ObamaCare's Day in Court at the 6th Circuit
The Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro was in court today in Cincinnati, Ohio to hear oral arguments in the ObamaCare challenge brought before a 3-judge panel of the federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and as he reports, "here there will be at least one vote to strike down the individual mandate, and maybe even all three." From Shapiro's summary:
Not surprisingly, this case, brought by the Thomas More Legal Center, will almost certainly be decided on the issue of whether the federal government can compel people to engage in commerce — "regulate inactivity." The government's theory that "health care is unique" came under harsh attack from Judges Graham and Sutton because it didn't seem to offer a constitutional (as opposed to factual) limiting principle for federal power. Judge Martin was more circumspect, but he's considered among the most liberal circuit judges in the country, so all things being equal would probably try to uphold the law (or find a way to decide the case on procedural grounds so as to avoid losing on the merits). Judge Sutton — one of the more conservative jurists nationwide — was also scrupulously neutral, picking at weaknesses in both sides' presentation and appearing open to a narrow technical decision.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good.
I know. Single payer, here we come.
"because it didn't seem to offer a constitutional (as opposed to factual) limiting principle for federal power"
That's lame, there already is a constitutional limiting principle for federal power in commerce clause cases, the economic/non-economic distinction used in Lopez and Morrison to, you know, limit the use of federal power in those cases.
The problem, MNG, is that distinction doesn't help ObamaCare. ObamaCare has to rely, ultimately, on the assertion that everyone will need healthcare, someday, and that future [economic] activity justifies regulation of current inactivity in the healthcare/health insurance market.
However, once you kick down the door by saying that projected future economic activity justifies regulation today (which is genuinely new), then the economic/non-economic distinction just disappears. You are positing future economic activity as a way of saying that whether someone is currently economically active or not is irrelevant.
RC
I don't think so. The decision today still has to be primarily an economic one (at least in the sense of its future effect).
For example take the issues in Lopez and Morrison. The decision to commit a sexual assault or carry a firearm today or the decision to put those decisions off to tomorrow still does not make them economic decisions in any real sense.
The burden is still on the feds to prove that a failure to purchase health insurance today, will have a substantial economic impact on everyone else participating in the market.
In Morrison, the feds made the argument that regulating gender-based violence was within the power of the commerce clause, because gender based violence effects interstate commerce, by diminishing national productivity, increasing medical and other costs, and decreasing the supply of and the demand for interstate products.
The question remains, if the court will treat the choice to enter a market, as already being an active member of the market, or will they consider this choice as an activity, much like possessing a gun in a school zone, or gender-based violence.
This case seems to be the missing piece needed to clarify the courts 3 part test relating to the commerce clause.
It also has to be interstate, not just commerce. Terrible court decisions aside, agricultural products are often, perhaps predominantly, trafficked between states. Medical care is predominantly a local industry, with the exception of a few specialists (but since that isn't the kind of thing that you can get by just crashing an emergency room, it's irrelevant for this question anyway).
Decent human beings should be crossing their fingers that the courts can find constitutional justification for healthcare reform. It's not like the market is going to meet our needs.
...a 1.5. 2, tops.
Out of 100?
Seven trillion, more likely.
Is this a reasonability-o-meter? In that case, zero out of infinity.
Well then, thank god I'm not a decent human being.
Even though I'm willing to bet $100 that I gave more to charity (in cash and volunteer hours) than you did last year (full disclosure: not having kids helps a lot; I get that families don't exactly have a lot of "spare" time on their hands).
Yeah, why would any entrepreneur want to help people live longer, healthier lives, and who the heck would be willing to pay for that?
That's funny, the market is doing a great job meeting my healthcare needs. If it's not meeting yours, then I can only assume that you don't have health insurance, or haven't found a doctor that will accept cash.
In a real free market you'd be on the hook for granny and mom's healthcare too, in all likelihood. Yay free market! Or would you just tell them to man up and die?
So we need to make it official via Obamacare?
Why would I be on the hook for anyone's healthcare, other than my own, and any other family members I choose to support? If one of my family members couldn't afford their own health insurance, I would help them out if I had the means to do so. I don't see what that has do do with anyone dying.
You don't think a simple tax-funded safety net that guarantees that nobody would die for the crime of being too old or poor to afford healthcare, and nobody would go bankrupt for the crime of having parents in that situation, sounds pretty reasonable compared to the alternative? You guys have a bizarre conception of freedom.
Also, it's not all about you. I find it morally repugnant for healthcare access to be wealth-dependent. You don't get a pass on that moral repugnance just because you slap the word freedom on it.
No, I don't. Why the hell should I be on the hook for your parents?
Also, a couple of points. You conflate dying with being the result of committing a crime. People die all the time in non crime-related ways. So just because someone dies, doesn't mean I think they committed a crime.
Secondly, no one has ever, in history, died from being too poor or from lacking access to healthcare. They die from viruses, bacteria, animal maulings, or alien rape, the effects of which access to healthcare may...not will, may...be able to mitigate.
Also note that having insurance =/= access to healthcare, as the increasing wait lines in heavily insured MA demonstrate.
People need food, more than they need healthcare. Everyone I know, has access to a food market - called a grocery store - where they can buy food at incredibly competitive prices. Amazingly, everyone has access to this market, and almost everyone can afford to participate.
free2booze have you ever heard of food stamps?
Oh yeah, food stamps - what the drunks and drug addicts once traded for money to buy cigarettes, drugs, and beer. But since it's a kind of debit card system now, they just buy steaks and sell them at a discount for money to buy cigarettes, drugs, and beer.
You can't expect me to take that argument seriously. Everyone dies, therefore it's OK if more people die sooner for the simple fact that they lack access to healthcare? Obviously access to healthcare affects these things. To pretend otherwise is to be dishonest.
And wait lines are a small price to pay for the ability to live a longer, healthier life, even though that's mostly bogus scaremongering. It comes with a healthy dose of horrific snobbery too (how dare those poor people make me wait longer for a checkup with their demands for healthcare!)
Tony|6.1.11 @ 8:03PM|#
"You can't expect me to take that argument seriously."
No, shitbag, no one expects you to take any argument you don't agree with seriously.
Wealth dependent? You mean only rich people have health insurance? That's a new one to me.
Your original statement made the claim that the health care market won't meet our needs. I can't speak for the rest of society, only myself, as well as comment on the experiences of the people I do know. This leads me to the conclusion that the health care market does meet the needs of myself, my family and my friends.
If I get sick to the point that I require a doctor, or I get hurt, I call my family doctor. If my doctor can't see me that day, I go online, and put my name on the waiting list at my local urgent care facility. When my name gets towards the top of the list, I get in my car, drive to urgent care, pay $50 and then get checked out by the doctor.
Seems to be working pretty well so far.
And no, I don't think a tax funded safety net sounds reasonable. The social safety net effects people's decision making, and leaves them less prepared to meet the circumstances that they are supposedly being protected from. This point is best articulated in Gary Becker's Nobel Prize lecture
And if you happen to be born to poor parents?
You act as if no one ever rises out of poverty.
Your "poor parents" will use the resources that they do have, as efficiently as possible, so that their children will obtain skills that allow them to provide for their parents, later on down the road.
Only at a severe disadvantage. Even if you don't like egalitarianism, that doesn't mean you have to accept darwinism as social policy. You want to act like the latter extreme is somehow the most moral. Sorry, being born to rich parents isn't something society needs to reward and being born to poor parents isn't something it needs to punish. There will always be a huge difference in advantage, but that's no excuse not to mitigate it somewhat.
Severe disadvantage? Tony, your statement is pretty insulting, because you are assuming that poor people are too worthless to improve their condition.
There are plenty of poor families, who bust their ass in order to put food on the table, and make sure that their kids have a shot at success. In fact, it is even a source of pride. A poor kid can learn to read just as well as a rich kid. Sure, a child of lesser means might have to ** gasp ** work their way through college, but so what? That is the type of thing that builds the work ethic to be successful.
The problem is, you don't think that people have the potential to achieve great things, with out a hand out. I've seen too many people become successful but refusing hand outs.
So... are you saying that the child of poor parents and the child of rich parents have an equal shot at success, all else being equal? Or do you just expect the children of poor parents to try much, much harder than their peers, and that's the fairest thing, since who your parents are is your fault?
The "fair" thing, is for parents to do everything possible to provide their children a solid foundation. Who cares if people start from different rungs of the ladder, as long as they have the opportunity to move up the ladder.
I know, imagine the horror of having to wear hand me down clothes, and having to wear generic sneakers from Wal*Mart. How unfair. How can a kid who grows up like that, ever have a real shot in life?
Material wealth isn't required to become successful. Does a kid have access to books, a school, and are their parents willing to teach them the value of work, and making short term sacrifices to achieve long term gains? Those are the things that matter.
Life isn't fair. Nothing is ever going to change that. People need to stop whining about this fact, and learn to empower them selves to make the best they can out of life.
"Sorry, being born to rich parents isn't something society needs to reward and being born to poor parents isn't something it needs to punish."
But your policy is the punish the rich and reward the poor, for the fact that they are rich or poor. Is that a reasonable policy?
Tony|6.1.11 @ 8:16PM|#
"And if you happen to be born to poor parents?"
And if you happen to be born with Tony's ignorance?
Tony|6.1.11 @ 7:21PM|#
..."You guys have a bizarre conception of freedom...."
You have a bizarre concept of argument.
"You guys have a bizarre conception of freedom."
No, slavery is a bizarre conception of freedom.
I'm so tired of the slave argument. It's called taxation, pay it, and STFU
I'm so tired of the slave argument. It's called taxation, pay it, and STFU
You mean you're tired of an argument you can't refute. Taxation? What - we're supposed to pay for permission now to live in the country of our birth? Or maybe we're supposed to pay just for permission to live? Fuck. You.
You are required to pay for the benefits you receive for all society -indirect, or not.
Fucking is not required to live. Come to think of it, that would cause a genocide for libertarians
"You are required to pay for the benefits you receive for all society -indirect, or not."
Yes, in the same way you're required to pay for a drink if someone forces you to make the purchase at gunpoint. Great.
"a simple tax-funded safety net that guarantees that nobody would die for the crime of being too old or poor to afford healthcare"
Er, I hope you are not referring to ObamaCare. Love it or hate it, it ain't simple.
You don't think a simple tax-funded safety net that guarantees that nobody would die for the crime of being too old ...
Dude. Everybody eventually dies for the "crime" of being too old - no matter how much money they have or don't have. Didn't mommy and daddy ever explain to you that you are going to die someday?
Also, it's not all about you. I find it morally repugnant for healthcare access to be wealth-dependent. You don't get a pass on that moral repugnance just because you slap the word freedom on it.
You are the one who is morally repugnant, dude. What could be more immoral than using force to make others pay for your needs and wants? You're a slaver and a thief - and if push came to shove, probably a killer as well.
Let me explain it to you in a way you 'tarditarians may understand:
A person not being treated for cancer because they can't afford it. Clearly immoral.
A person being denied cancer treatments because they government doesn't want to pay for it. Clearly moral.
If you libertards don't understand this, you are hopeless.
A person not being treated for cancer because they can't afford it. Clearly immoral.
How is that immoral? Said patient doesn't have any claim on the lives, services, or wealth of others. And you can't back up such a claim without implying that some people are somehow born or duty-bound to serve others.
Let me explain it to you in a way you 'tarditarians may understand
Shit, I thought you had a magic formula, logic ain't going to work 🙁
BTW, have they mentioned your gay yet? I haven't read the whole thread, and I play a little game every time I hear that nugget
*you're*
Apparently, I haven't told YOU I'm gay yet, since you are clearly hitting on me.
Hmm, does the game apply when you mention it? ...searching the rule book 🙂
I love you.
Lol, you would have so much fun knowing me in real life. It would be a scream to compare notes but I'm anon for a reason
A person being denied cancer treatments because they government doesn't want to pay for it. Clearly moral.
If an individual isn't forced to participate in the government health insurance scheme, and can instead opt out, and purchase a private plan of their choice, then you are 100% correct.
BTW, you just destroyed any prior argument you have ever made for a social safety net.
Government transforming Medicare to a voucher program, because they don't want to pay the full cost of health insurance for seniors. Clearly moral.
Government transforming Medicare to a voucher program, because they don't want to pay the full cost of health insurance for seniors.
Are you acknowledging that vouchers will not cover the cost of insurance? The Ryan plan will fail? And the solution, price controls with medical services, and pharma?
Let's get married. Even though we are both gay, we can still legally marry each other, since you're a chick and I'm a guy.
I'm not gay but I grew up with parents who never cared what people were. I never knew that they had gay friends till I was older. I just thought if you owned a four star restaurant, you also lived together 🙂
Besides, I'm marrying epi, and Joshua Corning; it will take 2 of them to satisfy me but if you want to join them, I'm cool. Of course, I insist you make me breakfast in exchange for them
You assume that because I'm gay, I'm good at making breakfast? Homophobe.
I believe in bartering: my men for goods or services.
I would not care if you were a man, woman or unicorn
Actually, if you were a unicorn, I'd want something else....thinking
The vouchers aren't intended to cover the entire cost, because the value of the voucher will be means tested. Low income retirees will get a much larger subsidy than wealthy retirees, if they get a subsidy at all.
Why does it matter? Tony is advocating for the government to deny certain forms of health care, because of cost. If we can deny care because society deems it too expensive, than why can't we use the same argument to deny entitlement all together?
Do you not realize services are denied now? It is an issue but not because of Obamacare
Services aren't being denied by rule of law.
This was the part of Tony's comment I referring too
A person being denied cancer treatments because they government doesn't want to pay for it. Clearly moral.
I'm not sure of his thinking but I do believe physicians should have a say in a person's treatment when the taxpayer is the payee.
Often, you put the one you love through shit because of your need not to let them go.
A friend of mine let his dad die when his doctor friend said: I'm telling you I would not do this to my dad. He had private money to keep him but told me he just needed to hear what he already knew.
Spoofer, I will never ever understand the cognitive dissonance required to believe that a) government-run healthcare is evil, and b) government rationing of said services is also evil. If government doesn't cover something, go to the free market and get it!
Except that I can't afford it and therefore the government should be required to provide it for me. You said so yourself.
"You don't think a simple tax-funded safety net that guarantees that nobody would die for the crime of being too old or poor to afford healthcare, and nobody would go bankrupt for the crime of having parents in that situation, sounds pretty reasonable compared to the alternative?"
Firstly, why is it being framed as a crime? If needing medical attention is a crime, who is the criminal? As far as I know, human biological needs are a manifestation of nature - not something imposed by other human beings upon each other. You need/want to eat, have shelter, clothing, air, medicine, transportation, etc., etc., etc. - if you or others aren't being supplied with or supplying others with those things or the means to obtain them, you aren't being punished...there is no aggressor here save for mother nature.
"You guys have a bizarre conception of freedom."
You see inherent biological needs as aggression (crime) emanating from your fellow citizens but you don't understand how literally forcibly stealing someone's labor or product thereof denigrates liberty - and you want to question other peoples' conception(s) of freedom?
"Also, it's not all about you."
Ironically enough, that's our point. You don't have the right to enslave your fellow citizens at whim to meet your needs or wants.
"I find it morally repugnant for healthcare access to be wealth-dependent."
Find a way to divorce healthcare from time, capital, and labor and it will be. Until then, you have people that must give of themselves to provide those services. So, barring your first option, your other options are to force people to sacrifice on the service end (force providers to work at no cost) or force people to sacrifice on the consumer end (for other consumers to pick up the tab).
"You don't get a pass on that moral repugnance just because you slap the word freedom on it."
And you don't get a pass on "moral repugnance" just because you slap the word "reasonable" on your justification for violating personal liberty. You don't own people. They are not your property.
In a real free market you'd be on the hook for granny and mom's healthcare too, in all likelihood. Yay free market! Or would you just tell them to man up and die?
Granny and mom would be on the hook for their own, and maybe grandpaw and dad. Either way, Inheritance tax is probably not something you'll need to worry about.
You are the most fucking sick physician I know, and believe me, I know plenty of assholes
Hey, Rather, you know why so many men like to fuck women in the ass? It's because that's all assholes are good for.
really, I always thought it was a way of slowly approaching the issue of their need to be bottomed themselves. NTTIAWWT 🙂
Have you tried it baby?
I don't do anal, sweety - either giving or receiving. I don't play in the bottom of the outhouse either.
What? How fucking old are you? Grandpa, I told you the internet isn't for you!
How old am I? Not as old as I will be tomorrow and not as young as I was yesterday. But I'm over the age of five, so I'm potty-trained and don't play with poop anymore. Re: internet - I invented that, Al Gore stole my idea. Nighty night, sweety. 🙂
Sleep in my web; I won't eat you tonight...I think
A noiseless patient spider,
I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated,
Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding,
It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself,
Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them.
And you O my soul where you stand,
Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space,
Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them,
Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold,
Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul.
A collector of souls
You are the Robert Frost who haunts me
It's Whitman.
I know that but I thought you the Robert Frost poet too
-am I wrong?
Yup.
yes 🙂
Decent human beings
Tony you do realize you are a man who likes to sleep with other men right?
Do you really think using the term "decent" is a good idea?
I am not saying that homosexual behavior is indecent. But the use of that term to justify atrocities against gays would make me thing you would want to shy away from such an ambiguous moral distinction between your team and the team that disagrees with you.
Do you really think i am indecent for thinking that a freer market will make health care more affordable so that more poeple can enjoy its benefits?
Not indecent, but ignorant, since that claim goes against all the evidence on planet Earth. We have the freest healthcare market in the developed world, and it's twice the cost per capita as all those other countries with government-run programs. In a world where facts mattered, that would be game, set, match.
Decent people, gay or straight, believe that healthcare is a right. Awful people make up lies to deny that.
Shove it up your ass, fuckface. You don't get to call me "awful" for disagreeing with you that healthcare is not a right, since it has basically never been recognized as such until the last century or so in Europe, and probably the last 50 years or so here (going back to the law stating emergency rooms have to treat life-or-death cases regardless of ability to pay).
You're no better than some right-wing christian nutjob stating categorically that "homosexuals are all disgusting deviants". You have no more proof of your position than does the good pastor, and yet you both issue forth a statement made as a factual regarding the relative worth of other people, whom you don't fucking know and may well be better people than you are. So FUCK YOU, and get off your snobbish high horse. And you DARED to accuse me of snobbery earlier in the thread? Has your brain not shorted out yet from the massive levels of cognitive dissonance you experience at all times?
No modern rights have existed for all that long. They weren't necessarily discovered in total in the 18th century. What should concern you is that every modern country recognizes healthcare as a right or at least some people, including the US. If that's not proof, then I don't know what you want. Stone tablets from the sky?
And the "longer lines at doctors' offices" excuse for having a more expensive and less efficient healthcare system is not only snobbery, it's the most ugly form of it. What causes the longer lines? More poor people getting treatment, of course. Your alleged inconvenience in the waiting room is something more worthy of mitigating than a poor person's lack of healthcare access? Snobbery isn't strong enough a word. All this on top of the fact that this country still has long lines, and those in other countries (all of whom are more satisfied with their healthcare system than we are) are exaggerated snippets of propaganda.
Just because people believe something doesn't mean it's true.
Just because Joe Smith believes that the world is flat, doesn't mean it's true.
Just because five million Frenchmen believe all Germans are evil, doesn't mean it's true.
Just because you believe that healthcare is a right, doesn't mean it's true.
Just because you believe that taxation is slavery, doesn't mean it's true.
A head tax - or capitation - is essentially payment for permission to live. Pretty much that is slavery,regardless of whether or not anyone believes it to be so.
First of all what head tax? Health care? You titty-babies are so prone to exaggeration, I can hardly follow the bull
The health insurance mandate, of course. The law says you either pay a tax to the insurance company by purchasing their product, or else you will be subject to a fine or tax to be collected by the IRS - and you will be subject to that tax or fine even if you have zero amount of income. It applies to everyone, including their dependents - everyone except illegal immigrants...and Congress.
if you have zero amount of income, you won't pay anything -they can IRS your ass to death but it will never be subject to collection
But your assets are, genius. You don't have to have income to own assets, and they are always subject to forfeiture for non-payment of tax.
wrong baby
Wrong about what - having to have income to own assets? Or assets being subject to forfeiture for non-payment of taxes? Either one - I'm not wrong. You are. Apparently you've never had dealings with our lovable IRS.
crawled into my web dear fly?
I so want to play with you before I eat you.
I'm giving you a chance to google 😉
Do your own googling. If you think for a moment that the IRS can't put tax liens on your property and accounts for non-payment of taxes - any tax - you are living in a paradise of naivete. Now - while you go google I'm going to go get some sleep.
Baby, you know you can't sleep.
Why do you think OJ was able to afford his CC lifestyle?
Rich people have plenty of asset protection. Poor people don't generally need it but ....I'll let you figure out the #1 method
Don't feel bad thinking of me whikle you jerk off, even Tony asked me to marry him tonight 😉
(Yawn) Whikle? Seems as though you may be the one who's typing with one hand. You'd best concentrate on Tony.
you spoke to soon, baby
Tony, our system is twice the cost, because it is the most effective at actually curing real, life threatening diseases. Treating these diseases, and extending the lives of those who have been diagnosed with them, costs a lot of damn money.
The European, and Canadian systems are vastly superior, if your number one concern is access to a doctor every time you get the sniffles, or your tummy hurts. If you want the best possible chance of surviving some horrible, nasty, hard to fight disease, then the good ole' USA is the place to be.
If the healthcare systems of Canada and Europe had to rely only upon the medical advances that they have paid to develop, would they still be cheaper than what we have in the U.S.?
You mean, if they weren't able to freeload off of the R&D money spent in the US, to develop better drugs, and other forms of healthcare technology? No, they would still be cheaper, because they would just do with out. In fact, their health care costs would decrease, because curing life threatening diseases is the most expensive part of health care. A funeral is much cheaper than chemotherapy.
Ad simply denying care is even cheaper. You want surgery? Well, stand (or fall) in line!
Tony|6.1.11 @ 8:06PM|#
"Not indecent, but ignorant, since that claim goes against all the evidence on planet Earth..."
You just made that up, shitbag.
"Not indecent, but ignorant, since that claim goes against all the evidence on planet Earth. "
What evidence? Your camp has screamed bloody murder every time anyone tries to create an approximation of freedom. There's no evidence of what a free market would actually provide, because one has never been allowed to exist.
Then you ought not make too many claims about it. A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence.
"In a world where facts mattered, that would be game, set, match."
I don't think that follows - economically speaking. Firstly, I think it's questionable as to how "free" our system is. If you mean "free" as in privately paid for, I think there's a case for the claim (although I think it still might be false). If you mean "free" in any additional context(s), I think it's a lot less open-and-shut.
But the general assumptions you seem to be making regarding the economics of the situation, in either case, looks like jumping the shark a bit. You need to break apart supply, distribution, and consumption first. If the U.S. consumes more procedures, and more marginally expensive procedures you have to account for that. If the U.S. has fewer doctors, or fewer doctors performing the more marginally expensive procedures, this will factor in. You have to address the local, state, and federal regulation which poses financial restraints and burdens upon practices (this includes licensing). You also have to look at financial obligations stemming from legal as well as educational liabilities (insurance, schooling, etc.). All of these things play a huge part regarding how supply and demand (and subsequently price) is situated. I wouldn't point at the prices of downtown New York, NY and the prices of downtown Huntington, WV and conclude the difference is because New York (wrongly) embraces free trade in sectors X, Y, and Z.
Probably the biggest differential (which seems fairly obvious to me) is in what services are actually being paid for. In a lot of countries the consumption of public care is rationed. That isn't a slam...but they certainly limit how much care is consumed. We do this here as well for publicly funded care (and if anyone expects that to change, they're kidding themselves). But, on the other hand, private entities are often legally bound to cover for consumption that they (along with government) would not legally cover.
Even beyond all this, if you wanted to disregard all of the other arguments, we simply make more and therefore spend more on such care at the margin. If there is a finite level of desired consumption for healthcare, we've still come no where near it. As we make more, we're going to continue to consume the next-most-needed care at the margin. We simply have more available to us given our productivity. The newer, more marginal, procedures also work in trend to thin medical labor in areas closer to primary care, for what it's worth.
There are many, many other things to add to the list here - this just scratches the surface. In any case, I think the important thing to gleam is that rising cost is a problem. So I think our "solutions" should be directed at price - not simply shifting burden...which is apparently what the politicians think is a solution.
"Decent people, gay or straight, believe that healthcare is a right."
To adopt healthcare as a "right" (in the positive sense...it's alright a right in the negative sense) you have to dissolve property rights altogether. Unless that fits into your overall framework, you need to come up with a new way to incorporate healthcare.
I would imagine the market is more likely to meet your needs than the government, poor or not. Unless you think access to a waiting list is access to healthcare.
Tony|6.1.11 @ 6:29PM|#
"Decent human beings..."
Which disqualifies you from comment.
"Decent human beings" don't force their fellow man to provide or pay for their needs and desires at the point of a gun or threat of imprisonment.
How about the 6th Circuit simply rule according to binding precedent?
Besides, even if ObamaCare was struck down, states can enact identical policies. There is no plausible constitutional argument against Massachusetts's RomneyCare, for example.
So you're in favor of forcing people to buy things, Tony... but just this once.
Until the next crisis comes along, and you again support fucking us with the Commerce Clause wrapped around your cock.
Oh, ObummerCare. I saw the headline and was hoping he'd been indicted for violating the War Powers Act.
Weren't all these judges appointed by Obama and Clinton?
It looks like even the left wing judges are finding it hard to ignore the lack of constitutional justification for Obama care
The republithugs are legislating from teh bench!
I for one am shocked at the obvious racism of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Tony|6.1.11 @ 8:04PM|#
"free2booze have you ever heard of food stamps?"
This deserves attention.
Hey, Tony, ever see food stamps turned into dope?
Listen, you stupid shit, simply referring to a failed attempt at 'helping people' doesn't justify another failed attempt at 'helping people'.
It just makes you look more stupid than you do already.
It hurts my head to try to talk to you.
The argument at hand was that food is a more basic necessity than healthcare, and we don't subsidize it and everyone's well fed. Except we do subsidize it for the poor. I'm sure they're not all "turning it into dope" either, you racist moron.
WhAT! Based on my comment, how did you reach that conclusion?
Tony, read my comment again. The market for food is about as free as it gets. Sure, their is some government involvement in some areas of production, but big picture, food sellers have the freedom to charge what they see fit.
The food stamp subsidy program has almost no effect on food prices. Until recently, the number of people receiving subsidies, is a very small percent of the overall consumer market for food.
The difference between the food market, and healthcare market, is that the freedom in the food market has led to huge varieties in choice, not just in products, but in competition in each category of product. This is why a grocery store can dedicate an entire isle to soda, or ice cream, and why their is even diversity in the amount of specialty stores, all competing for different segments of the population.
In fact, the next time you decide to bash the free market, take a trip to your favorite grocery store, walk the isles, and bask in the grandeur of variety, and low prices the free market has bestowed upon you.
You're begging the question. It is not the case that the food market is relatively free. It's heavily influenced by policy, some of it with good intentions and some of it crony capitalism. Almost everything we in this country eat is made of corn for christ's sake. The market has done with that policy reality what the market is good at: it has packaged corn in 1,000 different varieties (including being a major component of ice creams!).
On top of that, the food stamps point stands. It's subsidized food. That shouldn't be a big deal. It doesn't destroy the market's ability to innovate, it simply creates more demand for the industry with government as the customer. The only plans this country would consider involve just this time of action. Government isn't going to be the doctors or manufacture the medical devices, it will simply create demand for them, for the noble purpose of providing their necessary product to everyone regardless of ability to pay, just like we do for food.
Corn is a really good product, all things considered.
Tony, your reading comprehension skills are absolute shit.
The market for food is about as free as it gets. Sure, their is some government involvement in some areas of production, but big picture, food sellers have the freedom to charge what they see fit.
Sellers Tony, sellers. Grocery store owners are food "sellers", farmers are producers. Show me the legislation regulating food prices at the grocery store.
As free as it gets, meaning, a trip to the grocery store is the closest thing to a free market you will encounter in your day to day life. The price of Oreo's is effected by the price of Chips Ahoy. The price of Pepsi is effected by the price of Coca-Cola. The price of Charmin is effected by the price of Cottonelle. All of these products compete against one another. If one tries to jack their price to high, or puts out a crappy product, someone else will swoop in and take their market share.
The health care market is in no way, shape or form, as free as the market for food. Health insurance is heavily regulated, because the government tells insurance providers what minimum coverage must be included in an insurance policy, who they have to accept, and what they can charge.
Os far as subsidies to consumers is concerned. Obamacare is going to subsidize every person earning less that 400% of the poverty rate, which is a massive percentage of the population. Food stamps, prior to the recession, only went to about 10% of the population, half of which were children or elderly. Their is no comparison between the two.
To subsidize or subjugate the poor?
The poor would be liberated, if only they had less!
The poor mightn't be so poor, if only they were liberated and the government took less.
Hmm, still awake? Or, warmin'-up for round 2...and our debate too 😉
Should be interesting to see how that all works out.
http://www.privacy-web.no.tc