Obamacare and the Supreme Court

[PaloAltoCougar]

...
I'm guessing that most of the people on this board are net losers with respect to their health care benefits (i.e. you're "paying" more than you're getting).

My wife and I pay about $14,000/year for insurance, and have each averaged 1.5 doctor visits/year, all routine. While I'd like to pay less, there were many years in which I probably received more than I paid (lots of sinus procedures and a badly broken arm, not to mention six babies) so I'm not all that resentful. Plus if Mrs. PAC makes good on her threat to sideswipe me on one of our downhill runs, I'm getting it all back.

[byu71]

I'm guessing that you're asking for more detail than the sentence following?

Essentially, the recipient of benefits bears doesn't directly bear the costs, which is a terrible model for economic decision making. Of course you're going to want the MRI of your sore knee--it's free!

Of course you are right or the insurance companies would be broke. Even with all the costs I am accumulating the last couple of years, I know I have paid in far more than I will get back, knock on wood.

Insurance is for that big hit you don't see coming, especially when you are younger.

[ERCougar]

Of course you are right or the insurance companies would be broke. Even with all the costs I am accumulating the last couple of years, I know I have paid in far more than I will get back, knock on wood.

Insurance is for that big hit you don't see coming, especially when you are younger.

Yes, you expect to lose a little money in the "insurance" market. Really though, that's not a loss, but more of a purchase of security.

In the bundled medical care world (the Cadillac plan) however, I would guess that most would be surprised at just how much they're paying for the privilege of bundling their medical care. That's probably how I should have worded things.

[Uncle Ted]

Why are they so bad for health care costs?

Because they raise the cost of health care for everyone...

[YOUTUBE]3WnS96NVlMI[/YOUTUBE]

They are really pre-paid health care rather than health insurance.

[venkman]

So basically Obama got to Roberts. you know, those comments about the Supreme Court having no business striking down the law.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...in;contentBody

Seems pretty clear he doesn't actually think the law is constitutional, but he caved to external pressure and/or was worried about his and the court's image. So instead of doing his job to protect and defend the constitution he sided with the leftist hacks and saved the law using an incredibly strained "the penalty is actually a tax" argument.

Thanks alot, dick.

On the flip side, I've really come around to this Kennedy dude.

Roberts had begun to focus on a different argument to uphold the law and the mandate's penalty by defining it as a tax. That strained argument had received almost no attention in the lower courts, which had uniformly rejected it. It was seen as a long-shot by the law's supporters.

[TripletDaddy]

Seems pretty clear he doesn't actually think the law is constitutional, but he caved to external pressure and/or was worried about his and the court's image.

This decision has helped his/the court's image?

[venkman]

This decision has helped his/the court's image?

I think he thought it would. And with liberals, the mainstream media, and Washington elite, yes it has. With a significant portion of the population, perhaps a majority, no. Maybe there will be enough backlash that in the future he doesn't worry about his legacy and focuses on what he has control over, ie. making correct legal decisions.

[LA Ute]

Boehner pushes repeal, wants health law ‘ripped out by its roots’

[dabrockster]

So basically Obama got to Roberts. you know, those comments about the Supreme Court having no business striking down the law.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...in;contentBody

Seems pretty clear he doesn't actually think the law is constitutional, but he caved to external pressure and/or was worried about his and the court's image. So instead of doing his job to protect and defend the constitution he sided with the leftist hacks and saved the law using an incredibly strained "the penalty is actually a tax" argument.

Thanks alot, dick.

On the flip side, I've really come around to this Kennedy dude.

Interesting article.. Thoroughly enjoyed it.. Although his caving in is irritating on so many levels...

[Indy Coug]

Interesting article.. Thoroughly enjoyed it.. Although his caving in is irritating on so many levels...

I think the likelihood of the SCOTUS throwing out the law in its entirety was minimal. Given that, it was still going to require an election to begin to set things right even if Roberts hadn't caved in.

[Goatnapper'96]

I think the likelihood of the SCOTUS throwing out the law in its entirety was minimal. Given that, it was still going to require an election to begin to set things right even if Roberts hadn't caved in.

I agree with this and also think that what Roberts did was not such a bad idea. IMO, had the Congress and President had the guts to call it a tax it never would have been a Constitutional issue in the first place. What Roberts did was actually be an adult, perhaps the only one we know of. Now the Democrats can deal with it as it is and suddenly their messaging will make it popular. Ideologically, I would have preffered Roberts shot it down but IMO I struggle to view what he did as not the right thing. There is something to be said for finding constitutional arguments in support of passed legislation.

I don't think he caved and I doubt I will ever even read any articles indicating a great switcheroo. I think he believes the Court should seek to uphold laws passed through the legislative process if a legitimate course appears. I appreciate that he called the entire process what it really was. Government taxing its people to provide a service. If the people don't like it there is a clear way to end it.

[venkman]

I agree with this and also think that what Roberts did was not such a bad idea. IMO, had the Congress and President had the guts to call it a tax it never would have been a Constitutional issue in the first place. What Roberts did was actually be an adult, perhaps the only one we know of. Now the Democrats can deal with it as it is and suddenly their messaging will make it popular. Ideologically, I would have preffered Roberts shot it down but IMO I struggle to view what he did as not the right thing. There is something to be said for finding constitutional arguments in support of passed legislation.

I don't think he caved and I doubt I will ever even read any articles indicating a great switcheroo. I think he believes the Court should seek to uphold laws passed through the legislative process if a legitimate course appears. I appreciate that he called the entire process what it really was. Government taxing its people to provide a service. If the people don't like it there is a clear way to end it.

The government isn't providing a service. It's punishing you for not buying a service from a private entity. Even Roberts admits the mandate as a tax isn't the best interpretation, merely a somewhat possible interpretation. His decision was based more on politics than the law, IMO.

[calicoug]

I think the likelihood of the SCOTUS throwing out the law in its entirety was minimal. Given that, it was still going to require an election to begin to set things right even if Roberts hadn't caved in.

That's what I would have thought too, but I'm blown away the idea of nullifying the entire law carried 4 votes with only the Chief Justice keeping it from becoming reality.

I think the dissent will be one of the least respected legal opinions of the Court in the last 20 years.

[calicoug]

I agree with this and also think that what Roberts did was not such a bad idea. IMO, had the Congress and President had the guts to call it a tax it never would have been a Constitutional issue in the first place. What Roberts did was actually be an adult, perhaps the only one we know of. Now the Democrats can deal with it as it is and suddenly their messaging will make it popular. Ideologically, I would have preffered Roberts shot it down but IMO I struggle to view what he did as not the right thing. There is something to be said for finding constitutional arguments in support of passed legislation.

I don't think he caved and I doubt I will ever even read any articles indicating a great switcheroo. I think he believes the Court should seek to uphold laws passed through the legislative process if a legitimate course appears. I appreciate that he called the entire process what it really was. Government taxing its people to provide a service. If the people don't like it there is a clear way to end it.

Very well said.

[All-American]

That's what I would have thought too, but I'm blown away the idea of nullifying the entire law carried 4 votes with only the Chief Justice keeping it from becoming reality.

I think the dissent will be one of the least respected legal opinions of the Court in the last 20 years.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html/