Friday, June 29, 2012

Supreme Agony, Statist Ecstasy

I do not agree with Chief Justice John Roberts' decision.  It explodes government's taxation powers.  I side with the dissenting minority, so this is an explanation, not a justification.

Democrats are right. The Supreme Court is political. It's complex interrelationship with the other branches always has been, going all the way back to President Andrew Jackson’s famous quote defying a Supreme Court decision: “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!”

The Supreme Court tore up FDR in the early days of his creating alphabet soup agencies. But the public began to perceive them as obstructionist in a time where the federal government needed latitude, so they softened their stance to guard their power. Later, President Roosevelt would overreach, threatening to pack the court. The public rejected that as well, and thus continued the political balancing act.

The result was a continued expansion of federal power that was begun at the start of the progressive era.

Chief Justice Roberts Saved the Day

In a feat of cowardly political and legal jujitsu, Chief Justice John Roberts made a political calculation, joining with the liberal justices to avoid a five alarm political firestorm in an election year. This kicks the issue back into the political arena where it belongs. Being on the winning side, he got to write the majority opinion and shape it, carving the precedent as narrowly as possible.

He allowed Obamacare to stand while simultaneously checking an expansion of federal power under the commerce clause.

Roberts apparently found the two other likely outcomes too earth-shattering

Striking it down completely could have set a precedent that government does not have the power to tax us in this way, setting the stage for the destruction of Social Security and Medicare, which are funded by mandatory taxation.

Small government conservatives like me thrill at the prospect, but suddenly shattering a model that tens of millions depend on is not the smart way to do something, and such radical remedies are not conservative.

Commerce Clause expansion was the argument upon which opponents hung their opposition.  The other outcome he avoided was allowing government to claim it had this authority under the commerce clause. That would have been catastrophic, essentially declaring that there is nothing the federal government may not do if it posits an appropriate pretext.

He ingeniously rejected the notion that this was permissible under the commerce clause, thereby saving us from another expansion of this already gargantuan federal government permission slip. It was also a stroke of genius to declare this as falling under the federal government’s already-established taxation power.

This decision sets no precedent

Government already and still does have too much power, but this did not grant it any new ones. There is no precedent here, no new rights created.  What the ruling does do is egregiously expand government's taxation powers. The government can tax what it wants when it wants to, and that is the bucket the Chief Justice has dumped Obamacare into.

They won’t force you to eat your arugula or put solar panels on your roof, they will just tax you punitively if you don’t. Could we end up being taxed by the pound? Why not? This opens the way for Bloombergian taxation of all kind of stuff that’s bad for you: Fatty meats, cheesecake, ice cream…

But the power was already there. Has been for a hundred years, it is just metastasizing now.

Elections have consequences. The final vote on Obamacare will be this November.

Bonus Material:
Market-based Alternatives to Obamacare
Why Obamacare will fail: A Reading List
Why Obamacare is Doomed

68 comments:

Hack said...

Like one commenter wrote... "Roberts just gift wrapped and handed Romney the election."

Ivan Wolanski said...

Obamacare was passed by anti-American socialists, who bullied some moderate democrats into voting with them.
Obama has already proven himself to be an inept, inexperienced, incompetent, anti-American, socialistic, Muslim-leaning, ex-lawyer dufus.

Our Supreme Court should be slapping down the idiotic legislation passed by clueless democrats and signed by an equally clueless inept President Obama.
The court is made of cowards, afraid of doing what they swore to uphold.
And there is corruption in government because the so called Progressive American people have allowed it!
I did something that I had never done before in my life, I donated $25.00 ( that was just about all I am able to afford) to Mitt Romney’s campaign. Today alone donations to Mitt Romney’s campaign have exceeded over 3 million. How much did Zipo raise today?
And by the way, didn’t the President lie once again this time to his OWN party and to Independents and Republicans and Libertarians when he said the Mandate wasn't a tax. Obama lies, again!
The economy is going to plummet as will the Stock Market, and jobless rates will skyrocket.. The American people overwhelming oppose Obamacare. And now more than ever before it is time for the American people to wise up and take our government back from this socialist with a Muslim name who hates his own country!
Lets hope that Mitt Romney is wise enough to see this as a gift, and use it to energize our base!
It is up to us folks to keep this alive in the next four months before the election.
You know damn well that the Democrats will do everything in their power to dredge up all kinds of scandals, and other issues to deflect our attention, it doesn’t even matter if they are true or not,--they may even come up with another Congressman Weiner if that's what it takes to refocus the media and they can't find something juicy enough on Romney. I don't trust them as far as I cant throw them.

Always On Watch said...

The individual mandate, now termed a "tax," allows the federal government to TAX AN INDIVIDUAL for what that individual does not do.

Maybe that isn't a precedent. However, on only one cup of coffee, I cannot think of another law that does such a thing to an individual.

Please help me out on that. Thanks in advance.

Silverfiddle said...

AOW: Your read is spot on. I cannot help you. There is no boundary to government's taxing powers now.

Our consolation is that this does not mean government MUST tax, it just allows it, putting it back in the political arena.

Chateau Robert said...

Wait a minute..Wait a minute. I don't want to hear any nonsense about Roberts intentionally motivating the electorate . Lets not be so gullible!
He should have shot this thing down like the other conservative Justices did and wiped that smirk off of Obama's face. But instead, he voted with liberals.
This jerk, Roberts had the opportunity to utterly destroy OBAMACARE (even Obama said the Individual Mandate was not a tax) but Roberts ducked. He passed. Folks, there is no guarantee that the law can be repealed this year, next year, or any year. No mistake about it, Roberts had the opportunity to kill that snake but he pussied out

Silverfiddle said...

Wait a minute..Wait a minute. I don't want to hear any nonsense about Roberts intentionally motivating the electorate

OK. You won't hear that here. I never said any such thing.

Perhaps your argument is with someone else and you got confused?

conservativesonfire said...

Obamcare is not a tax. I defy anyone to find the word "tax" on any of the over 2000 paes of the act. Yet in every tax bill ever written, you will find the word "tax". What Roberts did was judicial activism of the worse kind. He betrayed America and the constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to be one of the checks and balances designed into the constitution. Ther is no up side to what Roberts did, in my opinion.

Ducky's here said...

I got up this morning, had some coffee, juice and a goat cheese omelet, downloaded my podcasts. It's a nice sunny day and I couldn't find Armageddon anywhere.

Chateau Robert said...

Silverfiddle said...
Wait a minute..Wait a minute. I don't want to hear any nonsense about Roberts intentionally motivating the electorate
OK. You won't hear that here. I never said any such thing.
Perhaps your argument is with someone else and you got confused?



Sorry SF, perhaps I wasn't clear, I was just generalizing, I know that you never said such a thing..

Silverfiddle said...

It's OK, Robert. Everybody's worked up. This was not a good decision, but We The People will have the final say.

Rational Nation USA said...

Silver, well written and thoughtout post. It was not an ideal decision, nor was it a particularly bad one.

Z said...

SF...Robert wasn't too far off; your piece did make me feel you thought some of Roberts' actions were Machiavellian and made sense somehow.... I kind of hoped you meant that, to tell you the truth.

The more I read and see, the more I know Roberts did something I think even he's regretting now. I like to think so, anyway. But, look what he's done. What a terrible monster he's awakened in our country. I personally don't think it will be undone.

Poor Ducky sounds like he expected trouble this morning. Ducky, you'll know when it hits you.

Silverfiddle said...

Roberts was being Machiavellian, but for the benefit of himself and the court, not to get Romney elected or any of that other wild speculation.

Finntann said...

@I got up this morning, had some coffee, juice and a goat cheese omelet.

Ducky, didn't you hear? The cattleman's association got a bill passed and we're now taxing people who don't eat meat.

On the plus side, since the Supremes just ruled a fine is a tax... I guess I get to deduct my speeding tickets now.

Cheers!

Ducky's here said...

No, z, it's a small step towards comprehensive reform.
Not a good law but going back to square one would have been worse.

We push on, the struggle is eternal.

Dave Miller said...

SF... if we repeal this law, as many in the GOP advocate, what plans do they have to deal with the problem.

Apart from Not ObamaCare, I've heard few, if any suggestions as to how we might go about getting health insurance into the hands of people with pre-existing conditions and people without means...

Any suggestions?

The current GOP Standard bearer has said he wants to replace ObamaCare, and that he now does not see his Mass. program as a model for our country, so what could we expect from the GOP/COnservative side for the Replace side of their slogan?

Dave Miller said...

Ivan, do you respond to specific posts, or do you just copy and paste the same response on every blog you visit?

KP said...

SF, I second RN's post. Very well written article. It sure was an interesting day and there are many more ahead.

Dave, best wishes on trip south of the border.

Always On Watch said...

It looks as if the Dems know that the mandate-is-really-a-tax ruling is not in their favor.

KP said...

"Now let him enforce it!"

I find it unrealisitic when it comes to enforcing Obamacare. Consider the scale of the communication tasks: the Dept of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, the IRS, insurance companies and state exchanges. For 310 million Americans they have to determine who is legally elligible, what everyone's income is, whether they are insured, delivered in advance to a state exchange then to a specific insurance company. This will be very challenging and I don't see it working smoothly.

Having said, I wonder how many Americans have dealt with the IRS in an up close and personal way. I have, and I can tell you they can do anything they want, and do. Don't mess with the IRS if you choose not to get healthcare. Pay the tax.

Bunkerville said...

Well, sf, it's great if you like playing Russian roulette. I myself do not have a taste for it. Hoping, thinking we will get to 60 senators is a bit on the wishful thinking side. Of course if we have Romney in the bag we can sleep like a baby. Those death panels, rationing is something I will not stake my life on all to make the supreme court look non political.

KP said...

@Bunkerville

I was under the impression the bill was passed under reconciliation and only required 51 votes. It got 56. If I am correct I think it can be repealed under reconciliation with only 51 votes.

Ivan Wolanski said...

Lets face it Libs... Obama isn't quite what anyone had expected, The people who voted for "hope" and "change" are getting very little of either and the little that they are getting is not the "hope" and "change" that they hoped for. Bad ideas, bad decisions and poor judgment, as we are seeing in the headlines day after day the entire Obama team is incompetent, and corrupt. .Even Harry Reid would be ashamed of him, were he alive today!
I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would want to re-elect a President who lied to his constituents, be them Liberals, Independents, or Democrats and especially Republicans and Libertarians when he said the Mandate was NOT a tax.
Wake up and smell the coffee AMERICA, lets get these corrupt thugs out of power. What kind of idiots would you have to be to love Obama and want to be taxed to the hilt?
And Dave Miller: why do you think I have to answer to you? Who do you think you are?
You asked “do you respond to specific posts, or do you just copy and paste the same response on every blog you visit?”
Well maybe I do!
When I respond to a comment, I do so because I would like to know that persons point of view, I already know your slanted and bias opinion.
Good Luck on your trip south of the border. Don’t drink the water. And don’t come back via Arizona, they may not let you in!

MrTonyGramps said...

It's a tax, it's not a tax! You can spin it anyway you want and these socialist’s are doing jut that.
The fact is, it IS a tax and now the feds have unlimited power to tax you for anything. Now there is NO LIMIT to this "taxing" power.
All I can say now is Mr. Roberts, you made your deal with the Devil, now go and enjoy the destruction to America you accomplished .
Hear that roar? It’s the sound of millions of illegal’s currently here and another 30 million that will coming from overseas running, crawling, walking, flying and swimming to the nearest US hospital or clinic to get their newly found medical care...... all paid for by the US workers and taxpayer of course! Thanks Mr. Roberts... at least you saved the image of the court from being tarnished!.

Ducky's here said...

Get the corrupt thugs out of power?

How? Vote for a party whose primary gave us:

Donald "the bouffe" Trump

Rick "Short Bus" Perry

Michele "Psycho" Bachmann and the Pray them Straight Players

Herman "Pokemon" Cain

Newt "Throw in a Salad Once in a While" Gingrich

Rick "L'il Ricky Retardo" Santorum

Mitt "Governor Olympics" Romney


Our salvation was in that flotsam and jetsam?

Chateau Robert said...

After this, the American public just ain't listening to these Progressive people anymore. The Progressive ideology is rooted with the “Ends justify the Means”. ideology.
Their goal is to turn American into a Socialist State (“Big Government plantation”). History will judge the Progressive’s Socialist agenda very harshly as they will Barack Hussein Obama. The words, Obama and honesty don't belong in the same sentence.

Kid said...

oblammycare is a government grab of a major private industry in America. 1/6th of GDP to be exact and for the sole purpose of re-routing all that insurance money through DC because the drug addicted political past and present have spent like 16 year old girls with 1,000 credit cards and have also kicked the can down the road until the road came to an end.

That's all this is. The details of the bill in practice will destroy HC in America but it's too late for them to care. They don't care. Not enough of them.

As far as obama, 99.999% of his efforts are directed at chicago style theft and re-election and additionally in his case, his Kenyan Racist loser ass Hates America. He doesn't understand it and he and they have worked with the pedal to the floor to destroy as much of America as they could in 4 years.

I have no idea what is going through Roberts mind. But you're right, he probably did hand the election to anyone but obama. If it is a gambit, I hope it pays off, or I'll send that dude a letter myself thanking him for destroying American HC and setting a precedent that government can force us to buy anything as long as they call it a tax - and let him know that I pray that he never gets another good night's sleep every again.

As far as the libs, it's not even worth trying to include them in any reasoned debate. They have the minds of brattish children and the demeanor of monkeys at the zoo, howling and throwing their feces out of the cage at the passer's by.

Jersey McJones said...

Ducky, am I rubbing off on you? That was really good.

Silver,

I was just thinking the Roberts decision is actually quite consistent with modern American conservatism. After all, if you can tax transactions between abstract contractual entities, why can't you tax someone for not doing something?

Remember when conservatives used to call that "fees?"

Sometimes I think you should read Les's blog more.

You Righties these days want to be more like Europe than you think.

JMJ

KP said...

@Dave << if we repeal this law, as many in the GOP advocate, what plans do they have to deal with the problem. >>

Policy is not my expertise -- healthcare is. Some places to begin if Obamacare were repealed:

1) address insurance portability
2) selling insurance across state lines
3) breaking up insurance company monopolies
4) cost containment
5) tort reform
6) maintaining pre-existing conditions coverage
7) maintaining young adults inclusion on family plans

Z said...

KP...the R's have addressed portability from the get-go..and selling ins. across lines..
cost containment's been #1 on their list. Oops, tort reform has!
I'm not sure about 6 and 7....HUGELY expensive is #6, but we really need to cover pre existing conditions...

thanks for your expertise; good list from someone who really knows.

Some of the better things on the Obama plan ARE the Republicans' but it doesn't get known.

Ducky, my goodness...can you post a mature comment?! :-)

Kid said...

@KP, Excellent comment. Thanks.

I'm aware of a couple things:
1) A single hospital in Texas was spending 100 mil a year just defending themselves from frivolous medical lawsuits. Not payouts, just defense retainers.
Texas passed a law clamping down on frivolous lawsuits. The next year that expense went to 2 mil. A 98% reduction! Extrapolate that across the US!
2). NPR did a somewhat flaky(surprise) review and interview of various doctors and patients and presented it as an in depth review of HC in America. Some commie friends of ours made a CD of it.
I listened to it. It was 100% "Doctors go above and beyond what is needed because they are afraid of malpractice suits." I deduced trail lawyers were suing the HC system back to the stone age, while they 'deduced' that doctors were 'profiteering'.

Lawyers are the largest single component of excessive costs of HC in America.

Ducky's here said...

I don't know, Jersey. I think the right brings out the best in us.

Ducky's here said...

KP, I believe one of the reasons selling across state lines has not been addressed is that to sell in a variety of states the insurer would have to be regulated by the least comprehensive.

Now I'm surprised you let our Galtian masters powder your ass on this one.

Jersey McJones said...

KP,

"1) address insurance portability
2) selling insurance across state lines"

Race to the bottom. Think about it, man.

"3) breaking up insurance company monopolies"

Ending the current system.

"4) cost containment"

In the AHA.

"5) tort reform"

Another way of saying, "hey, let's restrict to the right of Americans to redress in the courts." Shame on you.

"6) maintaining pre-existing conditions coverage"

"Maintaining?" You mean the old status quo???

"7) maintaining young adults inclusion on family plans"

Again???

Whatever you guys think of "Obamacare" it's a fuckin' hell of a lot better than what we had before!

JMJ

KP said...

@Ducky -- I am not going Galt, have no master (other than the IRS), have never dodged civic dutie, and have never turned away a patient due to an inability to pay in thirty years of private practice.

Having said that, I stated policy is not my expertise and you may or may not be right about selling across state lines.

I have never knowingly had my ass powdered but it doesn't sound all that bad to me!

KP said...

@JMJ -- "tort reform"

"Another way of saying,hey, let's restrict to the right of Americans to redress in the courts."

That is silly, mang. That is as silly as saying health care reform means you don't get to see a doctor or that death panels will be the result. Don't pin that shit on me. I said reform not the abolishment of redress in courts.

I have a brother is an attorney who does PI and Med-Mal. Apparently, you and I and he disagree about the need.

KP said...

@JMJ -- I spent a decade being paid by the state of California to be an unbiased expert witness to sort out med-legal cases where the plantiff and defense could not agree on an outcome. I do know something about medical legal issues.

Silverfiddle said...

Free markets work for laser eye surgery, cell phones, everything else in the world, why not health care?

For those infinitesimal percentage of cases where something catastrophic happens to someone who can't afford it, there can still be government assistance for them.

In fact, we could have covered everybody who couldn't afford it for less than what Obamacare costs.

Now, Obama has to figure out how to cover all those old people now that he's robbed half a trillion from medicare. Uh oh...

It's put up or shut up time, and the progressive model is crumbling, crushed by it's gargantuan debt...

Silverfiddle said...

Dave, I refer you to the links at the bottom.

I haven't seen a comprehensive plan from the GOP, but your question belies the Fatal Conceit of the statist left. Everything doesn't require a soviet-style centrally-planned government solution.

KP said...

@SF -

I think laser eye surgery is better compared to breast augmentation than health care. For some, glasses and push up bras are the answer.

Recall, the federal government paid out $1.6 billion last year to cover free cell phones and the monthly bills of 12.5 million wireless accounts of low income earners.

KP said...

@Ducky and JMJ --

<< I believe one of the reasons selling across state lines has not been addressed is that to sell in a variety of states the insurer would have to be regulated by the least comprehensive >>

<< Race to the bottom. Think about it, man. >>

We want to avoid least the comprehensive and race to the bottom. In my view, that is what Obamacare (and our educational system) inflicts on us. One of the major problems with addressing medicine and education for all is that we lower standards. Perhaps that is more important. If so, lets be clear there is more than one way to lower standards!

Finntann said...

@why can't you tax someone for not doing something?

JMJ...you owe me $12 for the steak I grilled that you did not eat.

Hey, I have a brilliant idea... how about a tax for not working?

beamish said...

Striking it down completely could have set a precedent that government does not have the power to tax us in this way, setting the stage for the destruction of Social Security and Medicare, which are funded by mandatory taxation.

These particular entitlement programs favored by extreme far left Stalinists like Paul Ryan and Michelle Bachmann at least penalize earning an income. Romneycare Plus penalizes inactivity. This is a novel innovation.

Small government conservatives like me thrill at the prospect, but suddenly shattering a model that tens of millions depend on is not the smart way to do something, and such radical remedies are not conservative.

Horseshit. What's not conservative is the inability to feel absurd claiming to be a "constitutionalist" while simultaneously worrying that some illegal immigrant or mendicant Baby Boomer is going to go without a handout. Such people are totally unaware of what it feels like to be right-wing. Period.

Government already and still does have too much power, but this did not grant it any new ones.

Mr. Silverfiddle, we've noticed transaction patterns in your checking account that seem to suggest you are a carbohydrate hoarder...

Leticia said...

A friend and I were discussing Robert's decision to side with the liberal judges and how he saw it made a lot of sense.

He very well knew if he voted against it that Obama would have more leverage in the upcoming election. But paved the way for those who weren't sure of backing Romney are now going to vote for him.

November is coming....

KP said...

For your loved ones: advise them to eat colors. Eat fruits, veggies, good fats and lean protein. If it had a face, or you can kill it or grow it, you can eat it. Do not skew one of the food groups over the others.

Cut out processed foods. If it is in a wrapper or box or has stickers describing what it is in it -- put it back or throw it away.

Make your plates colorful. Use plates because that means you eat real foods. Make your real foods low glycemic (Google glycemic index for more info). Basically, low glycemic is the difference between burning newspaper and oak. One flares and is turned to fat. The other is burned slowly and results in you being lean and healthy.

Or, e-mail me and I will help you avoid being part of the problem at no cost. It is part of my personal health care plan for all.

beamish said...

Get the corrupt thugs out of power?

How? Vote for a party whose primary gave us:

Donald "the bouffe" Trump


Limosuine liberal darling of the far left Tea Party

Rick "Short Bus" Perry

Al Gore campaign director, advocate of Hillarycare and the TARP wealth transfer to the Trumka cartel. Darling of the far left Tea Party.

Michele "Psycho" Bachmann and the Pray them Straight Players

Blue state welfare scam artist / tax attorney, avowed eugenicist, darling of the Tea Party and leading champion of Obamacare.

Herman "Pokemon" Cain

Rainbow PUSH coalition "affirmative action" corporate shakedown artist, darling of the far left Tea Party

Newt "Throw in a Salad Once in a While" Gingrich

Balanced the federal budget in the really real reality some 599594400 times faster than Paul Ryan's sci-fi movie. No connections to the Tea Party or whatever the perennial overtly leftist / Alinskian flash mob calls itself next.

Rick "L'il Ricky Retardo" Santorum

Not sure he was ever weird enough for the Tea Party "movement," or maybe the Satanic Protestants kept him out.

Mitt "Governor Olympics" Romney

Mr. Tea Party.

Our salvation was in that flotsam and jetsam?

Hey, Glenn Beck uncovered that Ronald Reagan was a progressive leftist Teddy Roosevelt admirer. That should count for something.

Jersey McJones said...

KP,

If "Tort Reform" is not just right-wing code speak for restricting the right of Americans to redress in the courts, then what is it? What do you mean by "Tort Reform?"

And remember, as for the race to the bottom the ACA sets minimum standards. If anything it should help to put the breaks on the race to the bottom.

This just goes to show the need for a national system. We have states out there with such pathetically minimal standards, like Texas, that their residents, on average, would be better off in some Third World countries.

FT,

I never liked the tax penalty and always questioned it. But I completely understand why Roberts supported it: I you can tax transactions between non-human entities, if you can give people write-offs and credits while not doing so for others, than why not tax the income of people who don;t do something? That's his logic. It's right-wing logic when you think about it, that's why the "mandate" had long been championed by right-wingers before Obama adapted it to the ACA. If Roberts had ruled against the tax, he would have opened to the floodgate to getting rid of the taxes that stand between the very wealthy and what their personal income taxes really should be.

JMJ

KP said...

JMJ -

On tort reform; I don’t use any code. I don’t have a political bent on this issue. I have spent three decades in the health care arena treating patients on both sides; plaintiff and defense. I have a brother doing med-mal and I have been an expert witness deciding outcome where the plaintiff and defense could not.

This is not political. You sound political. I see it as common sense as a result of my experience. Physicians don’t like Medicare cost control measures and attorneys won’t like tort reform. This is pretty straight forward. There is an element in both populations that are hurting us and driving up health care costs. We need to focus on cost containment. I am at a loss why you can’t see my point of view.

Maybe you see physicians, attorneys and patients abuse of the system as something that doesn’t exist. If that is your argument then lets here it.

As to the ACA, the race to the bottom and the need for a national system; I am open minded enough to agree with you more than you might think. I want Obamacare repealed because it is a bad bill. I am upset about the pandering to big insurance companies, I support physicians being able to practice the art of medicine and I want attorneys representing patients harmed to be able to redress the courts.

That doesn’t exclude tort reform. The days of getting everything we want is over. Damn, I know it is not true, but sometimes I feel like the only realist in the blogosphere.

Finntann said...

@than why not tax the income of people who don;t do something

You do understand the implications of that statement, and the legal implications of that ruling, don't you?

You can now be taxed for not having homeowners insurance. Even if you own your property free and clear. Not only that, but you can be forced to get homeowners insurance. No?

You can be taxed for not having a phone. Illustrated in our fire here, the added cost and expense of sheriffs and law enforcement forced to travel to notifiy people to get out.

You can be taxed for not buying an American Car. Seriously, consider the amount of money the government has thrown at GM and Chrysler... wouldn't a tax on not driving an American car make sense?

Hell, at this point you could probably make the logical and legal argument of taxing people for not spending money, after all you are negatively affecting commerce by hoarding your earnings.

Me, I have private insurance through work and Tricare through my military retirement as well. The law doesn't affect me one bit (through primary effects, the secondary effects remain to be seen).

I can honestly say that people who don't buy health insurance and then run up huge bills they can't pay contributes to the higher cost of my medical care and my insurance premiums. I can recognize that, but despite that, the law is just plain wrong. We are ceding too much power to our government, where does it end?

Cheers!

Z said...

JMJ "If "Tort Reform" is not just right-wing code speak for restricting the right of Americans to redress in the courts, then what is it? What do you mean by "Tort Reform?""

You do understand we're Americans and we and our loved ones suffer, too, right? How can we not feel people should be compensated if they've been wronged? I'm hoping you've read KP's comments; as an expert in the field, he makes a lot of sense.
You don't know anyone who's taken advantage of a health care problem where he/she got much more money than warranted? You haven't heard of insurance companies frequently finding out that people with back pain, for example, are seen secretly carrying heavy things, etc etc? That's what tort reform needs to change.... How can anybody not want that?

Ducky's here said...

Silverfiddle, I'll make a couple points once again.

1. The issue hear is HEALTH INSURANCE not health care.

2. How does your free market(LMFAO) provide competition when insurers have an antitrust exemption?
If management doesn't constantly maximize profits the stock holders will throw them out on their asses for failing their fiduciary responsibility.
Remember, the market wants profits and doesn't care what has to be done to get it. Including stealing 20-30% of the private health care dollar.

This is basically the same state of affairs that negates that asinine argument Libertarians make when they say taxes are merely passed through as price increases. If the company can just increase prices on a whim without losing share they would do it.

Jersey McJones said...

KP,

You have to spell out your "point of view" for me to understand it.

What exactly do you mean by "tort reform?"

And that get's to your problem with the ACA. Obama had two choices; a public option or a "mandate." He had no choice to go with the latter. Had he been able to go wit the public option, the modern health insurance business would be on it's way to oblivion. That's why every other developed, modern state has some sort of universal healthcare system.

JMJ

Jersey McJones said...

Oops, I should say this: The modern American healthcare insurance system is a sleazy shell game and anyone with half a mind should see it for what it is. We ALL need healthcare, we ALL live together, we ALL need to pitch in, we ALL have a COMMON interest here. And the taxes? They're a few percentage points. What's the problem here? I'd rather pay for that than a ridiculous military machine.

JMJ

Right Wing Theocrat said...

I sure hope you all show him the consequences of imposing his liberal fascist ideology on you at the next election. Nothing but a complete wipe out will send the right message.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jersey: We have states out there with such pathetically minimal standards, like Texas, that their residents, on average, would be better off in some Third World countries.

BS. You've obviously never lived in either Texas or a third-world country.

Everyone gets care in this country. As Ducky points out, this is about insurance.

And there are silly people in this world that believe that there is such a thing as free stuff just because Michelle and Barack tell them so...

Ducky: Remove the anti-trust exemptions. They are anti-free market

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: What's really asinine is people like you believing, given the history, that the federal government will do this on budget and efficiently.

FreeThinke said...

"This jerk, Roberts, had the opportunity to utterly destroy OBAMACARE (even Obama said the Individual Mandate was not a tax) but Roberts ducked. He passed.

"Folks, there is no guarantee that the law can be repealed this year, next year, or any year. No mistake about it,

"Roberts had the opportunity to kill that snake but he pussied out."


You have expressed my own thoughts better than I could hope to do, Ivan.

These florid, intellectually contrived attempts to put a "good spin" on Justice Robot's atrocious conduct fall flat. All this rationalization could be nothing but a mask for the desperation surely all men of good conscience must feel at this dispiriting turn of events.

Justice Robot's decision has probably sealed the DOOM of our once-great nation.

Surely it's a Tragic Flaw inherent in our system that the fate of an entire nation of some 350,000,000.00 souls could be determined by ONE mentally, morally and physically challenged individual?

I have read that Justice Robot suffers from epilepsy. The drugs he takes to control the disease have been known to cause serious lapses in memory and the capacity to make sound judgments.

Wouldn't you know that a REPUBLICAN president would appoint yet-another latter-day Closet Liberal to the high court.

"When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?"

~ FreeThinke

PS: I hope you –– and everyone else -- will consider visiting:

http://freethinkesblog.blogspot.com/?zx=da63e836789862c5

We try to stimulate not to dictate. The motto (if I can ever figure out how to get it posted) is Looking Above, Beyond and Within. We use everything from Art poetry, humor, satire, whimsy, fiction, the Bible, and of course, standard political commentary to try to make points over there. Try it, you'll like it. - FT

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jersey: After all, if you can tax transactions between abstract contractual entities, why can't you tax someone for not doing something?

Non-sequitur.

Additionally, if something is a legal entity, it is by definition not abstract.

This, folks, is why liberal "thinking" is so muddled.

KP said...

JMJ

<< You have to spell out your "point of view" for me to understand it. What exactly do you mean by "tort reform?" >>

By your question I can tell you either know of a lot about tort reform (my hunch) or almost nothing about tort reform.

I am not keen to write a 2000 word article covering my views on tort reform so that you might spend a couple sentences telling me I am willing to negatively affect civil rights litigation or favor corporate welfare. The system is more complicated than healthcare and more scrwed up to!

Finntann said...

@negates that asinine argument Libertarians make when they say taxes are merely passed through as price increases.

Ducky, you are absolutely right, if everyone is selling gas for $3.50 a gallon, you can't raise your price to $4.50 without losing market share.

However, you overlook the fact that the federal government is a monopoly, when it raises taxes on oil it affects all oil companies equally, thus the companies selling gas for $3.50 a gallon, all raise their prices to $3.75.

You have no choice, you still need to buy gas, thus the tax increase has been passed onto you. Things that affect the market equally are easily passed along to the consumer without market repurcussions.

If the government imposed a tax of $1 on a gallon of milk, all milk would go up by approximately a dollar. True, some might raise it only .95 hoping to offset the price difference increase in tax with an increase in market share, but that's the business side.

Haven't you noticed that the price of gas at stations is usually in a narrow range. You won't find one station selling gas for $3.00 and another for $4.00.

I can assure you, the insurance companies won't take a hit on their profit margin, if anything it will go up, as government now just mandated that you buy... you have no choice. I can assure you, they are rubbing their hands together in glee and laughing all the way to the bank... Sucker.

So in the end, you will be paying increased costs on the market side, and increased taxes on the government side. SEE! This ACA works for the good of everyone all the way around.

Cheers!

KP said...

@Finntann - That was a very clear explanation.

KP said...

JMJ -

<< You have to spell out your "point of view" for me to understand it. What exactly do you mean by "tort reform?" >>

Tip of my hat to you. Having re-read your question after reviewing my comments before it, yours is a perfectly good respone to me.

beamish said...

THE SUPREME COURT CREATED A TAX.

Is this thing on?

Steve said...

Private insurance companies will get 30 million new customers.
According to free market competition principles, that should lower the cost, for everyone. It won't.
Just as no fault car insurance, that States force people to buy, never lowered rates, in fact rates went up.
It's a captive (forced to buy) consumer group. They have to buy no matter what the price. It's a profit boon for insurance companies, and they will charge the most they can get away with - today's capitalistic principles, not true capitalism.
85% of Americans already buy health insurance. That huge amount of buyers for insurance companies to vie for, has not led to more competition (lower prices) in fact prices are skyrocketing.
In my town gas prices are all the same, not one penny difference. Instead of trying to create new customers with a price difference, they are satisfied with simple market share. That's how health insurance prices will act and why they will go up, not down.

Silverfiddle said...

Steve, In a highly regulated market where price signals are masked and the "buyer" cares not what the price is, you can expect nothing but dysfunction.

Thank you federal government.

Teresa said...

Silverfiddle, I know that you said that "the Supreme Court is political" so I'm not sure why you wouldn't think Roberts ruled in this fashion to help Romney, or at least to spur that possibility? Could it be that Roberts didn't want to be called a "racist" by the irrational Left for striking down Obama's central piece of legislation? I do think that Roberts was trying to follow the Constitution but at the same time I believe that striking down Obamacare would have been following the Constitution, probably moreso than the decision he gave for upholding it.

Silverfiddle said...

Roberts did do it for political reasons, but for himself and the court, not for any partisan reason.

He's a craven coward who did not have the constitution foremost in his mind.

beamish said...

Roberts' ruling amounts to little more that "overturning the first black President's centerpiece legislation would be racist."