.

States are so reluctant to create exchanges that Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius estimates she might have to operate them for 15 to 30 states. Even if she manages that feat, the law will still collapse without the employer mandate and tax credits.

Unauthorized Tax

To prevent that from happening, on May 18 the IRS finalized a rule making credits available through federal exchanges, contrary to the express language of the statute.

Because those credits trigger penalties against employers, the IRS is literally taxing employers and spending billions without congressional authorization. Estimates by the Urban Institute indicate that had this rule been in effect in 2011, it would have cost at least $14.3 billion for HHS to run exchanges for 30 states. About 75% of that is new federal spending; the remainder is forgone tax revenue.

The IRS doesn't have a leg to stand on here. It has not cited any express statutory authority for its decision, because there is none. The language limiting tax credits to state-established exchanges is clear and consistent with the rest of the statute. The law's chief sponsor, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), is on record explaining creation of an exchange is among the conditions states must satisfy before credits become available. Indeed, all previous drafts of the law also withheld credits from states to push them to cooperate.

...

The authors of the Affordable Care Act wrongly assumed states would be eager to implement it. If saving the law from that miscalculation requires letting the IRS tax Americans without authorization, then it is not worth saving.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-06-24/obamacare-healthcare-supreme-court-unconstitutional/55796730/1

sappstuf

6/26/2012, 10:16 AM

If you throw that law out, you throw out the underpinning for any federal law preventing the growing of marijuana (or whatever) for ones own consumption. This is the sort of distinction both Scalia and Roberts have argued strongly in favor of--i.e., a strong federal control over interstate commerce.

With Scalia's recent dissent, while always entertaining, I find him to have really gone off the deep end. His dissent was anything but judicial. It was more punditry than anything else. It seems he's been drinking the koolaide at those Koch summits.

What? Wheat is legal. Insurance is legal. Marijuana is not. This law would have nothing to do with that. I think you have been hitting what you've been growing a little too much this morning.

If they throw out the entire law it is because Congress did not include a severability clause. That isn't the Court's fault.

Saying there are limits of the CC doesn't mean there isn't federal control over it.. It just means there are limits. Pretty simple concept really.

Midtowner

6/26/2012, 10:20 AM

What? Wheat is legal. Insurance is legal. Marijuana is not. This law would have nothing to do with that. I think you have been hitting what you've been growing a little too much this morning.

And where do you think the feds derive the power to say marijuana is illegal? Or to, for example, prosecute someone under a federal law for growing six plants for their own consumption?

sappstuf

6/26/2012, 10:25 AM

And where do you think the feds derive the power to say marijuana is illegal? Or to, for example, prosecute someone under a federal law for growing six plants for their own consumption?

The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970?

I'm sure you see the difference between growing wheat and growing marijuana and the law will maintain that. Can the federal government force me to grow marijuana under your interpretation of the CC? Yep.

As I said... There are limits. SCOTUS gave the government too much latitude and now they are about to bring it back to a more respectable position.

dwarthog

6/26/2012, 10:44 AM

Because of the fact that you are going to be engaged in healthcare at some point unless you are one of those religious wackadoos who believes medicine is of the debbil. The argument that you're not participating in that market is a totally temporary argument because at some point, you will have to choose between participating or expiring at a young age. The commerce clause won't compel you to participate in the marketplace, your wishing not to die will inevitably lead you to it at some point.

Fanatics aside, there are still plenty of people who don't require medical attention or feel they need it.

Being sick or ill doesn't automatically mean you must participate in healthcare.

And yes, some folks get sick and die, young and old, with healthcare and without. That has happened since day one and will continue to happen, mandating healthcare be purchased by everyone won't change that.

badger

6/26/2012, 10:58 AM

Midtowner

6/26/2012, 11:05 AM

The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970?

All laws must have a constitutional underpinning. Where does the above come from if not the commerce clause?

sappstuf

6/26/2012, 11:30 AM

All laws must have a constitutional underpinning. Where does the above come from if not the commerce clause?

Saying you cannot grow marijuana isn't the same as requiring you to grow it. Certainly you understand that... Don't you?

Midtowner

6/26/2012, 12:31 PM

Saying you cannot grow marijuana isn't the same as requiring you to grow it. Certainly you understand that... Don't you?

It's derived from the same power and that's a horrible analogy anyhow. We're talking about both the commerce clause and the taxing/spending powers. In other words, yes, the feds could tell you to grow or not grow something and you'd be either subsidized or penalized if you did/didn't.

They do that already. It's called farm subsidies.

sappstuf

6/26/2012, 12:42 PM

It's derived from the same power and that's a horrible analogy anyhow. We're talking about both the commerce clause and the taxing/spending powers. In other words, yes, the feds could tell you to grow or not grow something and you'd be either subsidized or penalized if you did/didn't.

They do that already. It's called farm subsidies.

I neither get subsidized nor penalized.

jkjsooner

6/26/2012, 03:59 PM

Soooo... remember when the government started giving everyone college loans so that everyone could attend college and then every college started jacking up the costs and for-profits started issuing worthless degrees for massive amounts of government money?

Is that what's about to happen to healthcare?

While you make a good point there is a key distinction. With few exceptions, most already participate in healthcare. Many just happen to do so via the more expensive route of the emergency room.

In addition, a high percentage of health care services and costs are for the elderly who are already covered by medicare.

The problem with student aid was the lack of control on how much was made available. The goal of giving everyone an opportunity to a higher education could have been achieved with a much more modest loan program. For starters, the smaller the program the lower the cost barrier. There is no reason that a student should be able to go a hundred thousand dollars in debt for an education and the government should not have encouraged that. It would have pushed a few more good students to low cost alternatives but that would have in turn put a downward pressure on the higher cost alternatives.

jkjsooner

6/26/2012, 04:03 PM

The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970?

You do realize that that in no way answers the question, right?

That's like me trying to say that the federal government derived their power to have an individual mandate from the affordable care act.

Saying you cannot grow marijuana isn't the same as requiring you to grow it. Certainly you understand that... Don't you?

There it is. You did realize you didn't answer the question and proceeded to change the subject. Your debate with Midtowner was about wheat and marijuana. Since you're so willing to jump back to the mandate I think it's safe to say you lost this mini-debate.

rock on sooner

6/26/2012, 04:23 PM

Just saw a report about $280 IV bottles, $800 needles, $3000/hr operating
rooms. Stated that roughly $56 billion a year in unpaid emergency room
costs from the uninsured. We all pay for that $56 billion in those expensive
operating room tools and equipment. That the ACA is attempting to fix some
of those issues plus help the uninsured, preexisting conditions, kids on parents'
insurance, close the doughnut hole on perscriptions and all the other issues
HAS to cost early on but, in the long run, we'll all benefit. If the SCOTUS
dumps that then the insurance magnates, if not already, will join the ranks
of Adelson, the Koch brothers, Perry (of swiftboat fame) and Anderson(Texas
homebuilder) as those whose net worth is in ten figures. JMO...

Midtowner

6/26/2012, 04:42 PM

I think the ACA is probably constitutional and will continue to be unless the Court invents some new rule. I'm with most of the conservatives though in that I don't think there's much of a chance it decreases the cost of healthcare or will spread it around. As long as hospitals can get away with charging $800/needle, they're going to do it. This way, they figure they'll just sell more. The ACA will likely fail, but folks will continue to want a guarantee of healthcare services. At that point, 'pubs will be typical do-nothing status quo type folks and Dems will have an answer, so we're likely looking at the coming debacle handing over the gov't to Dems to fix the ACA debacle.

We're going to end up with some sort of socialized medicine which'll put real caps on costs. It's coming in the next 10-20 years. This system is probably not sustainable, but for that matter, neither was the private insurance model we were on before.

Sooner5030

6/26/2012, 04:52 PM

regardless of the decision on Thursday health care costs will continue to rise at an unsustainable rate.

This side show is just so one of the teams (Dem/Pub) can claim a victory. I've never heard of the commerce clause being used to require someone to participate in a commercial activity based on their current inactivity. But then again....our society lost any value for individual liberty years ago. We're on the downside of this experiment.

marfacowboy

6/26/2012, 08:06 PM

All laws must have a constitutional underpinning. Where does the above come from if not the commerce clause?

The Commerce Clause is the basis of all modern legislation, including Medicare, the Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act, which Texas is already challenging. Can't wait till Thursday!

sappstuf

6/26/2012, 09:01 PM

You do realize that that in no way answers the question, right?

That's like me trying to say that the federal government derived their power to have an individual mandate from the affordable care act.

There it is. You did realize you didn't answer the question and proceeded to change the subject. Your debate with Midtowner was about wheat and marijuana. Since you're so willing to jump back to the mandate I think it's safe to say you lost this mini-debate.

major purpose of the CSA is to "enable the United States to meet all of its obligations" under international treaties – specifically, the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The CSA bears many resemblances to these Conventions. Both the CSA and the treaties set out a system for classifying controlled substances in several Schedules in accordance with the binding scientific and medical findings of a public health authority. Under 21 U.S.C. § 811 of the CSA, that authority is the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Under Article 3 of the Single Convention and Article 2 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the World Health Organization is that authority.

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . ."

Article VI is the answer... I'm not sure what that has to do with our conversation, but there it is.

He said:

In other words, yes, the feds could tell you to grow or not grow something and you'd be either subsidized or penalized if you did/didn't.

They do that already.

My response was I am neither subsidized or penalized. Please explain how I lost this mini-debate and what the exact mechanism is that I am right now, today, being forced to grow a crop that I do not want to grow. To be relevant, this answer must be broad enough to cover every single American.

TIA.

Midtowner

6/26/2012, 09:31 PM

soonercruiser

6/26/2012, 10:11 PM

The individual mandate goes down, just like Michelle on a cheeseburger.

:watermelon:
But....but.....BUTT!

sappstuf

6/26/2012, 10:47 PM

Let me get this straight... you think treaties we sign supersede the Constitution and that the feds have the power to enforce international law by treaty when they don't have the constitutional power to do so in the first place?

Is that why you cited a treaty? That'd be so bat**** crazy I don't even know where to start. So in your world, we could sign a treaty with Mexico that says that the U.S. is going to now outlaw protestantism because the Pope asked the Mexican government to intercede in North America against one of the Roman Catholic Church's greatest threats and that'd be legal? You didn't offer much explanation here, but if that's the way you're going, you haven't thought this one through.

As to farm subsidies, you are penalized because you don't grow crops and don't get a subsidy for doing so or not. I'm not going to deny that there's a uniqueness to the individual mandate, but no preexisting rule of law forbids it. Nothing, nada, zip.

You asked what part of the constitution the act was based on.. Based on what the act itself says, it is Article VI. If you want to say the Necessary and Proper Clause backs it up even more, fine.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say in a sentence with that many negatives..

Can you tell me specifically which line in my federal taxes where it penalizes me for not growing a crop? How much does this cost me? It seems like I am more 'left alone' if I choose not to grow crops. Whereas if I don't buy insurance with the mandate, I won't be left alone, I will see specifically where I am paying more on my taxes.

TIA.

Midtowner

6/26/2012, 11:43 PM

sappstuf

6/26/2012, 11:57 PM

It depends on how much land you have and how many crops you refuse to grow.

Now back to Article IV and the silly argument you seem to have concocted here... How about my treaty with Mexico... how does that work out?

You ignored my post just to ask another question?

I have a 1000 acres and I refuse to grow any crops. How much exactly am I being penalized? Be specific on the amount and where on my taxes this needs to go.

TIA.

SCOUT

6/27/2012, 12:15 AM

And yet it does. I guess you'd say that the federal government's ability to wage war or conduct foreign policy should be checked by the states? What you suggest here is just silly when practically considered. Of course the federal government has unlimited power in certain areas--many areas. That's federalism. This isn't some sort of confederacy like the EU. Thank God it's not, the EU is teetering on failure because of its weak central government.

Okay then, and I can't believe I'm attempting to have a serious conversation with someone who said something as plainly silly as what you just said, what constitutional principle or case law or whatever are you determining that there is no authority for an individual mandate from? How is the mandate not the regulation of channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce? If the EPA states that all power plants must install scrubbers, which they can pursuant to their enabling statute which is constitutional under the commerce clause, how is that not exactly the same as the individual mandate?

The only way the 'conservative' wing of the court wins here (and I put that in quotes because there's nothing conservative about what I'm about to suggest) is if they decide the Constitution is living/breathing and make up a brand spankin' new exception to the commerce clause.
The Bill of Rights are a part of the Constitution. Was the intent of those rights to provide "unlimited" anything? Walter Williams comments on this in his usually eloquent way here
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2009/07/01/why_a_bill_of_rights
The fact that SCOTUS has ruled that interstate commerce has broad reaching implications doesn't change the original intent. Therefore it isn't from "whole cloth" but from interpretation instead. I am sorry that you had to engage in a serious conversation on the subject.

Midtowner

6/27/2012, 07:54 AM

The Bill of Rights are a part of the Constitution. Was the intent of those rights to provide "unlimited" anything? Walter Williams comments on this in his usually eloquent way here
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2009/07/01/why_a_bill_of_rights
The fact that SCOTUS has ruled that interstate commerce has broad reaching implications doesn't change the original intent. Therefore it isn't from "whole cloth" but from interpretation instead. I am sorry that you had to engage in a serious conversation on the subject.

Not eloquent at all, but not shocking coming from a site hocking Glen Beck merchandise.

The original intent might be something fun for you and yours to discuss around the campfires at your local Tea Party rally, but original intent really has no bearing on reality.

I brought up the marijuana concept for a reason. Gonzales v. Raich. An individual was tried and convicted under federal law for growing medical marijuana entirely for sale within the state. According to the SCOTUS, that was still under Congress' power to control interstate commerce.

Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

There's also a reason wheat was brought up. These cases (and Scalia wrote a concurring opinion here, so you can see why I say he's being ideologically inconsistent as of late), illustrate the extent of the power of the commerce clause according to contemporary thinking rather than made up imaginary magical thinking of Tea Party conservabots who derive their historical understanding of the Constitution from AM radio.

Midtowner

6/27/2012, 07:56 AM

You ignored my post just to ask another question?

No I answered your question and asked for clarification.

Now you're ignoring the question.

Do you really think treaties can be used to enact legislation which Congress would otherwise not have the power to enact? I figured I'd give you a chance to explain before I just assumed you were completely clueless.

sappstuf

6/27/2012, 08:27 AM

No I answered your question and asked for clarification.

Now you're ignoring the question.

Do you really think treaties can be used to enact legislation which Congress would otherwise not have the power to enact? I figured I'd give you a chance to explain before I just assumed you were completely clueless.

Talk about clueless. I gave you the clarification and you cut it out of my response. Classy. You have made no attempt to answer the question.. I'll make it even easier for you. What line on any tax form is reserved for punishing people for not planting crops? You're answer has to be broad enough to account for every single American as Obamacare, otherwise it isn't relevant.

I mentioned the Necessary and Proper Clause as well.. You've ignored it like everything else you can't dispute.

jkjsooner

6/27/2012, 09:03 AM

On second thought my response was a little too much and Midtowner essentially already addressed what I was saying so I'm deleting it.

Midtowner

6/27/2012, 09:35 AM

Talk about clueless. I gave you the clarification and you cut it out of my response. Classy. You have made no attempt to answer the question.. I'll make it even easier for you. What line on any tax form is reserved for punishing people for not planting crops? You're answer has to be broad enough to account for every single American as Obamacare, otherwise it isn't relevant.

It's the line where they input -0- next to the number of bushels of wheat sold. The penalty is not receiving the free money. You are also penalized for not drilling for oil and gas, not shipping jobs overseas, etc.

I mentioned the Necessary and Proper Clause as well.. You've ignored it like everything else you can't dispute.

The necessary and proper clause argues in favor of an expanded interpretation of the commerce clause. The lesson it teaches is that the Constitution grants unlimited power to Congress to carry out its enumerated powers, i.e., it can do anything necessary and proper to carry out its mission. It has eff-all to do with imposing unconstitutional treaties on the citizenry though.

So now that I've answered your question, go ahead and answer mine... are you really that ignorant that you believe that the U.S. power to regulate narcotics stems solely from international law and has nothing to do with the commerce clause? I think you need to go read Gonzales vs. Raich.

sappstuf

6/27/2012, 09:55 AM

It's the line where they input -0- next to the number of bushels of wheat sold. The penalty is not receiving the free money. You are also penalized for not drilling for oil and gas, not shipping jobs overseas, etc.

The necessary and proper clause argues in favor of an expanded interpretation of the commerce clause. The lesson it teaches is that the Constitution grants unlimited power to Congress to carry out its enumerated powers, i.e., it can do anything necessary and proper to carry out its mission. It has eff-all to do with imposing unconstitutional treaties on the citizenry though.

So now that I've answered your question, go ahead and answer mine... are you really that ignorant that you believe that the U.S. power to regulate narcotics stems solely from international law and has nothing to do with the commerce clause? I think you need to go read Gonzales vs. Raich.

That isn't a penalty. What if I didn't want to make the effort to plant wheat? I wanted nothing and got nothing. What kind of punishment is that?? Per the Obama adminstration if you don't buy insurance you are subject to a "tax penalty", meaning they take money. Sure it was laughed at by the justices, but it is still their argument.

So now you're saying when I brought up the necessary and proper clause, I was correct? Good. Because drugs had been illegal for a long time before Gonzales vs. Raich.

Midtowner

6/27/2012, 09:59 AM

That isn't a penalty. What if I didn't want to make the effort to plant wheat? I wanted nothing and got nothing. What kind of punishment is that?? Per the Obama adminstration if you don't buy insurance you are subject to a "tax penalty", meaning they take money. Sure it was laughed at by the justices, but it is still their argument.

Could have gotten something. I get punished every year for not having kids. I'd be looking at some major cash back on my taxes if I could get the wifey to birth me a couple offspring.

So now you're saying when I brought up the necessary and proper clause, I was correct? Good. Because drugs had been illegal for a long time before Gonzales vs. Raich.

The necessary and proper clause doesn't work without an enumerated power to back it up. That enumerated power? The commerce clause. The reason this was even brought up? To show the extent to which conservative justices have interpreted the reach of the commerce clause to be, i.e., marijuana grown within a state for consumption only within the state.

You seem to be glossing over the "enumerated powers" aspect of the N&P clause. That's what's important. The N&P clause actually cuts in favor of an individual mandate because it insists on a broad interpretation of the enumerated powers, i.e., the commerce clause.

And so back to the treaty thing. Mexico enters into a bilateral treaty with the U.S. and now we're all Roman Catholics. I sue because I don't want no priests diddling my as of yet unborn kiddos. Absent the lack of ripeness due to my kiddoes being unborn, what result?

pphilfran

6/27/2012, 10:03 AM

I'd be looking at some major cash back on my taxes if I could get the wifey to birth me a couple offspring.

Practice....and practice some more...you'll get there...

sappstuf

6/27/2012, 10:10 AM

Could have gotten something. I get punished every year for not having kids. I'd be looking at some major cash back on my taxes if I could get the wifey to birth me a couple offspring.

The necessary and proper clause doesn't work without an enumerated power to back it up. That enumerated power? The commerce clause. The reason this was even brought up? To show the extent to which conservative justices have interpreted the reach of the commerce clause to be, i.e., marijuana grown within a state for consumption only within the state.

You seem to be glossing over the "enumerated powers" aspect of the N&P clause. That's what's important. The N&P clause actually cuts in favor of an individual mandate because it insists on a broad interpretation of the enumerated powers, i.e., the commerce clause.

And so back to the treaty thing. Mexico enters into a bilateral treaty with the U.S. and now we're all Roman Catholics. I sue because I don't want no priests diddling my as of yet unborn kiddos. Absent the lack of ripeness due to my kiddoes being unborn, what result?

I didn't want to put forth the effort. I wanted nothing. With Obamacare I didn't want to put forth the effort, I am out $3000.

Midtowner

6/27/2012, 10:30 AM

I didn't want to put forth the effort. I wanted nothing. With Obamacare I didn't want to put forth the effort, I am out $3000.

You are taxed and the money goes into paying for low-income folks to get insurance. What's illegal about the use of the taxing/spending clause?

And for the third time, I can make Protestants illegal with a treaty? Neat.

diverdog

6/27/2012, 10:39 AM

sappstuf

6/27/2012, 10:44 AM

You are taxed and the money goes into paying for low-income folks to get insurance. What's illegal about the use of the taxing/spending clause?

And for the third time, I can make Protestants illegal with a treaty? Neat.

No it doesn't.. It goes to my insurance. My tax penalty is the offset of my supposed health insurance. And according to Obamacare, my insurance must include pregnancy costs even though I will certainly never get pregnant.

I'm out.. Its all fun and games until the SCOTUS makes a decision, then that sh!t gets real.

Midtowner

6/27/2012, 10:48 AM

And so back to the treaty thing. Mexico enters into a bilateral treaty with the U.S. and now we're all Roman Catholics. I sue because I don't want no priests diddling my as of yet unborn kiddos. Absent the lack of ripeness due to my kiddoes being unborn, what result?

[fourth time]

soonercruiser

6/27/2012, 11:42 AM

I totally understand Mid. The Constitution is a living (or dying...depending on your perspective) document!
Here, I fixed it for ya!

Not eloquent at all, but not shocking coming from a site hocking Glen Beck merchandise.

There's also a reason wheat was brought up. These cases (and Scalia wrote a concurring opinion here, so you can see why I say he's being ideologically inconsistent as of late), illustrate the extent of the power of the commerce clause according to contemporary thinking rather than the original imagry and thinking of The Founders themselves and that of the written document of the Constitution itself.

Midtowner

6/27/2012, 12:18 PM

I totally understand Mid. The Constitution is a living (or dying...depending on your perspective) document!
Here, I fixed it for ya!

If you're for original intent, fine. Let's roll back all of the anti-drug laws, get rid of the EPA and FCC, repeal the War Powers Act and the Patriot Act, repeal all of our immigration rules and just let whoever come here, we need to immediately declare war on the tribes and wipe them out, there should be nothing wrong with slavery and only white landowners should be allowed to vote. The reason we still have the same essential Constitution we did 200+ years ago is because it's adaptable.

We should also probably declare war on Canada and attempt to take it as that was the original intent of our founders.

Ironically here though, you seem to want to rail against a living/breathing document where in this case you want the SCOTUS to invent a new exception to the commerce clause. You seem to know you're mad at something but have failed in a grandiose manner to describe what you're mad at.

diverdog

6/27/2012, 12:49 PM

No it doesn't.. It goes to my insurance. My tax penalty is the offset of my supposed health insurance. And according to Obamacare, my insurance must include pregnancy costs even though I will certainly never get pregnant.
O
I'm out.. Its all fun and games until the SCOTUS makes a decision, then that sh!t gets real.

I heard that many progressives want the ACA thrown out so they can put the uninsured into medicare and charge premiums.

dwarthog

6/27/2012, 02:46 PM

If you're for original intent, fine. Let's roll back all of the anti-drug laws, get rid of the EPA and FCC, repeal the War Powers Act and the Patriot Act, repeal all of our immigration rules and just let whoever come here, we need to immediately declare war on the tribes and wipe them out, there should be nothing wrong with slavery and only white landowners should be allowed to vote. The reason we still have the same essential Constitution we did 200+ years ago is because it's adaptable.

Ironically here though, you seem to want to rail against a living/breathing document where in this case you want the SCOTUS to invent a new exception to the commerce clause. You seem to know you're mad at something but have failed in a grandiose manner to describe what you're mad at.

How about put some boundaries on the reach of the commerce clause and congresses use of it, instead of the FDR "court packing" scheme which saw the commerce clause, when approved by 9 of his handpicked justices, used with abandon.

Midtowner

6/27/2012, 03:04 PM

How about put some boundaries on the reach of the commerce clause and congresses use of it, instead of the FDR "court packing" scheme which saw the commerce clause, when approved by 9 of his handpicked justices, used with abandon.

Your grasp of history is as wonderful as your grasp of the law.

FDR never packed the court. He only threatened to. VanDaventer (a distant relation to yours truly) retired and Roberts started voting with the liberals. The conservative justices, known as the "four horsemen" had recently been doing things such as ruling schemes to regulate child labor interfered with the right to engage in contracts. See "the switch in time that saved nine."

Since the demise of the Four Horsemen, i.e., for about 1/3 of the time this country has existed and encompassing very nearly all of the Constitutional law we have on the books regarding the commerce clause, its reading has been very expansive and such a reading is very well settled precedent. If you want someone to "place boundaries" on the commerce clause, you're asking for someone to invent new rules. Who should be doing that? A majority of five or Congress? I thought you conservatives despised legislating from the bench?

dwarthog

6/27/2012, 03:30 PM

Your grasp of history is as wonderful as your grasp of the law.

FDR never packed the court. He only threatened to. VanDaventer (a distant relation to yours truly) retired and Roberts started voting with the liberals. The conservative justices, known as the "four horsemen" had recently been doing things such as ruling schemes to regulate child labor interfered with the right to engage in contracts. See "the switch in time that saved nine."

Since the demise of the Four Horsemen, i.e., for about 1/3 of the time this country has existed and encompassing very nearly all of the Constitutional law we have on the books regarding the commerce clause, its reading has been very expansive and such a reading is very well settled precedent. If you want someone to "place boundaries" on the commerce clause, you're asking for someone to invent new rules. Who should be doing that? A majority of five or Congress? I thought you conservatives despised legislating from the bench?

I understand the scope of your argument just fine. Net, Section 8 of the Constitution, Commerce clause, necessary and proper etc. enables congress to do pretty much anything they want, if they can fit the activity into increasingly specious definitions of "commerce" so they can regulate it.

You are correct, his "court packing" scheme didn't pass congressional muster, he did give it a try though.

However he did appoint 9 justices.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT had no shortage of accomplishments. Among the most enduring were his appointments to the Supreme Court. Over his 12 years in office, he put up nine justices—the equivalent of an entire court—and he would have appointed many more, had his “court-packing” scheme not happily collapsed.

This seems to be about the starting point for the increasingly "progressive" use of the commerce clause. Your example of Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128 is encompassed by FDR's tenure.

With regards to "legislating" from the bench, I guess it depends on whose ox is getting gored I suppose.

We shouldn't expect the SC to just be a rubber stamp for Congresses whims.

Midtowner

6/27/2012, 04:01 PM

We shouldn't expect the SC to just be a rubber stamp for Congresses whims.

So long as the statutes are constitutional, yes we should. The SCOTUS needs to be deferential to the other two branches. Tomorrow's decision either respects 70+ years of well-settled precedent or says that we can start creating magical exceptions to acts under the commerce clause which are clearly within its scope which happen to offend any given five justices for whatever reason. Want to talk about a "living/breathing" document and legislating from the bench? Okidoke, that'd be it.

As far as the 4-horsemen were concerned, when Stone was voting with them, in the name of the right to contract (which no one even talks about now), they did things like:

-- invalidate child labor laws
-- invalidate minimum wage laws
-- invalidate workplace safety laws
-- invalidate economic reforms to get out of the Great Depression

etc. They were a rubber stamp for some of the most horrific and by today's standards, uncivilized results of a totally laissez-faire attitude to the regulation of business.

They totally tied the hands of the federal government in dealing with very federal problems. Only extremists like Barry Goldwater ever talked about a return to a pre-Wickard v. Filburn commerce clause, and the sort of havoc such a return would entail would be tremendous.

SanJoaquinSooner

6/27/2012, 04:11 PM

Roberts writing 5-4 decision invalidating Ind. mandate.

marfacowboy

6/27/2012, 08:59 PM

Roberts writing 5-4 decision invalidating Ind. mandate.

nevermind....I have enjoyed watching a Constitutional scholar put an intellectual beat down on the AM radio crowd.

okie52

6/28/2012, 09:14 AM

Upheld!!!

Midtowner

6/28/2012, 09:28 AM

Upheld!!!

Yes. From what I've seen on Scotusblog (haven't been able to get the opinion yet) the individual mandate is invalid under the commerce clause, but the tax penalty provision remains so in effect, so does the mandate. There's just now this predicted arbitrary limit on the commerce clause.

The effect of this is that the government can pass a law saying that you will pay a tax penalty if you don't eat broccoli, but they can't throw you in jail for not eating broccoli unless it's for failure to pay the broccoli tax.

It's an odd thing really... we have a constraint on the commerce clause, but it's rendered toothless by an expanded reading of the taxing clause. An interesting intellectual compromise.

soonerhubs

6/28/2012, 09:34 AM

Yes. From what I've seen on Scotusblog (haven't been able to get the opinion yet) the individual mandate is invalid under the commerce clause, but the tax penalty provision remains so in effect, so does the mandate. There's just now this predicted arbitrary limit on the commerce clause.

The effect of this is that the government can pass a law saying that you will pay a tax penalty if you don't eat broccoli, but they can't throw you in jail for not eating broccoli unless it's for failure to pay the broccoli tax.

It's an odd thing really... we have a constraint on the commerce clause, but it's rendered toothless by an expanded reading of the taxing clause. An interesting intellectual compromise.

I'm enjoying this commentary.

You lawyers need to post more in this thread, because I can't make heads or tails of the ruling. Calling Froze! Also, I miss AlbqSooner. :(

Midtowner

6/28/2012, 09:36 AM

From Scotusblog:

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

jkjsooner

6/28/2012, 09:46 AM

Wow. I did not see this coming.

And my continuous diatribes that there is little difference between this an other tax policies encouraging certain behaviors seems to have been vindicated.

However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power.

Plenty of people including Froze argued that the court did not seem to be swayed by this exact argument. I guess the media failed when they were trying to interpret the justices' opinions based on their lines of questioning. We were lead to believe that none of the justices bought this line of argument.

sappstuf

6/28/2012, 09:56 AM

From Scotusblog:

Doesn't that mean since we all buy cars, that we can be "taxed" if we don't buy a car? Strange ruling...

Oh well, they ruled it is a tax. That means Romney can blast Obama for lying about raising taxes on all Americans and even worse, he did it in a down economy.

dwarthog

6/28/2012, 10:02 AM

From Scotusblog

Essentially, a majority of the Court has accepted the Administration's backup argument that, as Roberts put it, "the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition -- not owning health insurance -- that triggers a tax -- the required payment to IRS." Actually, this was the Administration's second backup argument: first argument was Commerce Clause, second was Necessary and Proper Clause, and third was as a tax. The third argument won.

jkjsooner

6/28/2012, 10:04 AM

Doesn't that mean since we all buy cars, that we can be "taxed" if we don't buy a car? Strange ruling...

Oh well, they ruled it is a tax. That means Romney can blast Obama for lying about raising taxes on all Americans and even worse, he did it in a down economy.

Doesn't seem strange to me.

Obama essentially did raise taxes but not on all Americans. In a sense this was a highly regressive tax on the poor.

I doubt many Republicans really care about those who have to pay this tax. This was just the most convenient way to attack the healthcare act.

Midtowner

6/28/2012, 10:09 AM

Doesn't that mean since we all buy cars, that we can be "taxed" if we don't buy a car? Strange ruling...

The speculation is that this will reign in Congress' power to pass certain social welfare laws. I'm not sure what this speculation means unless the speculation is that now the Court is limited to regulating activity within interstate commerce and that will be a threshold test. If wonder whether if I open a restaurant which refuses to serve black folks whether that will be considered "activity" or "inactivity" under this test. I suspect this concept will be read very narrowly.

Oh well, they ruled it is a tax. That means Romney can blast Obama for lying about raising taxes on all Americans and even worse, he did it in a down economy.

And I'm sure Romney will. Obama can counter that it's not a tax, but rather a provision to ensure that everyone participating in this marketplace (as everyone does) will have to pay their fair share and that the tax is avoidable simply by purchasing insurance or being within 133% of the poverty level assuming your state opts in to the medicaid expansion.

jkjsooner

6/28/2012, 10:12 AM

By the way, it was a common opinion in a previous thread that a 5-4 opinion against Obamacare would seriously question Obama's credentials as a constitutional scholar.

Using that absurd logic it appears that Obama's credentials were validated.

sappstuf

6/28/2012, 10:18 AM

The speculation is that this will reign in Congress' power to pass certain social welfare laws. I'm not sure what this speculation means unless the speculation is that now the Court is limited to regulating activity within interstate commerce and that will be a threshold test. If wonder whether if I open a restaurant which refuses to serve black folks whether that will be considered "activity" or "inactivity" under this test. I suspect this concept will be read very narrowly.

And I'm sure Romney will. Obama can counter that it's not a tax, but rather a provision to ensure that everyone participating in this marketplace (as everyone does) will have to pay their fair share and that the tax is avoidable simply by purchasing insurance or being within 133% of the poverty level assuming your state opts in to the medicaid expansion.

But that isn't true. People will have to pay more than their fair share, especially younger people who really only need catastrophic insurance. I will be force to buy maternity insurance or pay the tax... Is that my fair share?

diverdog

6/28/2012, 10:22 AM

Two things I learned this week.

1. Midtown is a good lawyer.

2. Sapp needs to go to law school. He makes brilliant arguments but has been proven wrong. If he becames a lawyer....watch out.

Midtowner

6/28/2012, 10:24 AM

But that isn't true. People will have to pay more than their fair share, especially younger people who really only need catastrophic insurance. I will be force to buy maternity insurance or pay the tax... Is that my fair share?

That's the fun thing about the word "fair." Totally subjective.

As for maternity insurance, I would say since it's pretty safe to say that at some point you were born, it's fair for you to pay it forward and pay a maternity tax to benefit all of the other people who will be born.

diverdog

6/28/2012, 10:32 AM

Politically this maybe a windfall for the Republicans.

jkjsooner

6/28/2012, 10:44 AM

Politically this maybe a windfall for the Republicans.

While this may energize the opposition, I can't reconcile this with the argument that was made that a defeat would seriously hurt Obama. You may be right but you can't argue it both ways. (Not saying you did but some here have made that argument about a defeat.)

Anyway, not many potential Obama voters are going to give a flip about whether Obama raised taxes that won't actually impact the majority of them. Democrats have been arguing that tax increases have to be on the table to balance the budget. Sure the tea party will point to the fact that it's an increase but they were never going to vote for Obama anyway.

sappstuf

6/28/2012, 10:44 AM

Two things I learned this week.

1. Midtown is a good lawyer.

2. Sapp needs to go to law school. He makes brilliant arguments but has been proven wrong. If he becames a lawyer....watch out.

Sigh. Just like my marriage... ;)

sappstuf

6/28/2012, 10:48 AM

Politically this maybe a windfall for the Republicans.

Obamacare has always been unpopular from the very beginning.. Time hasn't changed that like the Dems thought it would.

It still comes down to the economy.. But now that the largest tax increase on the middle class ever is coming down the pike, it may be a positive feedback on both accounts.

Midtowner

6/28/2012, 10:54 AM

Obamacare has always been unpopular from the very beginning.. Time hasn't changed that like the Dems thought it would.

It's true that Republicans have won the marketing campaign. ObamaCare as whole is unpopular, but when you start separating individual elements out, it has 60-70% favorability ratings. The conclusion derived from that is that there's something in it for almost everyone or that the President's unfavorability ratings are tanking public opinion on a bill that folks actually like when they're told what it means.

It still comes down to the economy.. But now that the largest tax increase on the middle class ever is coming down the pike, it may be a positive feedback on both accounts.

It's not a tax increase on those of us who have health insurance and are acting responsibly within the marketplace. It also will be a boon to everyone if the insurance companies begin to start offering competitive prices because of having to be compared side-by-side in the exchanges. The jury is definitely out on whether this act will work or not, but calling it a straight up tax increase isn't all that accurate.

jkjsooner

6/28/2012, 11:04 AM

It still comes down to the economy.. But now that the largest tax increase on the middle class ever is coming down the pike, it may be a positive feedback on both accounts.

Largest tax increase ever on the middle class? The penalty/tax is $95 per adult and up to $285 per family in 2014. In 2015 it goes up to $325 per adult and up to $975 per family.

I don't know how in the world this could be the largest tax increase on the middle class especially since the majority of the middle class won't have to pay a thing.

I suppose in nominal terms it could be larger than other increases since we've essentially not raised taxes for 30 years and $285 was a lot more 30 years ago than it is now. I even have strong doubts about that. In inflation adjusted terms this seems way off.

Midtowner

6/28/2012, 11:07 AM

dwarthog

6/28/2012, 11:13 AM

It's true that Republicans have won the marketing campaign. ObamaCare as whole is unpopular, but when you start separating individual elements out, it has 60-70% favorability ratings. The conclusion derived from that is that there's something in it for almost everyone or that the President's unfavorability ratings are tanking public opinion on a bill that folks actually like when they're told what it means.

It's not a tax increase on those of us who have health insurance and are acting responsibly within the marketplace. It also will be a boon to everyone if the insurance companies begin to start offering competitive prices because of having to be compared side-by-side in the exchanges. The jury is definitely out on whether this act will work or not, but calling it a straight up tax increase isn't all that accurate.

It's not a tax increase on those of us who have health insurance and are acting responsibly within the marketplace

I don't believe this is necessarily correct across the board. ACA funding is derived in part by taxing "other" healthcare plans so being a good responsible soldier isn't going to keep the feds out of your pocket.

sappstuf

6/28/2012, 11:19 AM

From Justice Robert's opinion:

It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Indeed.

sappstuf

6/28/2012, 11:21 AM

It's true that Republicans have won the marketing campaign. ObamaCare as whole is unpopular, but when you start separating individual elements out, it has 60-70% favorability ratings. The conclusion derived from that is that there's something in it for almost everyone or that the President's unfavorability ratings are tanking public opinion on a bill that folks actually like when they're told what it means.

It's not a tax increase on those of us who have health insurance and are acting responsibly within the marketplace. It also will be a boon to everyone if the insurance companies begin to start offering competitive prices because of having to be compared side-by-side in the exchanges. The jury is definitely out on whether this act will work or not, but calling it a straight up tax increase isn't all that accurate.

That is like singling out the weight loss benefits of Cholera...

It most certainly is. As I said before, younger people only needed catastrophic coverage.. They will now be forced to buy a far more expensive plan.

This is a massive tax on the young(poor) to the benefit of the rich(older).

Dennis Moore had it right..

Steals from the poor. Gives to the rich. Stupid b!tch!

http://vicmackey.trakt.tv/images/episodes/447-3-11.jpg

Wait a tic... blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought.

Edit: Just for clarification, I'm not calling anyone anything.. That is just how the song goes.

sappstuf

6/28/2012, 11:30 AM

Largest tax increase ever on the middle class? The penalty/tax is $95 per adult and up to $285 per family in 2014. In 2015 it goes up to $325 per adult and up to $975 per family.

I don't know how in the world this could be the largest tax increase on the middle class especially since the majority of the middle class won't have to pay a thing.

I suppose in nominal terms it could be larger than other increases since we've essentially not raised taxes for 30 years and $285 was a lot more 30 years ago than it is now. I even have strong doubts about that. In inflation adjusted terms this seems way off.

You left out a key part..

PPACA is $95 per person in 2014 (or 1% of taxable income, whichever is greater), $325 in 2015 (or 2%), and $695 in 2016 (or 2.5%). Thereafter, the mandate is indexed to inflation.

Most people will get the more expensive insurance that the government mandates, which for the young will be far greater than it would have been without Obamacare. It is a tax on them.

landrun

6/28/2012, 11:47 AM

You left out a key part..

PPACA is $95 per person in 2014 (or 1% of taxable income, whichever is greater), $325 in 2015 (or 2%), and $695 in 2016 (or 2.5%). Thereafter, the mandate is indexed to inflation.

Most people will get the more expensive insurance that the government mandates, which for the young will be far greater than it would have been without Obamacare. It is a tax on them.

Only, it is my understanding that this 'penalty tax' is not forced upon people who can't afford it - the poor.

Has anyone else heard this??

Sooner5030

6/28/2012, 11:50 AM

Not sure why pubs would be disappointed with ACA while dems are giddy over it. Think about it.....by having to pay the tax (assuming you file income taxes) it will get netted against the EIC that most of these folks already receive. So less free money distributed through the tax system.

Also, nothing will change with the acute/chronic care abuse in the E-rooms. And by any metric, cost/person or claim will continue to increase faster than the rate of inflation. Thus an already unsustainable system is basically unchanged.

good jorb team!

/not a JD and did not actually read the ACA. I don't have to...it was written by the stakeholders that currently exploit the system as it is.

sappstuf

6/28/2012, 12:10 PM

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

:bi_polo:

sappstuf

6/28/2012, 12:14 PM

Only, it is my understanding that this 'penalty tax' is not forced upon people who can't afford it - the poor.

Has anyone else heard this??

True. But this is much more likely what it would cost a family..

When the percentage of the excess over the filing threshold is greater than the specific amounts listed above for the taxable year-which will often be the case for Plaintiffs and many other Americans-the taxpayer must pay the amount of the excess with no specific dollar cap. For example, where a taxpayer’s household income (minus the amount of the applicable threshold for filing a tax return) is $50,000, the shared responsibility payment amount per year would be, at a minimum, $500 for 2014, $1,000 for 2015, and $1,250 for 2016 or later.

Midtowner

6/28/2012, 12:46 PM

http://www.newscaststudio.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/obama.jpg

cleller

6/28/2012, 12:55 PM

dwarthog

6/28/2012, 01:02 PM

I think it is naive to believe this is going to effect much change. In 2010 47% of tax filers paid no tax. Further, think of how many people simply do not even file tax returns.
How likely do you feel it is that these people are now going to go out and get insurance? Not likely. It will all fall back to the default method of funding our entitlements. Those that have worked and saved will pay for everyone.

I bet they got something back from the government though, EIC etc. and like a previous poster said, looks like we'll be taking that from them to pay for their healthcare. Not holding my breath on that one.

jkjsooner

6/28/2012, 01:04 PM

You left out a key part..

Most people will get the more expensive insurance that the government mandates, which for the young will be far greater than it would have been without Obamacare. It is a tax on them.

Fair enough. I missed that.

I will point out that you left out another key part - that the penalty cannot be greater than the national average for bronze level coverage. Admittedly that's a lot higher than the $95/$285 or $325/$975.

Sooner5030

6/28/2012, 04:34 PM

looking forward....what happens to the folks who do not pay the tax? Although it is run through your income taxes there is a minimum amount that has to be paid regardless of your income. Does this mean that someone earning less than threshold required to file taxes will now be required to? What happens when they can't pay? Debtors' prison? Who the hell pays for the enforcement and prison time for debt prisoners?

/I guess I should have read the ACA. It doesn't affect me directly but I am not sure we as a country are ready to deal with 20 million folks that cannot afford the tax.

soonercruiser

6/28/2012, 10:12 PM

In Tea Party Land, over-the-top rhetoric > fact.

In regressive LWer country......"keep head in sand"!

soonercruiser

6/28/2012, 10:24 PM

marfacowboy

6/29/2012, 07:34 PM

Obamacare has always been unpopular from the very beginning.. Time hasn't changed that like the Dems thought it would.

It's only unpopular because it's not a one sided deal for either party. Not perfect, but a step in the right direction. The left wasn't happy because it wasn't socialized medicine, and the right doesn't like it (although it's essentially a program they authored), because Obama brought it to the people.

And the estimate of the costs over the next decade for "care provisions” is about only a third of the cost of the tax cuts, overwhelmingly favoring the wealthy, that Mitt Romney is proposing over the same period.

We had to do something, and the court, as Krugman pointed out, upheld an act of human decency that is also fiscally responsible. Unless you're super wealthy and insulated from the effects of real, everyday life, I don't see how you could possibly oppose it. Again, far from perfect, but probably the only thing that would make it through in this climate.

sappstuf

6/30/2012, 12:42 AM

It's only unpopular because it's not a one sided deal for either party. Not perfect, but a step in the right direction. The left wasn't happy because it wasn't socialized medicine, and the right doesn't like it (although it's essentially a program they authored), because Obama brought it to the people.

And the estimate of the costs over the next decade for "care provisions” is about only a third of the cost of the tax cuts, overwhelmingly favoring the wealthy, that Mitt Romney is proposing over the same period.

We had to do something, and the court, as Krugman pointed out, upheld an act of human decency that is also fiscally responsible. Unless you're super wealthy and insulated from the effects of real, everyday life, I don't see how you could possibly oppose it. Again, far from perfect, but probably the only thing that would make it through in this climate.

Maybe this is how...

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos did. When he directly challenged the president on the mandate-as-tax question, he said, “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

The median U.S. family income is about $50,000. Family health coverage can easily run $20,000 a year — and rising quickly. In that scenario, the coverage mandate is essentially a 40 percent tax on that family, which is now required by law to ensure that every family member has qualifying coverage.

And because the cost of the coverage will be similar even though incomes vary significantly, the lower the income the higher the effective tax rate — in essence, the most regressive tax in U.S. history, too.

Obamacare does nothing to address rising costs except force people to buy the most expensive policy possible.

diverdog

6/30/2012, 03:04 AM

Maybe this is how...

Obamacare does nothing to address rising costs except force people to buy the most expensive policy possible.

I suspect major parts of the law gets rewritten. What may happen is that access to medicare is opened up.

marfacowboy

6/30/2012, 11:27 AM

Obamacare does nothing to address rising costs except force people to buy the most expensive policy possible.

The system/pool doesn't work if everyone doesn't buy in. That's just the fiscal bottom line. You are not forced to buy insurance. Pay the penalty instead. But as it stands now, you and I pay for everyone, because they just go to the ER, and this results in rate increases for all patients.

You're paying for it today. Would you prefer to pay for it or have a law that forces people to act responsibly so you don't have to pay for it? It's all about personal responsibility, correct?

marfacowboy

6/30/2012, 11:28 AM

I suspect major parts of the law gets rewritten. What may happen is that access to medicare is opened up.

And it absolutely should be.

Sooner5030

6/30/2012, 11:48 AM

I still think the dems expended too much political capital for basically some small changes to a problem that will have to be re-addressed sooner than thought. Two years of work and it cost them the house....IMO. All this while our economy is growing at ~2% (after 1.3-1.6 trillion/yr in deficit spending) while 10,000 baby-boomers are retiring/day. Our government is a circus.......a reflection of the mob that elects these clowns. I don't even watch sitcoms anymore.....I just turn on the news. CNN the other day was bragging about the "free" check-ups and stuff that folks would get since ACA was upheld.......just f'ing great....more free stuff.

marfacowboy

6/30/2012, 12:51 PM

CNN the other day was bragging about the "free" check-ups and stuff that folks would get since ACA was upheld.......just f'ing great....more free stuff.

Well, what's the alternative? Let 'em keep sliding toward systemic disease and an even more costly bill that you and I will fund? Let people die?
You know, the Sioux used to do that. If you couldn't keep up on the march, they left you on the side of the trail to die.

Sooner5030

6/30/2012, 12:59 PM

Well, what's the alternative? Let 'em keep sliding toward systemic disease and an even more costly bill that you and I will fund? Let people die?
You know, the Sioux used to do that. If you couldn't keep up on the march, they left you on the side of the trail to die.

I'd prefer the news be more accurate and say that "based on the pooling of routine care insured persons will be able to get more check-ups and different types of checkups that will be charged to that pool."

You missed the point of my post which is selling to the public that they are getting something free.

sappstuf

6/30/2012, 01:02 PM

The system/pool doesn't work if everyone doesn't buy in. That's just the fiscal bottom line. You are not forced to buy insurance. Pay the penalty instead. But as it stands now, you and I pay for everyone, because they just go to the ER, and this results in rate increases for all patients.

You're paying for it today. Would you prefer to pay for it or have a law that forces people to act responsibly so you don't have to pay for it? It's all about personal responsibility, correct?

I hope that you see the failure in your logic.

You say that I am not forced to pay for insurance, but then you turn around and say the law forces people to act responsibly. What? The tax that a person would have to pay wouldn't cover 1 ER visit, much less anything else. That is if they pay it, which there seems to be some debate on if they would have to. So I will continue to have to pay for those people. In fact, people who understand basic math will pay the penalty and abuse the system even further, taking up more resources until the system collapses.

marfacowboy

6/30/2012, 01:15 PM

I hope that you see the failure in your logic.

You say that I am not forced to pay for insurance, but then you turn around and say the law forces people to act responsibly. What?

No, I said people are not forced to buy insurance and that is precisely the truth.

The tax that a person would have to pay wouldn't cover 1 ER visit, much less anything else.

So what? There's no evidence most will do that or even 49% will make that choice.

That is if they pay it, which there seems to be some debate on if they would have to. So I will continue to have to pay for those people.

That's right. You're paying for them now. But you'll be paying for fewer people under this system, and it will hopefully drive costs down.
The American people have three choices here. One, continued course. No one I've spoken to wants that. Two, socialized medicine. While many prefer that option, it was clear that wasn't going to happen. Three, some sort of compromising deal that put more people in the insurance pool and took more of the burden off people like us and the healthcare providers.

In fact, people who understand basic math will pay the penalty and abuse the system even further, taking up more resources until the system collapses.

Some will. But the numbers produced by the CBO show the system will not function as you've stated.

sappstuf

6/30/2012, 01:31 PM

No, I said people are not forced to buy insurance and that is precisely the truth.

So what? There's no evidence most will do that or even 49% will make that choice.

That's right. You're paying for them now. But you'll be paying for fewer people under this system, and it will hopefully drive costs down.
The American people have three choices here. One, continued course. No one I've spoken to wants that. Two, socialized medicine. While many prefer that option, it was clear that wasn't going to happen. Three, some sort of compromising deal that put more people in the insurance pool and took more of the burden off people like us and the healthcare providers.

Some will. But the numbers produced by the CBO show the system will not function as you've stated.

So what?? That is the problem with the Party of ScienceTM.. They are terrible at math... Of course there is no evidence.. There can't be, it hasn't happened yet. Simple math isn't a hard concept though.. It won't take long for people to figure it out.

The numbers to the CBO were gamed.. We have actual proof of that because the CBO said CLASS act would save $70 billion. The fact is, it couldn't even be implemented because of the true cost and was already dropped by Sebelius.

When the real numbers come in, they will look nothing like the CBO was forced to predict and it will not be pretty.

yermom

6/30/2012, 01:49 PM

marfacowboy

6/30/2012, 03:22 PM

So what?? That is the problem with the Party of ScienceTM.. They are terrible at math... Of course there is no evidence.. There can't be, it hasn't happened yet. Simple math isn't a hard concept though.. It won't take long for people to figure it out.

A gross generalization, and of course, all generalizations are false. But to your point, I'd say more Democrats were liberal arts majors and therefore took more math in college than Republicans, who typically go to business schools. Unless you count accounting....(I have respect for Econ majors, but not so much for Accounting, Business and Finance.)

The numbers to the CBO were gamed.. We have actual proof of that because the CBO said CLASS act would save $70 billion. The fact is, it couldn't even be implemented because of the true cost and was already dropped by Sebelius.

Who is "we?" History will be the judge. Maybe you're right; maybe you're not. But I do believe we're going by the best numbers we have, and this is an attempt, albeit an imperfect one, to to something to improve what everyone seems to agree is a deeply flawed system.

yermom

6/30/2012, 03:34 PM

liberal arts = more math?

i'm not sure i can get on board with that

at least at OU, in business you have to take two light calculus courses and statistics, i believe

marfacowboy

6/30/2012, 05:01 PM

liberal arts = more math?

i'm not sure i can get on board with that

at least at OU, in business you have to take two light calculus courses and statistics, i believe

If you're in sciences, there's no "light" version. Or at least as far as I can recall. It's been a while, so I could be off the mark.Some schools only require college algebra for majors like History. But saying "liberals are deficient in math" is absurd.

yermom

6/30/2012, 05:12 PM

"liberal arts" doesn't imply something that requires calculus at all

but as a dirty lib that could out math most non-math majors, i won't really agree with the other statement either though

sappstuf

7/1/2012, 12:56 AM

A gross generalization, and of course, all generalizations are false. But to your point, I'd say more Democrats were liberal arts majors and therefore took more math in college than Republicans, who typically go to business schools. Unless you count accounting....(I have respect for Econ majors, but not so much for Accounting, Business and Finance.)

Nice dance around the fact that you said there was no proof for something that hasn't happened yet..

Who is "we?" History will be the judge. Maybe you're right; maybe you're not. But I do believe we're going by the best numbers we have, and this is an attempt, albeit an imperfect one, to to something to improve what everyone seems to agree is a deeply flawed system.

"We" are anyone who is interested in facts.. There is no maybe.. I am right. The CLASS act as scored by the CBO was supposed to reduce the deficit by $70 billion. What actually happened is that Sebelius testified before the Senate Finance Committee in February 2012 and said the program was “totally unsustainable”. The only way you can go from profit to totally unsustainable before you even start the program is if you completely BS the numbers in the first place.

Curly Bill

7/1/2012, 01:02 AM

liberal arts = more math?

i'm not sure i can get on board with that

at least at OU, in business you have to take two light calculus courses and statistics, i believe

That jumped out at you too did it?

sappstuf

7/1/2012, 01:05 AM

i guess i don't get what the states do for themselves by opting out of the anything

it seems like the pubs are going to be able to use this as leverage for sure now that everyone can agree that Obama effectively just raised taxes

i'd like to see the breakdown of how this actually shakes out though. who is affected by the mandate that wouldn't have already had insurance?

if buying insurance would be 40% of your income, then you don't have to pay the fine, as far as i know

The states will opt out to save themselves money. Obamacare shifted a large amount of cost onto the states without properly reimbursing them, thus making Obamacare look cheaper than it actually will be. The way the feds would force the state to do it is by threatening to take away all of the funds if they didn't abide by the new rules.. SCOTUS ruled the feds cannot do that and the previous funds must be given no matter what the state decides to do with Obamacare.

Midtowner

7/1/2012, 08:04 AM

The states will opt out to save themselves money. Obamacare shifted a large amount of cost onto the states without properly reimbursing them, thus making Obamacare look cheaper than it actually will be. The way the feds would force the state to do it is by threatening to take away all of the funds if they didn't abide by the new rules.. SCOTUS ruled the feds cannot do that and the previous funds must be given no matter what the state decides to do with Obamacare.

The counterweight to that will be that the medical providers in that state are going to pressure the government to accept the money because they want it. In fact, spending that money will be very beneficial to jobs and the local economy as it by definition will be spent locally.

What we can be 100% sure of is that Oklahoma will opt out.

pphilfran

7/1/2012, 08:36 AM

marfacowboy

7/1/2012, 08:52 AM

Nice dance around the fact that you said there was no proof for something that hasn't happened yet..

I didn't say "no proof." I said there's no "evidence" to support your prediction.

"We" are anyone who is interested in facts.. There is no maybe.. I am right.

It seems you're assuming anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong and the reason they're wrong is they're not interested in the facts. Lawh!

The CLASS act as scored by the CBO was supposed to reduce the deficit by $70 billion. What actually happened is that Sebelius testified before the Senate Finance Committee in February 2012 and said the program was “totally unsustainable”. The only way you can go from profit to totally unsustainable before you even start the program is if you completely BS the numbers in the first place.

That's just one program attached to the Act, as I understand it. I don't have time to do a Google search and pretend like I know the answer off the top of my head (like damn near everyone else on here does). But again, I never said the deal was perfect. Not once. All I said was we had to do something, and I've yet to see anyone produce a better plan that the Republican authored plan that's working well in Massachusetts.

marfacowboy

7/1/2012, 09:02 AM

The counterweight to that will be that the medical providers in that state are going to pressure the government to accept the money because they want it. In fact, spending that money will be very beneficial to jobs and the local economy as it by definition will be spent locally.

What we can be 100% sure of is that Oklahoma will opt out.

This is precisely correct, on both counts. Probably has its historical roots in the election of Murray as Governor in 1930, I believe, who resisted every New Deal program Roosevelt announced. This was mostly due to a personal vendetta, however, not any real political philosophy.
Oklahoma's poor suffered the most in those days (although many benefited from WPA and CCC programs, which were too popular to publicly condemn), and it will be the poor that suffer again.
Of course, Oklahoma, perhaps more than any other state in the Union, depends heavily on the government's tit. Robert Kerr had a lot to do with this, carefully cultivating relationships in Washington that resulted in a flood of federal dollars. It has a history of saying one thing on the floor of the State House while doing something entirely different.

sappstuf

7/1/2012, 09:38 AM

I didn't say "no proof." I said there's no "evidence" to support your prediction.

It seems you're assuming anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong and the reason they're wrong is they're not interested in the facts. Lawh!

That's just one program attached to the Act, as I understand it. I don't have time to do a Google search and pretend like I know the answer off the top of my head (like damn near everyone else on here does). But again, I never said the deal was perfect. Not once. All I said was we had to do something, and I've yet to see anyone produce a better plan that the Republican authored plan that's working well in Massachusetts.

You are correct, it was just one program... That was supposed to generate half the savings that Obamacare was going to produce. Instead it went belly up as “totally unsustainable" before it could even get off the ground.

sappstuf

7/1/2012, 09:51 AM

The counterweight to that will be that the medical providers in that state are going to pressure the government to accept the money because they want it. In fact, spending that money will be very beneficial to jobs and the local economy as it by definition will be spent locally.

What we can be 100% sure of is that Oklahoma will opt out.

Obamacare only funds the first five years of a massive Medicaid expansion, after that no more money from daddy.. It must come from the states themselves. That is one of the ways Obamacare looks cheaper than it really is because states were supposed to pick up the slack. State officials will have to run on a platform of massive tax increases to cover Medicaid costs after 5 years until the end of time.. For many states, this will be budgetary suicide. They will not do it not matter the pressure from medical providers now that the SCOTUS has given them a choice. States may have another option to keep Medcaid costs down.. Severly cut payments to physicians(if the feds allow them.. I'm not sure they would). Medicaid reimbursments are about 70% of what Medicare reimbursments are... That doesn't sound like a great deal for physicians to me.

Hopefully now the CBO will rescore Obamacare based on states refusing to pick up the cost. That would give us a much more accurate cost of Obamacare.. You can hid the costs in 50 state budgets... Harder to do with one single federal budget.

marfacowboy

7/1/2012, 10:02 AM

You are correct, it was just one program... That was supposed to generate half the savings that Obamacare was going to produce. Instead it went belly up as “totally unsustainable" before it could even get off the ground.

What's your plan, amigo? Since you're so bright and so unhappy with Obamacare, please tell us how to repair the system and make it sustainable, since the current system is obviously non-sustainable. Then again, the whole economic system is unsustainable, so I'm not sure what difference any of it makes until we fix our overall economic system.

Midtowner

7/1/2012, 10:48 AM

Obamacare only funds the first five years of a massive Medicaid expansion, after that no more money from daddy.. It must come from the states themselves. That is one of the ways Obamacare looks cheaper than it really is because states were supposed to pick up the slack. State officials will have to run on a platform of massive tax increases to cover Medicaid costs after 5 years until the end of time.. For many states, this will be budgetary suicide. They will not do it not matter the pressure from medical providers now that the SCOTUS has given them a choice. States may have another option to keep Medcaid costs down.. Severly cut payments to physicians(if the feds allow them.. I'm not sure they would). Medicaid reimbursments are about 70% of what Medicare reimbursments are... That doesn't sound like a great deal for physicians to me.

Hopefully now the CBO will rescore Obamacare based on states refusing to pick up the cost. That would give us a much more accurate cost of Obamacare.. You can hid the costs in 50 state budgets... Harder to do with one single federal budget.

And the same counterweights will apply. Folks wanting free healthcare, yellow-dog dems, health insurance providers will all be in the same boat with regard to wanting this to go through. If things go as planned and the prices of health insurance start to flatline or decrease, many other folks will be on board.

I'm not sure conservatives have really thought this thing through. Fixing healthcare by some route is an extremely popular idea. If this free-market approach fails then we're going to be looking at real socialized medicine or single payer as the only possible alternatives. The former approach of every man, woman and child for themselves is dead and gone and there'll be hell to pay at the polls for returning us to that system.

LiveLaughLove

7/1/2012, 11:19 AM

And the same counterweights will apply. Folks wanting free healthcare, yellow-dog dems, health insurance providers will all be in the same boat with regard to wanting this to go through. If things go as planned and the prices of health insurance start to flatline or decrease, many other folks will be on board.

I'm not sure conservatives have really thought this thing through. Fixing healthcare by some route is an extremely popular idea. If this free-market approach fails then we're going to be looking at real socialized medicine or single payer as the only possible alternatives. The former approach of every man, woman and child for themselves is dead and gone and there'll be hell to pay at the polls for returning us to that system.

That's been the plan all along and everyone that pays attention knows it. The Dem's politically couldn't go straight for it, so they are killing us with the death of a thousand cuts. They are great at breaking things and then saying we need more of what broke it to fix it. People get things for free, so it's a pretty easy sell.

You're probably right about the give away's just continuing also. Once people get something for nothing, it's almost impossible to take it away. Greece is a prime example.

Every day we drift further toward the mediocrity of the rest of the world, and away from what made us the greatest country in history. It's a shame, I have to see it in my lifetime, and more of one that my kids are going to be saddled with it.

yermom

7/1/2012, 11:35 AM

you really think socialized medicine has anything to do with the mediocrity of this country?

Sooner5030

7/1/2012, 11:52 AM

while some benefits may be able to be realized with a more competitive insurance market we will never be able to have a competitive medical care market. If I have a compound fracture in my arm I really don't have the time (nor do I care to) to shop around for the best price. In fact medical care is one of the only financial transactions where the buyer doesn't even know the price until after the services are provided.

Neither party in the transaction is as concerned with the price as in other buyer/seller relationships.

Until we find out a way (more/less/different regulations) to keep costs down and to get our society to place a higher value on living a healthy life-style none of these efforts will work. It's nothing more than theater between the dems/pubs and the herd gets to pick sides and pull for one of the teams.

I'm actually for a baseline government provided health care system that we all pay into....even the poor.

LiveLaughLove

7/1/2012, 12:29 PM

you really think socialized medicine has anything to do with the mediocrity of this country?

In a vacuum, no. In the real world, being added to the ever increasing list of , We must pay for ourselves AND you (not you personally) schemes that politicians create for voting power, yes.

Just in the last few years we have a government that can spy on us without a warrant, take property that has been in our families for generations simply by saying they can make more money from it, and now force us to buy something we may not want or be taxed for it, and much more government in our lives.

The greatness of this country was our self reliance, not our hands out to big brother begging. We have created a permanent underclass that brings nothing to the table except more mouths for me and mine to take care of. The ONE thing this underclass can do is vote, unfortunately, and vote they do for whomever promises the most goodies.

The problems with our health care system can be directly traced to too much government intrusion. So now the fix is, more government intrusion. It's a great scam liberals have going in this country. They break things with over burden from government, and then they get people to believe they can fix the things they break, WITH MORE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION. What a racket.

Your side has the more attractive message for sure, and has for a long time. Let us take care of you. Our message is, get off your butt and take care of yourself. You win every time with most of today's slothful, lazy, worthless, zero contribution Americans. Hence, mediocrity.

marfacowboy

7/1/2012, 12:59 PM

The greatness of this country was our self reliance, not our hands out to big brother begging. We have created a permanent underclass that brings nothing to the table except more mouths for me and mine to take care of. The ONE thing this underclass can do is vote, unfortunately, and vote they do for whomever promises the most goodies.

This is an oft repeated lie that doesn't have even a modicum of historical truth. The country has long been dependent on government aid, particularly Oklahoma. Angie Debo, whose portrait hangs in the capitol in Oklahoma City, was one of the first in this state to expose that lie.
From agriculture, mining, frankly the whole economy, has been propped up by government spending. The free market economy is a myth.
In fact, on this very day in history, President Lincoln signed the Pacific Railroad Act, adopting the 42nd Parallel Route, which authorized the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific Railroads to build the first transcontinental railroad...with government loans.
The state for years cut pension checks to farmers that were unable to obtain Social Security. Almost every rural county in Oklahoma has always been dependent on government handouts.

The problems with our health care system can be directly traced to too much government intrusion.

How's that?

So now the fix is, more government intrusion. It's a great scam liberals have going in this country. They break things with over burden from government, and then they get people to believe they can fix the things they break, WITH MORE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION. What a racket.

Actually, the scam is how wealthy people, wealthy Republicans mostly, take care of their buddies with government handouts, all the while pointing their sanctimonious fingers at everyone else.

Your side has the more attractive message for sure, and has for a long time. Let us take care of you. Our message is, get off your butt and take care of yourself. You win every time with most of today's slothful, lazy, worthless, zero contribution Americans. Hence, mediocrity.

Are all those farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma that were for years dependent on the government, lazy and worthless? What about all those thousands upon thousands at Tinker over the years? The government, in case you're interested, is the largest employer in Oklahoma, and if it wasn't for the government, the damn state would have dried up and literally blown away after the Dust Bowl years. I'd be really careful demonizing government and government spending. It sounds good until you need it.

LiveLaughLove

7/1/2012, 01:25 PM

marfacowboy

7/1/2012, 01:40 PM

You're talking to the wrong guy marfa. I'm not for subsidies either. However, I will say paying farmers to produce the food that feeds a good portion of the world vs giving handouts so gang bangers can have iPads along with their smart phones, while not actually working a job is not even a comparison. Well, it may be same same to you, but to most people not so much. The oft repeated lie is that the government actually cares about this class of slaves it has created. Just as Jesse Jackson never wants true racial harmony (because his job would go away too), Dem's never want people to get off the dole to the government. That's the freaking lie.

There are people that take advantage of the system, no doubt. But they're not always "bangers" and welfare moms. Sometimes they wear Brooks Brother's suits.

Medical costs are artificially high because of over regulation of the industry. The greater the burden to them, the more they pass on costs.

Most of the physicians I know, and my brother-in-law, who was the CFO of one of the largest private hospitals in the U.S., will tell you that's simply not the case.
One culprit is the AMA. Medicare and private third party payers heavily on the recommendations of a permanent committee of the American Medical Association. Whenever the government or physicians proposed changes to fees or payments (like placing doctors on salaries instead of fee based care) that would reduce costs, the AMA castigated these prepayment methods, and physicians who participated in prepayment plans were expelled by their local medical societies (that control the AMA). Some were denied admitting privileges at local hospitals. Whenever the profit motive is challenged, it meets heavy resistance.
And secondly are the insurance companies themselves. Ask almost any doctor what their biggest pain in the *** is and they'll tell you it's insurance. Some clinics have ten people in their office just dealing with insurance.

I'm not going in to a big diatribe about it, because you and your side simply don't care. You want what you want.

We don't care? Who is "we?" People that are proposing alternatives to a system almost everyone agrees is broken? What's your plan, maintenance of the status quo?

Suffice to say, we can't say what the free market would do to costs, because the government will never allow control to be rested away from them to find out. They most assuredly would go drastically down however.

AMA controls the fees.

Geez, you are pathetic with the rich people hate. Bet you hated the guy dating the prom queen too. Now lie to me and tell me you dated the prom queen. Right.

I don't hate rich people. I hate hypocrisy.

The government is the largest employer in most states. That's not a good thing. That is part of the inherent problem. Funny how you see government as the savior. I saw my family working their butts off to provide for us as our savior.

I never said government was the savior. I simply stated the historical fact about economics in this country. But that's what happens when people are confronted with their own uncomfortable history, they run from it, deny it, change the subject.
What would have happened if the government hadn't given aid to Oklahoma in the '30's? What would Oklahoma do without the government jobs it has today? What would they do when oil prices tanked? When cattle prices tanked and ranchers and farmers couldn't pay off the loans on their equipment and their land? I'll tell you. The banks stepped in and took all they had.
Our economy is based on a balance of free enterprise and government security. It's a delicate balance where you can't just allow the free market to be left to its own devices. We've seen throughout history what that leads to. And you can overburden industry with too much government interference.

LiveLaughLove

7/1/2012, 02:46 PM

Well, the truth about this monstrosity begins:

“The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

"Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.

Just as most things, the Dem's say they support the troops. They just support the unions more. Unions tend to vote Dem. Soldiers not so much. So screw them.

LiveLaughLove

7/1/2012, 03:04 PM

Most of the physicians I know, and my brother-in-law, who was the CFO of one of the largest private hospitals in the U.S., will tell you that's simply not the case.
One culprit is the AMA. Medicare and private third party payers heavily on the recommendations of a permanent committee of the American Medical Association. Whenever the government or physicians proposed changes to fees or payments (like placing doctors on salaries instead of fee based care) that would reduce costs, the AMA castigated these prepayment methods, and physicians who participated in prepayment plans were expelled by their local medical societies (that control the AMA). Some were denied admitting privileges at local hospitals. Whenever the profit motive is challenged, it meets heavy resistance.
And secondly are the insurance companies themselves. Ask almost any doctor what their biggest pain in the *** is and they'll tell you it's insurance. Some clinics have ten people in their office just dealing with insurance.

My cousin, the doctor in private practice for almost 30 years thinks your brother in law is an idiot.

Fees are controlled BECAUSE of government regulation. Insurance is complicated BECAUSE of government regulation.

Look no further than laser eye surgery as to how the free market would work. It started out very expensive. Doctors saw it as a cash cow, and learned how to do it. More competition meant lower prices. The price for laser eye surgery has come down drastically from when it was brought to the market. Meanwhile, everything associated with government run programs continues to go way way up in price. I wonder why.

LiveLaughLove

7/1/2012, 03:33 PM

Is Clinton running things now in the WH. We're back to the old, "depends on what the definition of is is.

First of all, the law is clear, it’s called a penalty. Second of all, what the Supreme Court ruled is that the law is constitutional. Actually, they didn’t call it a tax. They said it was using the [tax] power under the constitution that permits it. It was not labeled. ~ WH Chief of Staff, Jack Lew

So, it is using the tax code, they said they will be employing something like 4,000 IRS agents to enforce it, but it's not a tax. Sure thing.

I always use IRS agents for stuff. Got one washing my windows right now. Had one mowing my lawn yesterday. Those IRS agents are a diverse group, I'm tellin' ya.

marfacowboy

7/1/2012, 04:14 PM

My cousin, the doctor in private practice for almost 30 years thinks your brother in law is an idiot.

Your cousin, who doesn't know my brother-in-law, has decided he's "an idiot" because of what you told him you heard on an Internet forum.
I'm glad he's not my doctor. What is he, a GP? A pathologist?

Fees are controlled BECAUSE of government regulation. Insurance is complicated BECAUSE of government regulation.

Here's an article (http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2009/051209Holtzman.shtml) from the Baltimore Chronicle in 2009 that discusses how the AMA, in conjunction with medical societies, sets fees.

Look no further than laser eye surgery as to how the free market would work. It started out very expensive. Doctors saw it as a cash cow, and learned how to do it. More competition meant lower prices. The price for laser eye surgery has come down drastically from when it was brought to the market. Meanwhile, everything associated with government run programs continues to go way way up in price. I wonder why.

The article I just provided by a physician shows precisely the opposite.

REDREX

7/1/2012, 04:20 PM

I do not have a single friend that is a Doctor that is a member of the AMA

LiveLaughLove

7/1/2012, 05:02 PM

I do not have a single friend that is a Doctor that is a member of the AMA
bingo, we have a winner. My cousin hasn't belonged to the AMA in a very long time.

Some people will never accept that we could survive with less government, not more.

marfacowboy

7/1/2012, 05:15 PM

bingo, we have a winner. My cousin hasn't belonged to the AMA in a very long time.

Some people will never accept that we could survive with less government, not more.

Look man, I'm sure you're a good guy, but we're just not going to agree. Just because a few docs aren't members doesn't mean the AMA doesn't have tremendous power in setting fees.
I've been pretty clear and consistent on my position regarding the government. Historically, the nation has been on government tit for a long, long time. Doesn't mean I like it or dislike it. It's just a historical fact. And two, we need balance between free enterprise and government. That's just the way it is.

LiveLaughLove

7/1/2012, 05:18 PM

Your cousin, who doesn't know my brother-in-law, has decided he's "an idiot" because of what you told him you heard on an Internet forum.
I'm glad he's not my doctor. What is he, a GP? A pathologist?

Here's an article (http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2009/051209Holtzman.shtml) from the Baltimore Chronicle in 2009 that discusses how the AMA, in conjunction with medical societies, sets fees.

The article I just provided by a physician shows precisely the opposite.

I give an actual real world example, and you counter with a commentary (someones view point). Nice. I care about this guys opinion why? Because he has MD behind his name?

He is for single payer. He says that the pool needs to be enlarged by the healthy young adults to lower costs. Well, that certainly doesn't lower the cost for the healthy young adults that choose to pay zero currently, huh.

Turd_Ferguson

7/1/2012, 05:23 PM

Marfa is a shill...

REDREX

7/1/2012, 05:34 PM

Look man, I'm sure you're a good guy, but we're just not going to agree. Just because a few docs aren't members doesn't mean the AMA doesn't have tremendous power in setting fees.
I've been pretty clear and consistent on my position regarding the government. Historically, the nation has been on government tit for a long, long time. Doesn't mean I like it or dislike it. It's just a historical fact. And two, we need balance between free enterprise and government. That's just the way it is.--- "A FEW" ---By about 3-1 Docs are not members of the AMA a huge portion of the membership are students and retired docs

Turd_Ferguson

7/1/2012, 05:37 PM

---By about 3-1 Docs are not members of the AMA a huge portion of the membership are studentsWhich are probably mostly made up of punk ***, wet behind the ear's, know-it-alls...

marfacowboy

7/1/2012, 05:50 PM

--- "A FEW" ---By about 3-1 Docs are not members of the AMA a huge portion of the membership are students and retired docs

Doesn't matter. It's still the organization that largely controls fees, in conjunction with medical societies. It's still the one organization that theoretically represents all physicians. I could care less about it. It's always been controversial, and I think it'sbeen a huge part of the problem insofar as out of control costs are concerned.

marfacowboy

7/1/2012, 05:51 PM

Marfa is a shill...

For what?

marfacowboy

7/1/2012, 05:53 PM

I give an actual real world example, and you counter with a commentary (someones view point). Nice. I care about this guys opinion why? Because he has MD behind his name?

It's widely published and in reputable publications. The point about the AMA playing a large role in fees, more so than the government, stands.

REDREX

7/1/2012, 05:54 PM

Doesn't matter. It's still the organization that largely controls fees, in conjunction with medical societies. It's still the one organization that theoretically represents all physicians. I could care less about it. It's always been controversial, and I think it'sbeen a huge part of the problem insofar as out of control costs are concerned.---Go do a little research 3/4 of all Doctors do not agree with the AMA--- The AMA "theoretically represents all physicians" only in its own mind

marfacowboy

7/1/2012, 05:56 PM

---Go do a little research 3/4 of all Doctors do not agree with the AMA--- The AMA "theoretically represents all physicians" only in its own mind

I did. It is an organization with power, whether they have a shrinking dues paying membership or not. What's the ****ing problem? I'm not defending these ****ers. I'm simply stating a fact they they have more power in setting costs than the government.

TitoMorelli

7/1/2012, 06:08 PM

Interesting read at the link. Jan Crawford is a reporter whom I've long respected.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

Sooner5030

7/1/2012, 11:40 PM

I wonder if the ACA requires ex-pats to purchase a US insurance plan on top of their insurance they already have in the country they reside in?

SanJoaquinSooner

7/2/2012, 12:05 AM

I wonder if the ACA requires ex-pats to purchase a US insurance plan on top of their insurance they already have in the country they reside in?

I don't know with certainty, but I've read on ex-pat message boards that if one lives outside the U.S. fulltime, then no - purchase of US insurance will not be required, although trip insurance may be if visiting the US for a short time.

If one lives 6 months here and 6 months there, then yes, it will be required.

Bourbon St Sooner

7/2/2012, 01:48 PM

And the same counterweights will apply. Folks wanting free healthcare, yellow-dog dems, health insurance providers will all be in the same boat with regard to wanting this to go through. If things go as planned and the prices of health insurance start to flatline or decrease, many other folks will be on board.

I'm not sure conservatives have really thought this thing through. Fixing healthcare by some route is an extremely popular idea. If this free-market approach fails then we're going to be looking at real socialized medicine or single payer as the only possible alternatives. The former approach of every man, woman and child for themselves is dead and gone and there'll be hell to pay at the polls for returning us to that system.

Just curious. With our aging population and obesity epidemic, what dynamic makes you think that health costs are anywhere near flatlining or decreasing?

BTW we don't have free-market healthcare in this country. In a free market, everybody pays for thier own. Who actually goes to the doctor and cuts the doctor a check these days? Nobody. We have a system where healthy people subsidize unhealthy people and ACA only builds on that system.

soonercruiser

7/2/2012, 02:08 PM

I did. It is an organization with power, whether they have a shrinking dues paying membership or not. What's the ****ing problem? I'm not defending these ****ers. I'm simply stating a fact they they have more power in setting costs than the government.

Actually you are correct in your assessment.
But, like the AARP and some unions in Wisconson, those so-called rules of the past are changing.
THere are big changes coming in the wind.
They certainly will be another "head wind" for Obama and the libs.

Midtowner

7/2/2012, 02:16 PM

Just curious. With our aging population and obesity epidemic, what dynamic makes you think that health costs are anywhere near flatlining or decreasing?

Well, maybe I should say healthcare costs per individual who participates in the insurance market. Now that there are more participants, costs should be spread around more evenly as there won't be nearly as much bad debt out there with regard to folks who have procedures done and use the Bankruptcy Code to finance their healthcare.

BTW we don't have free-market healthcare in this country. In a free market, everybody pays for thier own. Who actually goes to the doctor and cuts the doctor a check these days? Nobody. We have a system where healthy people subsidize unhealthy people and ACA only builds on that system.

The free market doesn't work for some things. Healthcare is one of those things. You can't predict when you'll have costs or what those costs are going to be. Professional athletes sometimes have heart conditions requiring emergency surgery in their 20s. No one looks at the price of healthcare until after they've incurred it. That's why it really only makes sense to approach this from an 'everybody pays' perspective.

I think healthcare markets are going to reward folks for healthy lifestyles and possibly focus more on preventative care in order to keep costs down. This solution takes everyone working together. Republicans have no alternative plan. They're just focused on the repeal. They know that after this election cycle that if they can't repeal this thing, the Dems will be in the driver seat on healthcare just like they are with social security, Medicare, etc.

soonercruiser

7/2/2012, 02:27 PM

My first reaction would be to condemn Justice Roberts...and more of Booosh's legacy.

But.....I want to listen to some more of the arguments on the issue.
What Roberts did do by writing the "majority opinion" is:
1. Limit government widening of the use of the Commerce Clause.
2. Place the ball back in the court of the tax-payers to resolve......getting the government they deserve.
3. Officially label enrollement and penalties as a "TAX"! Thereby (again throwing it back to the voters) requiring only 50 votes (a simple majority) in the Senate to overturn the law! (Not

The short term winner is Obama.
The long term winners are the states, who can now make their individual decisions on expanding the Medicare/Medicaid expansion.....and "opt out".

OK....back to the subject at hand.
I was correct in my initial cautious reaction against Chief Justice Roberts.

Charles Krauthammer had an editorial in Sunday's Daily Oklahoma.
Even he initially as a cable "talking head" condemned Roberts when the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare first came out.

It seems like after Krauthammer had a few nights to sleep on it....he came up with a more intellectual assessment of "What Happened Here!".

Just some of the article
http://newsok.com/why-roberts-came-down-as-he-did/article/3688369

Charles Krauthammer: Why Roberts did it
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Published: June 29, 2012 Oklahoman 0
WASHINGTON — It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.

As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration’s central argument that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a proper exercise of its authority to regulate commerce.

That’s Roberts, philosophical conservative. But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the court, acutely aware that the judiciary’s arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held. Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren and Burger courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade, which willfully struck down the duly passed abortion laws of 46 states. The result has been four decades of popular protest and resistance to an act of judicial arrogance that, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “deferred stable settlement of the issue” by the normal electoral/legislative process.

How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress.

Court’s reputation maintainedResult? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the Commerce Clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the Commerce Clause fig leaf.

diverdog

7/2/2012, 02:28 PM

Marfa is a shill...

Pot meet kettle.

Midtowner

7/2/2012, 02:39 PM

OK....back to the subject at hand.
I was correct in my initial cautious reaction against Chief Justice ROberts.

Charles Krauthammer had an editorial in Sunday's Daily OKlahoma.
Even he initially as a cable "talking head" condemned Roberts when the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare first came out.

It seems like after Krauthammer had a few nights to sleep on it....he came up with a more intellectual assessment of "What Happened Here!".

http://newsok.com/why-roberts-came-down-as-he-did/article/3688369

Charles Krauthammer: Why Roberts did it
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Published: June 29, 2012 Oklahoman 0

WASHINGTON — It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

Read more: http://newsok.com/charles-krauthammer-why-roberts-did-it/article/3688369#ixzz1zUl47jop

In this editorial, Krauthammer tries to make lemonade out of lemons. That's really all there is to it. Conservatives are straining to convey this image of their champion, CJ Roberts as being made into a political shill. Is it not also possible that Roberts thought the bill was actually constitutional? First off, constitutional scholars were nearly unanimous in that the case law supported the mandate as there was plenty of case law supporting a very liberal interpretation of the commerce clause and not one case recognizing the commerce clause can't compel commerce. The question is raised as to whether 5-4, we're going to start forcing law students to memorize hundreds of esoteric exceptions to the commerce clause every time Congress threatens the conservative wing's cause du jour.

soonercruiser

7/2/2012, 02:49 PM

In this editorial, Krauthammer tries to make lemonade out of lemons. That's really all there is to it. Conservatives are straining to convey this image of their champion, CJ Roberts as being made into a political shill. Is it not also possible that Roberts thought the bill was actually constitutional? First off, constitutional scholars were nearly unanimous in that the case law supported the mandate as there was plenty of case law supporting a very liberal interpretation of the commerce clause and not one case recognizing the commerce clause can't compel commerce. The question is raised as to whether 5-4, we're going to start forcing law students to memorize hundreds of esoteric exceptions to the commerce clause every time Congress threatens the conservative wing's cause du jour.

Nothing like posting a streeeeeeeeeetch of the facts.
Too bad the so-called constitutional scholars aren't on the SCOTUS!
Case closed!

marfacowboy

7/2/2012, 02:50 PM

In this editorial, Krauthammer tries to make lemonade out of lemons. That's really all there is to it. Conservatives are straining to convey this image of their champion, CJ Roberts as being made into a political shill.

Yep. Do anything to take the sting off.
Funny thing about healthcare and other forms of government "assistance." A lot of people enjoy blathering on and on about "self sufficiency," "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps," and "all this government spending," until they find themselves needing help.
Anyone can find themselves in need at some point. People that worked hard their whole lives can suddenly find themselves unemployed, without insurance and facing cancer. In a civil, compassionate society, you take care of those people.

Midtowner

7/2/2012, 03:18 PM

Nothing like posting a streeeeeeeeeetch of the facts.
Too bad the so-called constitutional scholars aren't on the SCOTUS!
Case closed!

Not just scholars, but everyone, myself included hadn't seen a limitation to the commerce clause since Lopez, which had the audacity to restrict the commerce clause's application to channels and instrumentalities of commerce.

This is another such out-of-the-blue limitation.

You can't cite a single case limiting the commerce clause in this aspect until now.

Bourbon St Sooner

7/2/2012, 05:10 PM

The free market doesn't work for some things. Healthcare is one of those things. You can't predict when you'll have costs or what those costs are going to be. Professional athletes sometimes have heart conditions requiring emergency surgery in their 20s. No one looks at the price of healthcare until after they've incurred it. That's why it really only makes sense to approach this from an 'everybody pays' perspective.

I think healthcare markets are going to reward folks for healthy lifestyles and possibly focus more on preventative care in order to keep costs down. This solution takes everyone working together. Republicans have no alternative plan. They're just focused on the repeal. They know that after this election cycle that if they can't repeal this thing, the Dems will be in the driver seat on healthcare just like they are with social security, Medicare, etc.

I'll disagree with you on this one counselor. The problem still is total health care costs. Haven't we always talked about the % of GDP spent on health care in this country. The problem as with any economic problem is how do you allocate scarce resources and, in this case, how do you drive behaviors. A one size fits all health care system where everybody pays the same isn't driving behavior.

It's not the athlete getting a heart palpitation in his 20's that's driving the cost of medical care. It's the overweight person that's on 15 different medications to control his diabetes/high blood pressure/cholesterol and is having a triple bypass every other year that's driving the cost of health care. And I won't even get started on the medical malpractice.

As far as shopping for health care, there's already plenty of that going on. Why do you think people drive from across the country to go to MD Anderson for cancer treatment or the Mayo Clinic or other types of facilities. People already shop around and they would do a lot more shopping if they actually controlled the money going to their care. The only time you wouldn't shop is in a trama situation or other medical emergency, but most health care has nothing to do with medical emergencies.

Midtowner

7/2/2012, 08:51 PM

I'll disagree with you on this one counselor. The problem still is total health care costs. Haven't we always talked about the % of GDP spent on health care in this country. The problem as with any economic problem is how do you allocate scarce resources and, in this case, how do you drive behaviors. A one size fits all health care system where everybody pays the same isn't driving behavior.

I said everyone pays, not everyone pays the same thing. That's what we're trying now--everyone will hook up with private insurers. I listened to the CEO of a major health insurance company on NPR the other day explaining his company's position here. They are doing things that make sense--incentivizing healthy lifestyles. The onus is going to be on the insurance companies to keep their insureds healthy until they become Medicare's problem. That's what I like to see--free market approaches to a system that is now going to have some great opportunities and great challenges. It will be fun to see how the market responds.

It's not the athlete getting a heart palpitation in his 20's that's driving the cost of medical care. It's the overweight person that's on 15 different medications to control his diabetes/high blood pressure/cholesterol and is having a triple bypass every other year that's driving the cost of health care. And I won't even get started on the medical malpractice.

Medmal drives about 1% of the cost of healthcare according to a fairly recent Harvard Study covering that subject. It's insignificant and filled with bad information. American lifestyles, funny enough, Oklahoman-like lifestyles drive a HUGE part of the costs. Also, the costs themselves drive the costs. Why does a bypass in the U.S. cost north of $70K when you can get one overseas for about 1/3 that? It sure as hell ain't malpractice suits.

As far as shopping for health care, there's already plenty of that going on. Why do you think people drive from across the country to go to MD Anderson for cancer treatment or the Mayo Clinic or other types of facilities. People already shop around and they would do a lot more shopping if they actually controlled the money going to their care. The only time you wouldn't shop is in a trama situation or other medical emergency, but most health care has nothing to do with medical emergencies.

I guarantee you that if folks were penalized by their companies for always going to the most expensive place, they'd certainly start shopping with price in mind. Unfortunately, we have a lot of plans where you spend the deductible and you're done. I'm more inclined to think that 80/20 or 90/10 plans are going to promote better decisions by patients or at least make them look at the cost of their healthcare.

Also, a very large percentage of what MD Anderson or Mayo does is Medicare and that's a damn crime that we're giving some of those folks free healthcare. Especially those with high incomes.

soonercruiser

7/2/2012, 09:43 PM

Not just scholars, but everyone, myself included hadn't seen a limitation to the commerce clause since Lopez, which had the audacity to restrict the commerce clause's application to channels and instrumentalities of commerce.

This is another such out-of-the-blue limitation.

You can't cite a single case limiting the commerce clause in this aspect until now.

You betcha that I can't site a single case.
I'm not even a lawyer. But I am a medicalk scholar, and can speak to heatthcare.

BTW, many SCOTUS cases can't site any precedent for weird rulings.
And, many laws do not make common sense....just ask Obama....he'll tell you so!

diverdog

7/2/2012, 10:46 PM

Midtowner

7/2/2012, 11:51 PM

I'm not even a lawyer. But I am a medicalk scholar, and can speak to heatthcare.

BTW, many SCOTUS cases can't site any precedent for weird rulings.
And, many laws do not make common sense....just ask Obama....he'll tell you so!

So you admit they made the exception up out of nothing. Cool beans.

You're a medical scholar? Well holy hell! Thanks for being here! What credentials did you have again?

Curly Bill

7/2/2012, 11:55 PM

So you admit they made the exception up out of nothing. Cool beans.

You're a medical scholar? Well holy hell! Thanks for being here! What credentials did you have again?

Credentials? pfffft! Surely you jest? This is the innerwebs, credentials would be superfulous.

Bourbon St Sooner

7/3/2012, 01:26 PM

I said everyone pays, not everyone pays the same thing. That's what we're trying now--everyone will hook up with private insurers. I listened to the CEO of a major health insurance company on NPR the other day explaining his company's position here. They are doing things that make sense--incentivizing healthy lifestyles. The onus is going to be on the insurance companies to keep their insureds healthy until they become Medicare's problem. That's what I like to see--free market approaches to a system that is now going to have some great opportunities and great challenges. It will be fun to see how the market responds.

These incentive plans are nice, but when your employer already pays 60 - 90% of your premium, the incentives to the individual is peanuts. The first reform I would make is to end the tax advantage to employer provided health care and perhaps outlaw group insurance. When a healthy person pays $2000 a year for health insurance and a fat slob pays $15,000 a year then you'll see some true incentives. Expanding employer provided group health insurance does not get us to these kind of incentives.

Medmal drives about 1% of the cost of healthcare according to a fairly recent Harvard Study covering that subject. It's insignificant and filled with bad information.

I would guess defensive medicine drives a lot more cost than that study is giving credit for and probably didn't include but I really don't have time to research such stuff these days.

I guarantee you that if folks were penalized by their companies for always going to the most expensive place, they'd certainly start shopping with price in mind. Unfortunately, we have a lot of plans where you spend the deductible and you're done. I'm more inclined to think that 80/20 or 90/10 plans are going to promote better decisions by patients or at least make them look at the cost of their healthcare.

Also, a very large percentage of what MD Anderson or Mayo does is Medicare and that's a damn crime that we're giving some of those folks free healthcare. Especially those with high incomes.

Old farts are the largest receivers of entitlement payments and they vote. They are at the top of the pyramid in this scheme we call a gov't and they ain't givin up anything.

Midtowner

7/3/2012, 01:57 PM

You betcha that I can't site a single case.
I'm not even a lawyer. But I am a medicalk scholar, and can speak to heatthcare.

BTW, many SCOTUS cases can't site any precedent for weird rulings.
And, many laws do not make common sense....just ask Obama....he'll tell you so!

Was your inclusion of the word "site" as bold meant to jab at me for misspelling something? Check your dictionary, son. "Cite" is what you do when you're referencing authority. You work at a site.

Other than that, why did you even respond? Just to say I'm right? I know I'm right.

diverdog

7/3/2012, 08:45 PM

Was your inclusion of the word "site" as bold meant to jab at me for misspelling something? Check your dictionary, son. "Cite" is what you do when you're referencing authority. You work at a site.

Other than that, why did you even respond? Just to say I'm right? I know I'm right.

I think Dean is right. Cruiser is definitely drinking after 9 pm. What the heck is a "medicalk scholar"?

Midtowner

7/3/2012, 09:23 PM

These incentive plans are nice, but when your employer already pays 60 - 90% of your premium, the incentives to the individual is peanuts. The first reform I would make is to end the tax advantage to employer provided health care and perhaps outlaw group insurance. When a healthy person pays $2000 a year for health insurance and a fat slob pays $15,000 a year then you'll see some true incentives. Expanding employer provided group health insurance does not get us to these kind of incentives.

Love it.

I would guess defensive medicine drives a lot more cost than that study is giving credit for and probably didn't include but I really don't have time to research such stuff these days.

The defensive medicine concept is a bunch of crap. The legal test for malpractice has a lot to do with the standard of care. The medical community determines standard of care, not lawyers. You don't win a malpractice case unless there is real malpractice. Also, the medical folks love defensive medicine--charge the patients beaucoup extra bucks for unnecessary tests and then blame the lawyers. The lawyers aren't making money off of defensive medicine, but the healthcare industry sure as hell is.

Old farts are the largest receivers of entitlement payments and they vote. They are at the top of the pyramid in this scheme we call a gov't and they ain't givin up anything.

Well they're the problem and we need some "death panels" to deal with this issue. The money we throw at the sick and dying elderly is ridiculous.

marfacowboy

7/4/2012, 07:44 AM

The defensive medicine concept is a bunch of crap. The legal test for malpractice has a lot to do with the standard of care. The medical community determines standard of care, not lawyers. You don't win a malpractice case unless there is real malpractice. Also, the medical folks love defensive medicine--charge the patients beaucoup extra bucks for unnecessary tests and then blame the lawyers. The lawyers aren't making money off of defensive medicine, but the healthcare industry sure as hell is.

Correct. Litigation costs and malpractice insurance are between 1.5 to 2.0 percent of total medical costs. It's a ruse.

REDREX

7/4/2012, 07:53 AM

Correct. Litigation costs and malpractice insurance are between 1.5 to 2.0 percent of total medical costs. It's a ruse.----Its not the litigation costs it is the cost of defensive medicine that runs up costs --- http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/dec10/advocacy2.asp

pphilfran

7/4/2012, 08:28 AM

Correct. Litigation costs and malpractice insurance are between 1.5 to 2.0 percent of total medical costs. It's a ruse.

I hate to break it to you but it is not a ruse....

To get costs in control we will need to look at dozens of different areas to save money...there is not going to be one place where we miraculously find a 20% cost savings...just like when you are looking to save money at home you find a percent here and a percent there and it will add up to significant costs...

Nothing, no matter how small the savings, should be eliminated from scrutiny...nothing...

Midtowner

7/4/2012, 08:29 AM

----Its not the litigation costs it is the cost of defensive medicine that runs up costs --- http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/dec10/advocacy2.asp

And docs aren't against higher costs. Why does a CT Scan have to cost so much more in the U.S. than Europe? Why is an MRI here like 10x the cost of one in the U.K.?

Does the fact that Medicare pays too damn much for procedures have anything to do with the cost of medicine here? Hopefully, under Obama's health care reform, prices will make more sense, i.e., we don't need to bill patient X who has insurance an exorbitant amount of money because patient Y is a lot less likely going to stiff us.

As far as liability reform fixing things, docs want to be able to operate on you while stoned (it happens) and no be liable. No one gets a massive jury award for not practicing defensive medicine. The real problem is that the medical community, not the legal community has established this as their standard of care. They could adopt new policies and procedures and reduce the costs. The dirty little secret there is that the healthcare industry has no intention of reducing those costs. In places where they have passed huge liability reform (like Texas), medical malpractice premiums have increased at around the same rate as Texas' sister states.

Liability reform has more to do with insurance company profits than anything else. I'd rather see that money go where it needs to go--to people who have been maimed or killed by negligent physicians.

And let's be clear about what negligence has to mean to get these awards--this is not just an oopsie=lawsuit. The physician actually has to be proved to have violated the standard of care set by the local medical community. So if physicians here in OKC don't like defensive medicine, as a rule and policy, they could stop practicing it. They'd then take a 5 to 34% hit to their bottom line according to the linked study. Our hospitals rely on "defensive medicine" to keep the doors open.

And to be clear, I wouldn't touch a medmal case with a 10-foot pole. Those cases are hugely expensive, requiring the attorney to out-of-pocket hire experts costing in the 10s of thousands, absorb many hours of attorney time, paralegal time, etc., hoping for a jury verdict. With the huge costs to get a jury to trial, lawyers are not going to take iffy cases to trial. It's a huge personal financial risk to take these on. I'll take personal injury, family and criminal law cases, I'll set up LLCs and structure joint ventures for small businesses. I'll never go near a medmal case.

pphilfran

7/4/2012, 08:32 AM

Midtowner

7/4/2012, 08:33 AM

How are illegals dealt with in the new plan? I know they are not eligible for insurance....do we give them medical care and pass the cost on as we have in the past with uninsured?

IF you have a green card and are legal and get hurt...will legal migratory workers be required to carry US heath care while working in the states?

I say we stabilize them, deport them and send their homeland the bill if they don't carry US health insurance.

Of course, like with most things, the feds are pretending that this is not an issue.

It's a huge cost to taxpayers. I go to the dentist with my old family dentist in south OKC at a mostly Medicaid clinic called varietycare. I go to him because he was my grandfather's partner back when they had a practice in Cushing, OK and he's just always been my dentist. Funny enough, I can't ever recall seeing another anglo in the waiting room.

pphilfran

7/4/2012, 08:35 AM

I say we stabilize them, deport them and send their homeland the bill if they don't carry US health insurance.

That is one fine idea....down the road there should be some good debate on the subject...

REDREX

7/4/2012, 08:40 AM

And docs aren't against higher costs. Why does a CT Scan have to cost so much more in the U.S. than Europe? Why is an MRI here like 10x the cost of one in the U.K.?

Does the fact that Medicare pays too damn much for procedures have anything to do with the cost of medicine here? Hopefully, under Obama's health care reform, prices will make more sense, i.e., we don't need to bill patient X who has insurance an exorbitant amount of money because patient Y is a lot less likely going to stiff us.

As far as liability reform fixing things, docs want to be able to operate on you while stoned (it happens) and no be liable. No one gets a massive jury award for not practicing defensive medicine. The real problem is that the medical community, not the legal community has established this as their standard of care. They could adopt new policies and procedures and reduce the costs. The dirty little secret there is that the healthcare industry has no intention of reducing those costs. In places where they have passed huge liability reform (like Texas), medical malpractice premiums have increased at around the same rate as Texas' sister states.

Liability reform has more to do with insurance company profits than anything else. I'd rather see that money go where it needs to go--to people who have been maimed or killed by negligent physicians.

And let's be clear about what negligence has to mean to get these awards--this is not just an oopsie=lawsuit. The physician actually has to be proved to have violated the standard of care set by the local medical community. So if physicians here in OKC don't like defensive medicine, as a rule and policy, they could stop practicing it. They'd then take a 5 to 34% hit to their bottom line according to the linked study. Our hospitals rely on "defensive medicine" to keep the doors open.

And to be clear, I wouldn't touch a medmal case with a 10-foot pole. Those cases are hugely expensive, requiring the attorney to out-of-pocket hire experts costing in the 10s of thousands, absorb many hours of attorney time, paralegal time, etc., hoping for a jury verdict. With the huge costs to get a jury to trial, lawyers are not going to take iffy cases to trial. It's a huge personal financial risk to take these on. I'll take personal injury, family and criminal law cases, I'll set up LLCs and structure joint ventures for small businesses. I'll never go near a medmal case.---Fine but lets join most of the rest of the world and have the legal fees paid by the loser-----I am sure you are all for that

pphilfran

7/4/2012, 08:43 AM

---Fine but lets join most of the rest of the world and have the legal fees paid by the loser-----I am sure you are all for that

That sounds good but can be a problem in the real world...both sides would rack up charges like a school girl in the mall with an unlimited credit card....

I am not sold on the idea...

REDREX

7/4/2012, 09:12 AM

That sounds good but can be a problem in the real world...both sides would rack up charges like a school girl in the mall with an unlimited credit card....

I am not sold on the idea...-----I guess the "dirty little secret" is that it would cost lawyers money

sappstuf

7/4/2012, 09:46 AM

http://www.terrellaftermath.com/Cartoon%20Archive/July%202012%20Archive/Roberts2WebCR.jpg

Midtowner

7/4/2012, 11:13 AM

---Fine but lets join most of the rest of the world and have the legal fees paid by the loser-----I am sure you are all for that

Considering insurance companies are almost always defendants and injured people are almost always plaintiffs, loser pays is a huge net benefit to the insurance companies and can give them an unfair amount of leverage in settlement negotiations. Plaintiff's attorneys know that juries can give defense verdicts even when plaintiffs have really good cases. Having an injured person also run the risk of not only being injured, but also probably bankrupted and lose everything because they decided to pursue justice really isn't fair. Defendants are almost always multibillion dollar companies who have litigation as part of their budget and will often frivolously pursue a defense rather than pay just to try to put pressure on plaintiffs.

In theory, the English Rule sounds fine, but in this country, we have a long-standing policy that we want to have the doors to the civil justice system be open to everyone even if that results in some unjustice (mostly) for insurance companies.

Midtowner

7/4/2012, 11:18 AM

-----I guess the "dirty little secret" is that it would cost lawyers money

Wouldn't cost me a dime.

My clients, on the other hand, yes. If you deal with folks who have been injured through the negligence of others all day, you'd probably understand. I already have to tell potential clients that due to tort reform, though they have been injured and though someone is negligent, there's just no money in the case to make them whole.

I recently had a case where a municipality was operating a park with waterslides. They had pipes crudely installed at the top of slides which sprayed water onto the slides. One of the pipes had some kind of plumbing apparatus installed on the top, not marked and not plainly visible. My client was going down the slide, grabbed the bar as many folks do and his wedding ring snagged on the plumbing apparatus. It ripped his finger off.

This was very clearly a slide which had been maintained in a very negligent way. The supervisor at the park admitted liability. My client is a working man who depended on his hands for his income. He had over 200K in medical bills. Due to the fact that a few years ago, the legislature decided to cap liability awards against municipal and state defendants, the client received a $100K settlement minus our fees. Not nearly enough to cover his costs. The city waterpark? Uneffected. They just continue to pay insurance premiums and occasionally people are killed or maimed on their watch. That's the sort of "justice" you get with tort reform.

soonercruiser

7/4/2012, 11:29 AM

Considering insurance companies are almost always defendants and injured people are almost always plaintiffs, loser pays is a huge net benefit to the insurance companies and can give them an unfair amount of leverage in settlement negotiations. Plaintiff's attorneys know that juries can give defense verdicts even when plaintiffs have really good cases. Having an injured person also run the risk of not only being injured, but also probably bankrupted and lose everything because they decided to pursue justice really isn't fair. Defendants are almost always multibillion dollar companies who have litigation as part of their budget and will often frivolously pursue a defense rather than pay just to try to put pressure on plaintiffs.

In theory, the English Rule sounds fine, but in this country, we have a long-standing policy that we want to have the doors to the civil justice system be open to everyone even if that results in some unjustice (mostly) for insurance companies.

And, lawyers are always looking for "deep pockets"!
We surely wouldn't want to discourage them from looking...
:culpability:

marfacowboy

7/4/2012, 12:07 PM

I hate to break it to you but it is not a ruse....

The claim that it's malpractice suits that are driving up the cost of care and "forcing defensive medicine" absolutely is a ruse (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/). The low percentage of overall cost in healthcare attributed to litigation and insurance clearly supports what I said.

pphilfran

7/4/2012, 01:46 PM

Midtowner

7/4/2012, 03:02 PM

And, lawyers are always looking for "deep pockets"!
We surely wouldn't want to discourage them from looking...
:culpability:

Without the lawyers, hurt people get nothing and bad people get away with bad things. I'd love it if we were public servants, but that's not the system our founders, many of them lawyers, envisioned.

Midtowner

7/4/2012, 03:03 PM

You said that it added one or two percent...I bet there are a dozen items that each add one or two percent...if we ignore every item that "only" adds one or two percent we will never get costs in line...

There should be no stone left unturned when we are trying to cut the rate from 9% a year...

True, but there should always be a cost-benefit analysis. If you want to cut everything in the healthcare system that costs money, at the end of the day, you'd have nothing left.

The basic question is this--do you want people to be able to be compensated when they are killed or maimed by doctors who are negligent and not following the standard of care?

pphilfran

7/4/2012, 03:13 PM

True, but there should always be a cost-benefit analysis. If you want to cut everything in the healthcare system that costs money, at the end of the day, you'd have nothing left.

The basic question is this--do you want people to be able to be compensated when they are killed or maimed by doctors who are negligent and not following the standard of care?

It is a very complicated issue but I contend that if we were to do a quality analysis and based on the analysis we implement certain standards we could eliminate some cost and not decrease the quality of care or financially hurt those that are due compensation....

There is going to be very little low hanging fruit to pick when looking for cost reductions....

We are going to sweat blood trying to hold costs in line....

marfacowboy

7/4/2012, 04:44 PM

pphilfran

7/4/2012, 05:09 PM

To be precise, I said it's 1.5 to 2 percent of a $2 trillion total spend. The point is it's not a major driver of cost increases.

I understand that...but I would not walk away from upwards of 40 billion dollars....

Hell, every organization says it ain't me...

It ain't the lawyers
It ain't malpractice insurance
It ain't the doctors
It ain't the insurance companies
It ain't the drug companies
It ain't the high tech EQ manufactures
It ain't the insured not looking at cost
It ain't goddamn nutting according every oganization...but costs are going up at unsustainable rates

I would leave no stone unturned...

REDREX

7/4/2012, 05:16 PM

Wouldn't cost me a dime.

My clients, on the other hand, yes. If you deal with folks who have been injured through the negligence of others all day, you'd probably understand. I already have to tell potential clients that due to tort reform, though they have been injured and though someone is negligent, there's just no money in the case to make them whole.

I recently had a case where a municipality was operating a park with waterslides. They had pipes crudely installed at the top of slides which sprayed water onto the slides. One of the pipes had some kind of plumbing apparatus installed on the top, not marked and not plainly visible. My client was going down the slide, grabbed the bar as many folks do and his wedding ring snagged on the plumbing apparatus. It ripped his finger off.

This was very clearly a slide which had been maintained in a very negligent way. The supervisor at the park admitted liability. My client is a working man who depended on his hands for his income. He had over 200K in medical bills. Due to the fact that a few years ago, the legislature decided to cap liability awards against municipal and state defendants, the client received a $100K settlement minus our fees. Not nearly enough to cover his costs. The city waterpark? Uneffected. They just continue to pay insurance premiums and occasionally people are killed or maimed on their watch. That's the sort of "justice" you get with tort reform.---What were your fees----30%---40% ?----Sounds like you came out fine----Why didn't you sue the maker of the slide or the person that installed the pipes or the maker of the pumbing apparatus---Sounds like legal malpractice to me

diverdog

7/4/2012, 07:21 PM

DOH!

Tort reform in Texas has not reduced medical cost:

A new study found no evidence that health care costs in Texas dipped after a 2003 constitutional amendment limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, despite claims made to voters by some backers of tort reform.The researchers, who include University of Texas law professor Charles Silver, examined Medicare spending in Texas counties and saw no reduction in doctors' fees for seniors and disabled patients between 2002 and 2009. A 2003 voter campaign in Texas, and some congressional backers of Texas-style tort reform in every state, however, argued that capping damage awards would not onlycurb malpractice lawsuits and insurance costs for doctors, it would lower costs for patients while boosting their access to physicians.
Tort reform is a controversial topic likely to be resurrected by Republicans and doctors' groups who hoped to make it part of the 2010 federal health care law.
The researchers' findings come after a report last fall in which the Ralph Nader-founded consumer group Public Citizen said it found Medicare spending in Texas rose much faster than the national average after tort reform. Critics of that study said that tort reform leaders never promised health care spending would decline and noted that caps on damage awards brought steep drops in malpractice insurance rates for doctors and large increases in new doctors coming to Texas.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/new-study-tort-reform-has-not-reduced-health-2402096.html

soonercruiser

7/4/2012, 09:59 PM

The claim that it's malpractice suits that are driving up the cost of care and "forcing defensive medicine" absolutely is a ruse (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/). The low percentage of overall cost in healthcare attributed to litigation and insurance clearly supports what I said.

Are you an expert or provider in the healthcare industry?
If not, please prefix comments with "IMHO".

Defensive medicine, and the cost of extra tests and malpractice insurance are a signifiant part of healthcare costs.
PERIOD!

diverdog

7/4/2012, 10:07 PM

Are you an expert or provider in the healthcare industry?
If not, please prefix comments with "IMHO".

Defensive medicine, and the cost of extra tests and malpractice insurance are a signifiant part of healthcare costs.
PERIOD!

Nope. A lot of these test are ordered by physicians who are partners in testing facilities. It is called revenue enhancing motives and it generates revenues for their practices.

soonercruiser

7/4/2012, 10:08 PM

DOH!
Tort reform in Texas has not reduced medical cost:
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/new-study-tort-reform-has-not-reduced-health-2402096.html

Diver,
How's about some real comprehensive and independant research.
The Statesman, although supporting Texas Presidential candidates, supported Obama in the last general election.
Its news sources are left leaning, like publishing Paul Hrugman editorials. See Wiki.
And, from living in Texas for 10 years, I can tell you that Austin is the Liberal bastian of the state.

Austin American-StatesmanFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Format Broadsheet
Owner Cox Enterprises
Publisher Jane Williams
(as the Democratic Statesman) Headquarters 305 South Congress Avenue

The Austin American-Statesman is the major daily newspaper for Austin, the capital city of Texas. It is owned by Cox Enterprises. The newspaper places focus on issues affecting Austin and the Central Texas region.

The Statesman endorsed George W. Bush in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections[2], and Republican governor Rick Perry along with every other Republican incumbent in 2006.[citation needed] In the 2008 presidential election, however, the paper endorsed Barack Obama.[2] The Statesman also provides coverage of the Libertarian Party and Green Party matters.

The Austin American-Statesman competes with the Austin Chronicle, an alternative weekly. The paper tends to print Associated Press, New York Times, The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times international and national news, but has strong Central Texas coverage, especially in political reporting. The Statesman benefits from the culture and writing heritage of Austin. It extensively covers the music scene, especially the annual South by Southwest Music Festival. The newspaper co-sponsors various events around Austin such as the Capital 10K foot race and the Season for Caring charity campaign.

The Statesman's news website is Statesman.com and its entertainment site is Austin360.com. In addition, the Statesman partners with the St. Petersburg Times with PolitiFact Texas, a site that uncovers the truth in issues that are relevant to Texas and the Austin area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_American-Statesman

diverdog

7/4/2012, 10:16 PM

Diver,
How's about some real comprehensive and independant research.
The Statesman, although supporting Texas Presidential candidates, supported Obama in the last general election.
Its news sources are left leaning, like publishing Paul Hrugman editorials. See Wiki.
And, from living in Texas for 10 years, I can tell you that Austin is the Liberal Bastian of the state.

You are rich. Just because a paper is not conservative it does not mean they are not right.

Here is the paper. You can read it yourself.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1635882

soonercruiser

7/4/2012, 10:33 PM

The bigger question is, what has changed beside some tort reform in Texas?
How many more people are insured each year in Texas.
Changes like tort reform do not happen in a vacuum; and if you an Obama fan....take time! Maybe 8 years to see change!
What would costs have been with that reform?

Health Care Costs Will Continue to Rise: Study
NEW YORK (MainStreet) -- Whether you agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling last week on health care reform or not, there’s no doubt that health care costs are rising, and that trend won’t likely abate even as health care reform takes full effect by 2014.

According to a new study on medical costs by New York City-based Towers Watson, health care costs are rising at “double digit levels” around the world.

The Towers survey focuses on employer medical coverage costs and tracks 237 leading medical insurers in 48 countries. The survey found that the cost of employee medical benefits on a global basis is estimated to rise by 9.6% this year, compared to 9.8% in 2011, and 10.2% in 2009. Towers says that medical costs are expected to swell to double-digit figures in four of five key global regions (including the U.S.), with only Europe seeing stabilized health care cost levels.

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/family/family-health/health-care-costs-will-continue-rise-study

soonercruiser

7/4/2012, 10:35 PM

Nope. A lot of these test are ordered by physicians who are partners in testing facilities. It is called revenue enhancing motives and it generates revenues for their practices.

I didn't ask you Diver.
I know where you stand on almost everything.

soonercruiser

7/4/2012, 10:36 PM

Midtowner

7/4/2012, 10:37 PM

---What were your fees----30%---40% ?----Sounds like you came out fine----Why didn't you sue the maker of the slide or the person that installed the pipes or the maker of the pumbing apparatus---Sounds like legal malpractice to me

Yeah, this park is city installed and maintained. That was the problem. No professional would have ever left anything like this. There was no one to go to past there. We came out fine. The client didn't. We don't work for free, do you? Sometimes the only advice you can give is to take a policy limits settlement. Clients would have received nothing had they not settled or hired attorneys.

There used to be a law that when a city did something to compete in private commerce, it waived its sovereign immunity. Tort reform did away with that.

soonercruiser

7/4/2012, 10:43 PM

You are rich. Just because a paper is not conservative it does not mean they are not right.

Here is the paper. You can read it yourself.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1635882

Oh, just great!
Do you know the difference between RESEARCH findings, and an opinion paper written by an interest group???
A position paper, written by 4 LAWYERS!
Wow! Now that's an independant evaluation.
Even the writers acknowledge that numbers that they use are only estimates.
Doh!
...gonna have to do better than that.
(There are no real hard and fast data to come up with real research!)

Midtowner

7/4/2012, 10:47 PM

Jerk

7/4/2012, 11:10 PM

Liberals are figuring out what happened. Let the whaling and gnashing of teeth begin.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/03/odonnell_scotus_ruling_on_medicaid_is_most_importa nt_part.html

diverdog

7/5/2012, 03:24 AM

DUMB!
I am not rich, even by Obama's standards.

Rich= entertaining or laughable.

Were you asleep in English class?

In this cause I used it in place of entertaining.

dwarthog

7/5/2012, 07:52 AM

Well they're the problem and we need some "death panels" to deal with this issue. The money we throw at the sick and dying elderly is ridiculous.

Wow, quite the deal you progressives have worked up here for everyone.

Rape em' while their young to pay for other people healthcare and then tell em' to get lost when they're old and need some medical attention after paying into the system for their whole lives.

marfacowboy

7/5/2012, 07:53 AM

Are you an expert or provider in the healthcare industry?
If not, please prefix comments with "IMHO".

Defensive medicine, and the cost of extra tests and malpractice insurance are a signifiant part of healthcare costs.
PERIOD!

I'm not in healthcare, but as someone that's run a corporation and dealt with the costs of insuring my employees, I pay a lot of attention to it. Furthermore, I can read, and the research clearly shows litigation and malpractice insurance are not, on a percentage basis, large parts of overall health costs.
I will agree that what you're calling "defensive medicine" is a factor, but it's not because of fear of lawsuits. That's the excuse they use. The real motivator is profit.

Midtowner

7/5/2012, 08:19 AM

Doncha know it's totally rational to spend 25-35% more on a service in order to cut back on something which is only 1-2% of the overall cost?

Bourbon St Sooner

7/5/2012, 11:40 AM

The defensive medicine concept is a bunch of crap. The legal test for malpractice has a lot to do with the standard of care. The medical community determines standard of care, not lawyers. You don't win a malpractice case unless there is real malpractice. Also, the medical folks love defensive medicine--charge the patients beaucoup extra bucks for unnecessary tests and then blame the lawyers. The lawyers aren't making money off of defensive medicine, but the healthcare industry sure as hell is.

You make a good point couselor. I'm sure there's some profit motive in there. But I'm not ready to let your profession off the hook. There's a lot of hands in the health care till.

Bourbon St Sooner

7/5/2012, 11:46 AM

DOH!

Tort reform in Texas has not reduced medical cost:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/new-study-tort-reform-has-not-reduced-health-2402096.html

Aren't doctors told by the gov't what they can bill for procedures under Medicare? Why would you expect the amounts billed by doctors to go down? Do you think doctors are going to bill less than they are allowed to bill under the law? It sounds to me like some ****ty research meant to come to a predetermined outcome.

In the last paragraph, it states that malpractice insurance in the state has fallen since the reform. So it sounds to me like it worked.

Midtowner

7/5/2012, 12:52 PM

Aren't doctors told by the gov't what they can bill for procedures under Medicare? Why would you expect the amounts billed by doctors to go down? Do you think doctors are going to bill less than they are allowed to bill under the law? It sounds to me like some ****ty research meant to come to a predetermined outcome.

In the last paragraph, it states that malpractice insurance in the state has fallen since the reform. So it sounds to me like it worked.

That's not what the last paragraph says.

That said, what the Statesman editorial says is that the docs who were doing all of those defensive medicine procedures prior to tort reform kept on doing 'em after. Maybe some evidence that lawyers were a convenient scapegoat to docs who are basically using us as an excuse to commit Medicare fraud?

pphilfran

7/5/2012, 01:28 PM

pphilfran

7/5/2012, 01:29 PM

Everybody has their 1 or 2%....but 1 or 2% ain't chit, even if it is 40 billion dollars...

pphilfran

7/5/2012, 01:38 PM

okie52

7/5/2012, 01:49 PM

I am pizzed at damn near everyone of you....

We have outlandish health care costs...rate of increase will decimate the economy within 20 years if it is not curtailed....but with a flick of the wrist and snap of the fingers we are ready to eliminate an item that could result in some cost relief....

Honestly, if we don't get the rate of increase in control we will watch our disposable income slowly disappear...

There should be no sacred cows....

Which is why I have wondered why we are trying to reinvent the wheel. If Europe, Australia, Canada, et al have healthcare that is half of our cost then why don't we embrace it without any major deviations? I like the idea of basic coverage for all with the option to buy better and/or more convenient coverage while the country drops its rate in half. Now the insurance companies are going to squawk because they are going to be pushed aside except for supplemental insurance and the trial lawyers are going to scream because there will be tort reform and loser pays but it seems like the only pragmatic way to go.

Right now I see little cost containment in Obamacare.

pphilfran

7/5/2012, 01:51 PM

Which is why I have wondered why we are trying to reinvent the wheel. If Europe, Australia, Canada, et al have healthcare that is half of our cost then why don't we embrace it without any major deviations? I like the idea of basic coverage for all with the option to buy better and/or more convenient coverage while the country drops its rate in half. Now the insurance companies are going to squawk because they are going to be pushed aside except for supplemental insurance and the trial lawyers are going to scream because there will be tort reform and loser pays but it seems like the only pragmatic way to go.

Right now I see little cost containment in Obamacare.

It would be a nightmare but the whole mess needs to be deep sixed...

marfacowboy

7/5/2012, 02:39 PM

Aren't doctors told by the gov't what they can bill for procedures under Medicare? Why would you expect the amounts billed by doctors to go down? Do you think doctors are going to bill less than they are allowed to bill under the law? It sounds to me like some ****ty research meant to come to a predetermined outcome.

Again, as I understand it, Medicare gets its guidance for fees from the AMA and other medical societies. "The AMA sponsors the Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee, a private group of physicians which largely determine how to value physician labor in Medicare prices." This also works in conjunction with some outfit called CMS, that I believe is a government agency. I suppose they take the AMA data, combine it with other data and then decide exactly what the government will pay for what. I believe they come out with something called "Revenue Value Units" what they pay is based on the number of RVU's. As a private practitioner, you'd start there and then add in your own costs to create your fee schedule.

marfacowboy

7/5/2012, 02:44 PM

Bourbon St Sooner

7/5/2012, 04:34 PM

That's not what the last paragraph says.

That said, what the Statesman editorial says is that the docs who were doing all of those defensive medicine procedures prior to tort reform kept on doing 'em after. Maybe some evidence that lawyers were a convenient scapegoat to docs who are basically using us as an excuse to commit Medicare fraud?

OK. I read this again and it says the study looked into doctors' fees. A fee is the rate you bill for a service. Maybe my reading comprehension doesn't match up with horn. They are superior edumacatedly.

The researchers, who include University of Texas law professor Charles Silver, examined Medicare spending in Texas counties and saw no reduction in doctors' fees for seniors and disabled patients between 2002 and 2009.

Midtowner

7/5/2012, 06:51 PM

OK. I read this again and it says the study looked into doctors' fees. A fee is the rate you bill for a service. Maybe my reading comprehension doesn't match up with horn. They are superior edumacatedly.

No increase in fees between '02 and '09 means no benefit to the patient in costs via tort reform.

cleller

7/6/2012, 03:33 PM

Curious about how doctor's fees will be handled under the new plan? That's all covered by the new Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), which is maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. As mentioned in the WSJ:

Here's the Centers' own description of what PQRS does: "The program provides an incentive payment to practices with eligible professionals (identified on claims by their individual National Provider Identifier [NPI] and Tax Identification Number [TIN]) who satisfactorily report data on quality measures for covered Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) services furnished to Medicare Part B Fee-for-Service (FFS)."

What could be simpler?

soonercruiser

7/7/2012, 12:28 AM

Texas has the lowest rate of insurance coverage in the United States.

Duh!
The point of the paper you linked was to somehow proved that the Texas law didn't decrease healthcare costs.
That paper is a fail on facts and conclusions.
Expect to see it in the Huffington Post soon.

soonercruiser

7/7/2012, 12:41 AM

On a related historical note with ties to Oklahoma....

"In 1929, Michael Shadid, a doctor in western Oklahoma, proposed an idea for making medical care affordable to farmers. Rather than pay piecemeal for treatments, farmers would each contribute $50 a year to a cooperative. Dr. Shadid and his colleagues would pay their own salaries and expenses with the aggregate sum, and no farmer’s annual bill for family medical care would exceed $50.

Horrified by the plan, other Oklahoma doctors tried to revoke Dr. Shadid’s license. The conflict was soon duplicated across the country; cooperatives sprang up, and the American Medical Association tried to beat them back."

His idea survived and one its off-spring is known as The Mayo Clinic.

THIS above!
AMA is no better than a public employees union.
For dentistry's part, I can tell you that the cost of precious metals, supplies, and equipment can't be kept up with.
The sales folks are convincing the new grads that they need all the fancy expensive gadgets to be competitive, that puts them farther into debt!
At the OU Health Science Center we are in pretty dire straits financially.
Some smart A** on campus figures that "such and such" is a good idea (I withhold the item to protect privacy) and everyone on campus has to comply...driving up costs! And the item sucks in quality!
I now have to do an annual review of an agreement with a local 501 (c) (3) organization! It used to be an ongoing agreement....until revised or changed. Nothing changes from year to year...just the signature dates!
But, the lawyers at the xxx office want it done now annually, taking a lot of our time and effort!

IT"S TOO DANG MUCH USELESS GOVERNANCE AND LAWYER BUSY WORK!
With no benefit to the patients!

marfacowboy

7/8/2012, 08:11 AM

pphilfran

7/8/2012, 08:59 AM

A recent a related story (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Okla-leaders-still-mulling-federal-health-care-3690378.php) about developments in Oklahoma.
So, Doug Cox sees first hand how many of our poor are cared for today: in ER's, where the costs are passed on to us. He acknowledges it would be better if everyone was covered, but he doesn't think he should have to pay for it. Well, who is going to pay for it?
I think this really cuts to the core of the issue. One, we acknowledge we have a responsibility to provide medical care for the needy or we don't. Then, it's how do we pay for it. As we are today, via costs passed on to us via the healthcare system, or as tax payers.

I disagree in that we have a responsibility to supply medicare to the needy...

I think we have a responsibility to supply the schooling, training, and job skills to the needy so we make them a benefit to society instead of a drag...

Your thoughts lead us to future entitlements and debt and does little to nothing to actually solve the problem...

marfacowboy

7/8/2012, 09:13 AM

I disagree in that we have a responsibility to supply medicare to the needy...

I think we have a responsibility to supply the schooling, training, and job skills to the needy so we make them a benefit to society instead of a drag...

Your thoughts lead us to future entitlements and debt and does little to nothing to actually solve the problem...

So, if an uninsured 18 year old girl walks into an ER with a breech delivery, we should just let her die in the parking lot? Or, if an uninsured 65 year old man walks in the ER with clear signs of a heart attack, we should also send him back out the door to die?

pphilfran

7/8/2012, 10:38 AM

So, if an uninsured 18 year old girl walks into an ER with a breech delivery, we should just let her die in the parking lot? Or, if an uninsured 65 year old man walks in the ER with clear signs of a heart attack, we should also send him back out the door to die?

I do not believe I ever said that....

Everyone should have health care....

My problem is that we are attacking the thing from the wrong side...

pphilfran

7/8/2012, 10:40 AM

There are still going to be citizens without heath care....we will still have illegals in country without health care...

How are we going to handle them when they need service?

diverdog

7/8/2012, 12:13 PM

There are still going to be citizens without heath care....we will still have illegals in country without health care...

How are we going to handle them when they need service?

Phil:

We help them right now and that is what sucks. Our cost of insurance also goes to pay for the uninsured because the hospitals build that into their cost.

LiveLaughLove

7/8/2012, 12:22 PM

We will be going to a single payer socialist plan and everyone knows it. That was the plan all along and always has been. As soon as ObamaCare became law the far left immediately began crying for it and that ObamaCare didn't go far enough.

The Dems will be able to show that ObamaCare is "broken" and the only fix is more government care. They break it, they and the media say only they can fix it, the Republicans don't have the cajones to take it away, and so they ineptly try to "slow" it's growth while claiming to be Conservatives, and it will be passed, and that's what we will have. It is a fait accompli, now that the SC has given the government the legal right to tax as it sees fit for any reason.

The masses will cheer this newest nanny state give away, and that will be that.

diverdog

7/8/2012, 12:25 PM

Sooner5030

7/8/2012, 12:32 PM

single payer as in government-paid care or government provided care?

I'd prefer a government provided baseline program in order to ration the care, provide doctors with some sort of qualified immunity, and bid for material/services on a national level.

If it's just government-paid care then I say hell no. That's just a windfall for the medical/pharma industrial complex.

marfacowboy

7/8/2012, 12:38 PM

I do not believe I ever said that....

Everyone should have health care....

My problem is that we are attacking the thing from the wrong side...

Actually, that's precisely what you said or the real consequence of what you said when you stated "I disagree in that we have a responsibility to supply medicare to the needy..."
Those are two examples of people in need. How do you propose we help those people? Continued course? Medicare for all? Obamacare?

marfacowboy

7/8/2012, 12:40 PM

The masses will cheer this newest nanny state give away, and that will be that.

What's your plan?

pphilfran

7/8/2012, 12:46 PM

Actually, that's precisely what you said or the real consequence of what you said when you stated "I disagree in that we have a responsibility to supply medicare to the needy..."
Those are two examples of people in need. How do you propose we help those people? Continued course? Medicare for all? Obamacare?

Swiss system

LiveLaughLove

7/8/2012, 12:55 PM

What's your plan?

I've stated it before, so not repeating it all here. Suffice to say, I am a capitalist not a socialist. I do not see a single thing the government does better than free enterprise, and this will be no exception. Health care will become worse in America. Far worse.

My plan would be massive deregulation, doctors that post their prices and advertise and compete for your business just as any other business. The best would demand the highest prices, the newest would be the cheapest. Up to you whom you choose to do business with. Charities would handle the poor just as they did for centuries around the world. The charities would be given more money by those of us fortunate's that truly do care about them, not these lip service limousine liberals that pretend to, but are really just after voting power.

I paid cash for my daughters birth, $650 in 1992. Had a paid through insurance the charge was $1950, I saw the bill. I freaked a little and the girl told me that was what they charge insurance, not cash customers. That would stop completely under a truly free enterprise system, and costs would all lower to reflect it.

It will never happen, because the government has systematically taken away almost all charities power where they see a power grab for themselves can be had. They won't deregulate anything, ever, in any industry. You people that can only see the government as the solution...well, I won't say what I think about that type of thinking, but I don't think much of it. The world has tried it time and again and it never works.

Our health care especially for the elderly is about to get bad, real bad. When people become too big of a drain, they will be denied aid without being told they are being denied aid. So we will cover ALL, but we will really not. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The action of covering all (through government) will have consequences that a lot of us will not like. But hey, it gets votes.

pphilfran

7/8/2012, 12:59 PM

Sooner5030

7/8/2012, 01:00 PM

I've stated it before, so not repeating it all here. Suffice to say, I am a capitalist not a socialist. I do not see a single thing the government does better than free enterprise, and this will be no exception. Health care will become worse in America. Far worse.

My plan would be massive deregulation, doctors that post their prices and advertise and compete for your business just as any other business. The best would demand the highest prices, the newest would be the cheapest. Up to you whom you choose to do business with. Charities would handle the poor just as they did for centuries around the world. The charities would be given more money by those of us fortunate's that truly do care about them, not these lip service limousine liberals that pretend to, but are really just after voting power.

I paid cash for my daughters birth, $650 in 1992. Had a paid through insurance the charge was $1950, I saw the bill. I freaked a little and the girl told me that was what they charge insurance, not cash customers. That would stop completely under a truly free enterprise system, and costs would all lower to reflect it.

It will never happen, because the government has systematically taken away almost all charities power where they see a power grab for themselves can be had. They won't deregulate anything, ever, in any industry. You people that can only see the government as the solution...well, I won't say what I think about that type of thinking, but I don't think much of it. The world has tried it time and again and it never works.

Our health care especially for the elderly is about to get bad, real bad. When people become too big of a drain, they will be denied aid without being told they are being denied aid. So we will cover ALL, but we will really not. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The action of covering all (through government) will have consequences that a lot of us will not like. But hey, it gets votes.

the only flaw in this is that acute care does not provide conditions that will allow purely competitive markets. If I have a stroke, heart attack, compound fracture I do not have the ability to shop for lower prices. In fact I probably wont even have the capacity to enter into a price agreement.

Free market only works for insurance, routine and preventive care.

LiveLaughLove

7/8/2012, 01:06 PM

the only flaw in this is that acute care does not provide conditions that will allow purely competitive markets. If I have a stroke, heart attack, compound fracture I do not have the ability to shop for lower prices. In fact I probably wont even have the capacity to enter into a price agreement.

Free market only works for insurance, routine and preventive care.

True you can't at the time, but that's a small percentage of health costs usually. I would think you could set up agreements with hospitals, doctors on advance. Of course, costs would or could accrue as different things are needed to be done. Still it would be better to work on that aspect than to just throw our hands up and turn our lives over to a big government. That is the very last option for me. Every time.

LiveLaughLove

7/8/2012, 01:12 PM

It is a great thing to shoot for...but if we don't spend the majority of our money on giving the needy the skills to support themselves then we are headed for further financial heartache...

The problem is not the needy being uninsured....the problem is the needy are needy and most have no plan or idea on how to fight their way out...

I also place some of the blame on our education system....I would scrap it also...after 6th or 7th grade you either move on into the current professional education system or move into a more skill driven type school...Vo Tech...

I would scrap our current health care system and implement the Swiss system
I would scrap our current education system and implement something like Germany

I don't know anything about Germany or the Swiss' systems, but I am for scrapping both of those systems you named. Why our schools don't actually teach you how to do make money for yourself is beyond me. Maybe, because teachers don't have a clue about it themselves. I don't know. But it drives me crazy that we never learned anything about being entrepreneurs in HS. and very limited vocational schooling (woodshop and Ag was it for us). We were taught nothing about finance and how credit and interest rates worked. In other words, if we weren't going to college, we were not prepared to fend for ourselves in the real world.

pphilfran

7/8/2012, 01:19 PM

Swiss system has everyone insured with a basic catastrophic package...

The basic package must be supplied by all insurance companies offering coverage...

One stop shopping...easy to compare different insurance companies..

No profit can be made on the basic package...

Profits are made on upgrades...private room...lower deductible....

Germany
At age 10 you have several different options of school...Vo Tech type training or college prep...and I think a couple of variations on each...

okie52

7/8/2012, 01:54 PM

Curly Bill

7/9/2012, 03:04 AM

Curly Bill

7/9/2012, 03:07 AM

marfacowboy

7/9/2012, 07:20 AM

I've stated it before, so not repeating it all here. Suffice to say, I am a capitalist not a socialist. I do not see a single thing the government does better than free enterprise, and this will be no exception. Health care will become worse in America. Far worse.

I take it, then, you'd like to privatize the military, police and fire protection. Privatize everything. You'd love to get rid of regulation so we could grow a few more Standard Oils and have more Coeur d'Alene's on our hands.
(Police and firemen...watch these folks, because they're all about destroying your union...if you vote for Republicans, you're cutting your own throat.)

My plan would be massive deregulation, doctors that post their prices and advertise and compete for your business just as any other business. The best would demand the highest prices, the newest would be the cheapest. Up to you whom you choose to do business with. Charities would handle the poor just as they did for centuries around the world. The charities would be given more money by those of us fortunate's that truly do care about them, not these lip service limousine liberals that pretend to, but are really just after voting power.

I appreciate the response. Most won't even attempt it, so I respect you for offering your plan.
You think physicians will go for this? They don't even want you asking questions about medicine, much less shopping for docs based on price. I know a lot of top docs that won't even accept cash customers.

Our health care especially for the elderly is about to get bad, real bad. When people become too big of a drain, they will be denied aid without being told they are being denied aid. So we will cover ALL, but we will really not. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The action of covering all (through government) will have consequences that a lot of us will not like. But hey, it gets votes.

This is happening now. You think the elderly and the poor will fare better in a completely deregulated capitalist free for all? Capitalism is about one thing. Returning shareholder value. It's not about compassion, caring for the poor or charity.

marfacowboy

7/9/2012, 07:25 AM

Swiss system

Conservatives will never go for it, because of the price controls. It's similar to Obamacare in that it forces you to purchase private coverage, so conservatives will nix that, as well.

marfacowboy

7/9/2012, 07:32 AM

I don't know anything about Germany or the Swiss' systems, but I am for scrapping both of those systems you named. Why our schools don't actually teach you how to do make money for yourself is beyond me. Maybe, because teachers don't have a clue about it themselves. I don't know. But it drives me crazy that we never learned anything about being entrepreneurs in HS. and very limited vocational schooling (woodshop and Ag was it for us). We were taught nothing about finance and how credit and interest rates worked. In other words, if we weren't going to college, we were not prepared to fend for ourselves in the real world.

The purpose of "school" is not to "teach you how to make money." The purpose of education is to prepare you for life. To develop critical thinking skills across a wide variety of subjects.
If anything, I think we need to get back to more classical educational models. Latin, History, sciences, math, literature. You need a liberal arts education so you can understand how the world really works. Especially if you're going to be a CEO. You need a broader educational base than what you get in a business school. You'll end up on a lot of non-profit boards (art museums) and at cocktail parties where well educated people willbe discussing a wide variety of topics. You don't want to stand there simply nodding your head acting like you know what the hell they're talking about.
The recently retired CEO of IBM had a degree in History.

marfacowboy

7/9/2012, 07:35 AM

...and high schools these days aren't geared to getting students ready for the real world either. They're geared to getting students ready for college, and it doesn't matter if the kid is in the National Honor Society, or if they can't even read, it's all about getting them into college.

Our high schools are among the most PC, narrow minded, and misdirected places on the face of the earth.

We agree on something. Wow.
Too many high schools are doing little more than producing little test takers. I'd say many are not prepared very well for college, and in athletics, they're basically "walked" through the system with other kids taking notes for them and constant "tutoring." Many of them major in BS degree programs designed especially for athletes. They couldn't write a cogent paragraph, by themselves, if their lives depended on it.