Supreme Court

Is the Supreme Court Going to Invalidate the Entire Health Care Overhaul?

|

Washington, D.C.—The Supreme Court kicked off its third and final day of oral arguments this morning in the legal challenge against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) with a contentious debate over what happens to the rest of the health care law if its controversial individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional.

The ACA's challengers, represented by former solicitor general Paul Clement, contended that the individual mandate is not severable from the law's other provisions and that the entire ACA must therefore be nullified. The government, represented by Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, argued that if the mandate is struck down only two other ACA provisions must fall with it: the requirement forbidding insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone with a preexisting medical condition and the requirement that insurers enroll anyone who wishes to sign up.

Judging by what I witnessed during today's arguments, the federal government faces a very real risk of the Supreme Court invalidating not just the individual mandate, but the entire ACA as well. Perhaps most notable were the comments of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely swing vote on this—and other—questions. Consider this revealing exchange between Kennedy and Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler:

MR. KNEEDLER: We think, as a matter of judicial restraint, limits on equitable remedial power limit this Court to addressing the provision that has been challenged as unconstitutional and anything else that the plaintiff seeks as relief. Here the only -­

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But when you say "judicial restraint"… you are echoing the earlier premise that it increases the judicial power if the judiciary strikes down other provisions of the Act. I suggest to you it might be quite the opposite. We would be exercising the judicial power if one Act was—one provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended. By reason of this Court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider. That, it seems to me, can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than to strike -­ than striking the whole.

In other words, Kennedy is worried that it would be a greater act of judicial overreach for the Supreme Court to selectively remove one or two or three provisions from the health care law than it would be for the Court to simply wipe the slate clean and let Congress start crafting health care reform all over again from scratch. It's not difficult to imagine Kennedy's four more conservative colleagues signing on to that argument as a way of voiding the entire ACA.

Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito, meanwhile, each launched direct attacks on the idea of ACA severability, with Scalia at one point declaring, "My approach would say if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute's gone. That enables Congress to—to do what it wants in—in the usual fashion. And it doesn't inject us into the process of saying: This is good, this is bad, this is good, this is bad."

As usual, Chief Justice John Roberts was more difficult to read, although his statements also suggested that he leans towards striking down the entire ACA rather than selectively severing the individual mandate and other provisions. For example, consider Roberts' response to the government's claim that its severablity argument is consistent with "the legislative intent embodied in the law Congress has actually passed." In response to that, Roberts said:

But the problem is, straight from the title, we have two complementary purposes, patient protection and affordable care. And you can't look at something and say this promotes affordable care, therefore, it's consistent with Congress's intent. Because Congress had a balanced intent. You can't look at another provision and say this promotes patient protection without asking if it's affordable.

So, it seems to me if you ask what is going to promote Congress's purpose, that's just an inquiry that you can't carry out.

Much like yesterday's oral arguments over the constitutionality of the individual mandate, today's arguments over ACA severability won't come as good news to the White House.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Obama Administration's 'Limiting Principles' Seem More Like Expansionary Principles

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The question of whether the whole thing could be invalidated or whether just the individual mandate should be invalidated is really the same question.

    There’s no way the rest of the act could stand as is without the individual mandate. The act would need to be radically altered if the court invalidated the individual mandate.

    There’s the question of what the Court feels is appropriate within its reach, and there’s the question of whether the industry could survive as presently constituted without the individual mandate, in other words.

    But the end result is the same either way. If the Court just invalidates the individual mandate, Congress will need to reconfigure the rest of it anyway.

    1. The argument Obamacare’s supporters are making suggests that if the individual mandate is struck down the rest of the program breaks the healthcare insurance market in such a fashion as to make it unworkable. I suppose one of the reasons they are taking this tack is to poison a compromise position by the court, but they are suggesting that the law is not practically severable.

      1. The Administration itself argued that it was inseverable for a long time–right up until they changed their minds in Court.

        When it became clear that being inseverable, rather than making it less likely that the Supreme Court would strike down any of it, made it more likely that the Supreme Court would strike down all of it, the Obama Administration did a 180.

        But there’s a reason why the mandate and the law prohibiting discrimination against people with preexisting conditions both take effect on January 1, 2014.

        …and the main reason is because everyone (except the Obama Administration when they’re in court) understands that you can’t have one without the other.

        If Congress will need to reconfigure the legislation if the individual mandate is struck down–then the difference between legal inseverability and practical inseverability is mostly semantic.

  2. “That’s OK, Abe Lincoln wouldn’t have thought this was a good law either.”

    [slips a five across bench to Justice Kennedy]

  3. Saw a quote from Kagan where she stated, as a fact, that health care was an entitlement, and that you could go to any doctor or hospital and get treated regardless of whether you could pay.

    And she’ll be raping the corpse of the Constitution for probably another 30 years.

    1. That is a fact. It’s both law and ancient human tradition. You can argue for checking people’s wallets before giving them lifesaving care, then denying it if they can’t pay, but surely you must recognize that as nothing less than a perversion of basic human social concern.

      This law is meant to make people pay upfront for costs they will almost inevitably have, so that others don’t have to unfairly. Maybe it’s unprecedented, but that doesn’t make it unreasonable. You are supposed to be against freeloading.

      But it appears you maintain consistency on freeloading by being against the Hippocratic oath.

      1. I’m not against the Hippocratic oath. I’m against enforcing it at gunpoint.

        If you want to scale back the ER “must treat” laws to apply only to patients whose lives are in danger, I’d accept that as a compromise. If you don’t want to, then you need to STFU about “lifesaving care” because 99% of the govt-mandated ER care isn’t saving lives.

        1. Even if we restrict it, how do you account for the cost shifting? Do we just accept a certain amount of freeloading and be done with it?

          1. Do we just accept a certain amount of freeloading and be done with it?

            Um, yes? I mean even the hardcore libertarians saying “end all government involvement and let the uninsured rely on charity” are tacitly agreeing to a certain amount of freeloading.

            There will sure as hell be freeloading under the ACA system. People who get fat, smoke, and have a dozen kids will be bearing absolutely no additional cost for the extra burden they’re imposing on the healthcare system. So you can quit pretending that ObamaCare is some kind of brilliant answer to the free rider problem in health care & insurance.

          2. Yes, there will always be a degree of “freeloading”. Even a hardcore libertarian such as my self has no problem picking up the tab for the special care for the kid up the street with Down’s syndrome, or the even 90 year old guy who (foolishly) bought in to the medicare scam in good faith. Neither one of these are really “freeloading”, but they are both reasonable charity cases. But a 50 year old with a job and no health care who needs a bypass… he better start praying ’cause I sure don’t see why I should pick up the slack for him.

            1. But a 50 year old with a job and no health care who needs a bypass… he better start praying ’cause I sure don’t see why I should pick up the slack for him.

              Heartless monster!

          3. Would you please explain how, in your universe, a massive expansion of Medicaid and insurance subsidies for those making up to 400% of the poverty line do not constitute freeloading?

          4. You’re accepting a certain amount of freeloading no matter what. There is no way to make sure value paid is equivalent to value received.

            At least, not without making people pay directly for services they receive.

          5. Yes. We accept it. But it is also a mistake to assume that a person that cannot afford a visit THAT DAY will never be able to make good on their debts. If I would have been in a car accident at when I was 20, I probably would not have been able to afford treatment.

            But I could make good on my debts now and the doctor that treated me when I was 20 would be able to get paid with any post-judgment interest.

            People breach contracts all the time. If someone breaches a contract you can sue and try to collect.

            In the word’s of Omar: “It’s all in the game.”

        2. “99% of the govt-mandated ER care isn’t saving lives” and this point was well made yesterday. To paraphrase some of yesterday’s arguements, a tremendous portion of healthcare IS quite predictable, yearly physicals, mammograms & colonoscopies all come to mind. So, why should I pay for them for someone who won’t pay for them himself? If someone is brought bleeding to the ER, yes, they will get health care, but little Johny who has a cough doesn’t need ER care, he needs to see his pediatrician, and mommy and daddy knew (or damned well should have known) that there would be lots of those moments before the kid was even conceived.

      2. Don’t people get what a huge fucking contradiction in terms it is to demand “health care will be provided regardless of ability to pay” and at the same time demand that everyone bears his own costs for health care?

        1. People don’t bear all their own costs in the insurance model. Healthy people pay for sick people. It’s a gambling system that seems to make sense on at least a commercial level and for the purpose of ensuring access to care.

          But you don’t get insurance payouts if you don’t pay in. Either we make people responsible for their costs (in this unique case, unpredictable but inevitable costs, therefore necessarily pre-paid for), or you let them freeload. Or you shake people down before you give them CPR.

          1. Get the gov’t out of healthcare, stop allowing the AMA to limit the number of doctors and prices will drop and it won’t be as much of an issue.

          2. Grocery costs are inevitable. You gettin’ free food next? MOAR FREE STUFF

          3. People don’t bear all their own costs in the insurance model. …or you let them freeload

            Umm…

        2. Most people don’t have the balls to enforce it – even on adults. I’ve been to places where people die in the streets. It inspires and motivates in ways government mandates can’t.

      3. $

  4. Britain Deserves Better

    1. Britain deserves an abuttor.

      1. Britain deserves butter.

        1. Butter is inevitable

  5. Kenney’s take on judicial restraint is worrying and flawed. It’s not the court’s role to consider the economic impact of its decision, if you are being conservative.

    His and especially Alito’s concern for the insurance companies’ plight was as pronounced as their seeming lack of concern for whether Americans have access to healthcare.

    Treating the mandate as a constitutional poison pill for all the other uncontroversial stuff Congress willed would be convenient for ideological activists who hate the law but makes no sense in terms of judicial restraint.

    1. yeh eet teh ric!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. Mandating that insurance companies take anyone who walks in the door is hardly uncontroversial. In fact it amounts to a demolition of the entire concept of risk-pooling which insurance is supposed to embody.

      1. Which is what necessitates the mandate. Kennedy isn’t wrong to suggest that there would be an economic imbalance imposed that was never intended by Congress. But if the insurance rules are constitutional, then how can the court strike them down just because another provision is unconstitutional? For the purpose of doing the job of Congress in effecting prudent economic outcomes?

        1. Which is what necessitates the mandate.

          Which is itself unconstitutional. Therefore, being the keystone of the law, its absence makes the entire law unworkable. Since no severability clause exists within the law (having been deliberately removed), the entire 2,700 page monstrosity can be defenestrated summarily.

          And we can breathe a sigh of relief.

          1. AMEN!

    3. Just curious Tony but point to the part of the Constitution that permits the federal government to make individuals purchase health insurance.

      1. The government says commerce and necessary and proper. I would prefer that interpretation just because I don’t see as much virtue as constitutional conservatives in restricting a modern national government from making these kinds of decisions through the democratic process.

        If the mandate is ruled unconstitutional I wouldn’t consider that beyond the realm of reasonableness, just too conservative for my tastes.

        And besides, what it would mean is that single-payer is the only option left, which is fine with me except for all the people who will suffer from the status quo (and the even worse status quo that preceded the ACA) in the interim.

        1. what it would mean is that single-payer is the only option left

          How about reversing all the government mandates and policies that are creating the problems in the health care markets in the first place?

          1. End the tax advantage to employer-provided health care. Either do away with the deductibility altogether or allow individuals to deduct premium payments up to a certain limit.

          2. Reverse the “prepaid health care” perversion of insurance by using the interstate commerce power to allow insurance policies to be sold across state lines, so that residents can get out from under retarded mandates to cover routine foreseeable expenses, and bullshit like homeopathy. Allow insurance companies to sell policies on a variety of terms covering a variety of conditions, subject only to a regulatory check that they actually cover what they promise to in the policy documents.

          … cont’d

          1. 3. For individuals with a demonstrable financial need, provide vouchers toward the payment of insurance premiums.

            4. For those who could have afforded insurance, didn’t buy any, and now find themselves in the ER begging for help or stricken with some condition they could have insured against and didn’t, let each hospital decide whether to provide free card as a matter of charity or not. At some point there needs to be some reestablishment of individual responsibility for planning and paying for one’s health care.

            100x better answer than single-payer.

            1. Graphite, I wish what you were saying were obvious to more people than you, me and 1% of the population. You’ve put succinctly for what I’ve been trying to say for years.

              I fear we’ll never get a system remotely like that.

              1. It would be nice to see the GOP doing us some favors by proposing some of these measures, and actually trying to fix the serious problems in the system, instead of mostly just carping about ObamaCare from the sidelines. But I fear they’re bought off by various groups with an interest in preserving the status quo.

                1. My only hope in this regard is that if Romney wins, he gets some seriously good advisors who can explain these (seemingly simple) concepts to him.

        2. Tony|3.28.12 @ 8:22PM|#
          “The government says commerce and necessary and proper. I would prefer that interpretation…”

          Just to be clear, shithead, you didn’t answer the question. You offered an opinion.

    4. “It’s not the court’s role to consider the economic impact of its decision, if you are being conservative.”

      The economic impact is part of the government’s defense of the mandate as being “necessary and proper” to fulfilling the policy goal of Obamacare. Kind of hard for the court to ignore it.

      This is not about whether Americans have access to healthcare, it is about the Left’s nonsense goal of “universal coverage” is acheivable without tyranny.

  6. If Congress had meant for the various parts of its legislation to be able to stand separate, wouldn’t it have included a severability clause?

    1. I think it didn’t make it in because the insurance company reps that wrote the bill weren’t even aware that it was needed.

    2. As I recall, at the end, the whole thing was so rushed that it simply got left out. (How you can rush a frakin behemoth like this is beyond me, but don’t you all recall the thousand or so pages of this that had to be read and considered in, what, a couple of days?… And remember, politicians don’t write on a clean sheet of paper, rather, they “strike these four words on page 185403 of code &239;.402 subsection b, and insert the words blah blah blah in act etc. This stuff does not make for easy reading.)

      1. But the justices can’t really assume that’s why it was left out, can they? They can only see that what the legislature voted for was something that was written to be inviolable.

        1. I tried to read that thing a couple of years ago. What a giant poorly written pile of shit. They should throw the hole thing out just for that.

          1. Yep. Anybody who hasn’t cracked open that monstrosity yet, go ahead now… You’re in for a treat!

    3. We need to pass the bill to find out whether or not it contains a severability clause.

      1. We already did that bitch.

  7. All this harsh language being directed at the individual mandate is making me, dare I say it, a little hopeful.

    Still, here’s an opportunity for the government to declare that it can compel us to engage in commerce in order to regulate that commerce. To establish that power as precedent seems far too tantalizing for me to truly believe, at least just yet, that they’re simply going to pass up this opportunity.

  8. Volokh has the following hillarious rundown of the justifications for consitutionality given by Dem Congress Critters.

    Rep. Conyers cited the “Good and Welfare Clause” as the source of Congress’s authority [there is no such clause].
    Rep. Stark responded, “the federal government can do most anything in this country.”
    Rep. Clyburn replied, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do. How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?”

    1. Rep. Hare said “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest […] It doesn’t matter to me.” When asked, “Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority ??” He replied, “I don’t know.”
      Sen. Akaka said he “not aware” of which Constitutional provision authorizes the healthcare bill.
      Sen. Leahy added, “We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there’s no authority?”
      Sen. Landrieu told a questioner, “I’ll leave that up to the constitutional lawyers on our staff.”

    2. Volokh has the following hillarious rundown of the justifications for consitutionality given by Dem Congress Critters.

      They don’t even stop to think about constitutionality anymore when they dream up some hideous new peice of legislation. The Constitition at this point is nothing more than a mild irritant, something that has to be circumvented sometimes. They’re offended that they even have to bring it before the court, and they’ll be furious if the court does anything other than rubber-stamp it.

      1. The constitution is what it is. It’s not a document that requires us all to live in a libertarian hellhole, that’s for damn sure. According to this court and its predecessors it’s a document that grants the federal government broad commerce power.

        We’re in a moment of determining the constitutionality of the law, albeit by the method of consulting 9 old men in robes. It’s not unconstitutional until they say it is. Democrats hope it’s constitutional because they hope they are able to get what they consider good policy implemented.

        Rather than worship the constitution as a sacred text, you ought to question whether a document that doesn’t allow prudent healthcare legislation needs to be amended.

        1. Three are women and only about 3 are really old

          1. Why does Tony hate women so much?

        2. Tony|3.28.12 @ 8:31PM|#
          “The constitution is what it is. It’s not a document that requires us all to live in a libertarian hellhole, that’s for damn sure…”

          No, shithead, it doesn’t require that. It requires that the government abide by the law.
          Which means we don’t have to live in a socialist hellhole.

          1. Abiding by the law defined as doing only what you, an antigovernment ideologue, thinks it should be doing, with little or no controversy allowed.

            1. Tony|3.28.12 @ 8:55PM|#
              “Abiding by the law defined as doing only what you, an antigovernment ideologue, thinks it should be doing, with little or no controversy allowed.”

              No, shithead, abiding by the law as specified by the constitution, shithead.

            2. Anti-government??

        3. The constitution is what it is.

          Yes, a document outlining the very specific, very narrow powers that
          the federal government should have . . .

          According to this court and its predecessors it’s a document that
          grants the federal government broad commerce power.

          . . . but that’s not to say that it hasn’t been bastardized over the
          decades by power-hungry bureaucrats and complicit Supreme Court
          justices.

          . . 9 old men in robes.

          I wouldn’t exactly call Sotomayor and Kagan “old” . . .

          Rather than worship the constitution as a sacred text

          I don’t worship the document, Tony, and I dare say that no one else
          here does either. What we do hold sacrosanct are the rights that it
          recognizes; i.e., anything and everything that is apart from the few and enumerated
          powers that it gives to the federal government.

          1. Those enumerated powers include, de jure, broad commerce powers. Sorry. Take a generation or two to get it undone via democratic action. Until then you don’t get to just say whatever you believe is constitutional no matter how unjustified in constitutional case law.

            1. Those enumerated powers include, de jure, broad commerce powers.

              No, dear. You’re failing to distinguish between the enumerated powers and the ones that the federal government has helped itself to incrementally over the years.

            2. As a bit of a thought experiment, do you think the Constitution would have been ratified with the same wording if it were known how “commerce among the several states” would come to be defined?

              1. Yes, I think that it would’ve been reworded. I also think that Congress would eventually find ways around it, regardless of how it was worded.

          2. I wouldn’t exactly call Sotomayor and Kagan “old” . . .

            But apparently you would call them men. :-p

            1. Not exactly “men”. You know.

              NTTAWWT.

            2. But apparently you would call them men. :-p

              I’m glad you saw what I did there 😉

        4. So Amend it! But don’t tell me it says or means something that it plainly doesn’t.

        5. you ought to question whether a document that doesn’t allow prudent healthcare legislation needs to be amended.

          Go ahead an amend it then! That’s how the system is supposed to work. If you can get an amendment for universal health care ratified, then we’ll “worship” it along with the rest of the Constitution.

          But we both know that’s not how you libs work, right?

        6. According to this court and its predecessors it’s a document that grants the federal government broad commerce power.

          The powers it grants are not “broad” in the slightest. The powers Congress has today were granted by a bullied and bludgeoned SCOTUS 70 years ago, not the Constitution.

          The Constitution is the law for the government. If it won’t follow its own law, why should we follow the laws unlawfully promulgated by that government?

          1. For those not familiar with the bullied and bludgeoned Supreme Court reference see The switch in time that saved nine* and Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937*.

            *Wikipedia can be a great starting point, but don’t let it be your only source of information.

        7. Rather than worship the constitution as a sacred text, you ought to question whether a document that doesn’t allow prudent healthcare legislation needs to be amended.

          OK.

          It doesn’t.

      2. That is why I don’t think it is necessarily good for Obama politically for this thing to get overturned. A loss is going to devastate liberals. They are just as likely to turn on each other and be demoralized as they are to be energized.

        1. Charlotte Corday|3.28.12 @ 8:36PM|#
          “That is why I don’t think it is necessarily good for Obama politically for this thing to get overturned.”

          Agreed. In the last election cycle, dems were running against Obamacare, which they saw as a good strategy. Having your signature act tossed as unconstitutional probably isn’t going to help.
          It’s not like the thing is wildly popular; even as it’s presented as something for nothing, hardly anyone’s buying that story.

          1. I also think that overturning it could embolden conservative voters. “Yay! The system works! Gotta make sure to get out and vote against those liberals to make sure they never try this again!”

    3. To which, as we all know, the response is: Amendments 9 and 10.

  9. What will be the concurring opinion? Perhaps the shortest in history:

    Are you serious?

  10. Fuck the Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Thank you for revealing the typical Team Blue mentality.

      1. Fuck you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        1. Now you are just being unreasonable.

          1. I stick my finger in your ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            1. Whoa that was uncalled for.

              1. WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. Shrike needs a twitter feed.

      1. I’ll rape you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        1. Now now shrike there is no reason to be uncivil to the young lady.

          1. I’m not shrike, I’m Attlia the Hun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            1. Dude, you need serious help.

              1. But I’m you so you need serious help so ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                1. No dude, just because you stole my name doesn’t make you me.

                  1. Yes it does FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTT!

                    1. Ron Paul is a racist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    2. Is that you Max?

                    3. I’m not max, I’m shrike.

                    4. I thought you were Attilia the Hun?

                    5. christfag!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        2. Uh. Before you try, I’d suggest you google her user name.

          1. The danger only turns me on more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            1. I’m sorry about my imposter, he can be alittle crude at times.

              1. Get back in the kitchen bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  1. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    1. There, there little baby are you getting cracking, how about you take a nap.

                    2. Suck on my apendix bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    3. Okay now you are just blatently trolling.

                    4. You heard my suck it, bite it, ohh I likeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Itttttttttttttttttttttttttttdajkls;fjalks;jflda;sj!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    5. You know what I’ve given up on trying to clear my name, all the commentors know your a spoof, I’m leaving.

                    6. Where are you going bitch, there’s no kitchen that way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    7. Hello are you there bitch, oh well I guess I’m leaving!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. I am in favor of the Cloward?Piven strategy here: the mandate is voided but everything else is forced down the throats of evil insurance companies and the stupid subjects of the thug state. The strategy would further overload the crony insurance and public welfare system and precipitate a crisis, leading to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.” Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

    1. IOWs, Europe on a platter.

      1. Friedman liked the idea of a guaranteed minimum income (in lieu of all manner of means-tested welfare).

  12. Even though you guys are totally invested in being against national healthcare, as there is no other model that works either in practice or theory, you’re either going to have to reexamine your fundamental beliefs or else descend into increasingly incoherent fantasies. Just to clue you in.

    1. Health care was actually working just fine in this country right up until about the 1960s when the government started to intervene and drive costs up across the board. Care was accessible and affordable, and the system was no more likely to leave people dying in the streets than our modern one is.

      There’s a reason the only halfway-socialized industries in this country are also the only ones where costs are on an irresistible march higher.

      1. Health care was actually working just fine in this country right up until about the 1960s . . .

        Yes, but there were lots of racists back then and gay people didn’t have rights so the 60s don’t count!

      2. Graphite|3.28.12 @ 8:37PM|#
        “Health care was actually working just fine in this country right up until about the 1960s when the government started to intervene and drive costs up across the board. Care was accessible and affordable, and the system was no more likely to leave people dying in the streets than our modern one is.”

        Agreed that Medicare shoved the cost-curve to (obviously) geometric forms, but it started ‘way earlier.
        At the end of WWII, prices and wages remained fixed for a period of time; suffice to say Truman (like a lot of POTUS) wasn’t an econ wizard.
        Companies didn’t take long in figuring out that pre-tax benes were a way around that market distortion; hence ‘free medical insurance’! And the insurance companies weren’t about to gripe.
        FDR owns it, Truman wasn’t bright enough to change it.

    2. Tony|3.28.12 @ 8:34PM|#
      …”there is no other model that works either in practice or theory,…”

      That’s a lie, masquerading as an opinion and stated as if it were a fact, shithead.

      1. Is it too much to ask that you provide evidence of another model working?

        Stipulate “working” as ensuring universal access to healthcare with no freeloading.

        1. Stipulate “working” as ensuring universal access to healthcare with no freeloading.

          LOL!

        2. Well, shithead, your dishonesty just bit you in the butt:
          “ensuring universal access to healthcare with no freeloading.”
          In spite of your effort to load conditions on any answer such that no other would suffice, your proposed organized theft does nothing of the sort.

          Is it too much to ask that you accept that you’re a lying, dishonest twit?

          1. So you can’t disprove my claim with even one example?

            Maybe the vulgarity and name calling will distract people so they don’t notice.

            1. Tony|3.28.12 @ 8:58PM|#
              “So you can’t disprove my claim with even one example?”

              Shithead, can you read? Your claim is internally contradictory. It is false on the face of it.
              And I reserve ‘name calling’ for those who deserve it, shithead.

              1. My claim: national healthcare is the only model that successfully controls costs and ensures universal access compared to the alternatives.

                Your way of disproving my claim is to provide an example of a more successful system that works in a different way.

                Not difficult.

                1. Tony|3.28.12 @ 9:15PM|#
                  “My claim: national healthcare is the only model that successfully controls costs and ensures universal access compared to the alternatives.”

                  Nice claim, shithead. Shame there’s no evidence.

                  1. Though not perfect, i would stipulate that Switzerland and Singapore have two of the better healthcare systems in the world. They are largely savings based and there is an actual functioning market in healthcare provision, particularly with Singapore.

        3. Is it too much to ask that you provide evidence of another model working?

          Who gives a shit about “models”? Christ almighty. You don’t even realize how your very language is a form of begging the question.

          We don’t see everything through the lens of “society” and “collective”; not every instance of human interaction has to be identified and quantified into a “model.” FUCK. Can you at least absorb this difference in basic framing so that you can more effectively argue with us?

    3. Tony – you are wrong. Here is a model. Take your dog to the vet, how much is it? $50 -75. Do you use pet insurance? No, you pay with real money. How many people in the Vet office work with “payers and insurance” how many in credintialing. How many work in collections?
      In one doctors office it takes a least 4 full time employees just to deal with insurance and government compliance rules.
      That is why it costs $225 to see me for 10 min.
      That is why it costs $50 to see the vet.
      Both professionals make almost the same income.
      If the government would get out of health care and let people make value decisions, prices would drop like a rock.
      Let people get low cost high deductible emergency insurance and pay out of pocket for normal problems.

      1. So in summary to fix the problem we would need to:
        1. Repeal EMTALA – the hospital can let you die on the sidewalk if it wants to.
        2. Repeal all subsidies of employer sponsored health care, repeal all mandates of coverage and let people deduct the cost of their high deductible plan, so people can buy their own at a reasonable price and take it with them from job to job.

        1. Your solution is Obamacare in another form, minus the basic medical social contract that preceded it for centuries. You’re subsidizing the purchase of health insurance!

          I won’t defend Obamacare as the best possible system, and I’m not even married to the constitutionality of the mandate (though I would prefer it, and I don’t think there’s any logical justification for denying it based on what else the courts have allowed.)

          Prices can go down, but not because people make “value decisions” in a private market. That’s the whole point of why healthcare is a unique market. You don’t buy healthcare like you buy food or cars. Its costs are rarely, in fact, paid because people want to pay them, but because they are forced to or suffer/die, and they can’t predict these costs.

          Costs go down when you expand the risk pool and get profit and the inefficiencies of the private market out of it.

          1. Tony|3.28.12 @ 8:52PM|#
            “Your solution is Obamacare in another form,”

            Shithead, do you have any idea how insulting it is to read such blatant lies presented as ‘fact’?
            Don’t you have a single acquaintance who points out that you never make a claim without including some dishonesty or other?

            1. Among those you associate with, who I’m sure are real winners, are you ever reminded that you never make a substantive point, yet demand attention nevertheless?

              1. Tony|3.28.12 @ 9:01PM|#
                …”are you ever reminded that you never make a substantive point,”

                Well, shithead, here’s one:
                That’s a lie, masquerading as an opinion and stated as if it were a fact, shithead.
                And another:
                In spite of your effort to load conditions on any answer such that no other would suffice, your proposed organized theft does nothing of the sort.
                And a third:
                Your claim is internally contradictory. It is false on the face of it.
                All in the last 15 minutes or so.

                “yet demand attention nevertheless?”
                Demand attention?
                Yes, shithead, I always do that.

                1. It’s almost cute how you think those are substantive arguments, like when a kitten brings you a mangled rodent thinking it’s a gift. Precious in a disgusting, wistfully sad way.

                  1. Tony|3.28.12 @ 9:13PM|#
                    “It’s almost cute how you think those are substantive arguments,”

                    It’s not surprising that you’re ignorant enough to presume otherwise, shithead.

          2. You don’t buy healthcare like you buy food or cars.

            This is actually a big problem and a big part of how the government push toward prepaid health care is exacerbating the problem. Everyone thinks he’s entitled to (and even NEEDS) truffles and a Cadillac, when in many cases a simple steak and a Honda would do. The status quo system *encourages* running up costs unnecessarily, and has almost totally eliminated the end user’s ordinary incentive not to do so.

            1. Overutilization is a problem and a predominant driver of high costs in the US (but it’s not a problem the uninsured have). What drives it? The fact that doctors and patients are incentivized to overutilize, yes in part because of 3rd party paying.

              But you don’t solve that problem by creating a worse one: forcing people out of the healthcare market altogether. But it is difficult to solve, as “rationing” is always instantly demonized.

              1. Tony|3.28.12 @ 9:09PM|#
                …”But you don’t solve that problem by creating a worse one: forcing people out of the healthcare market altogether.”

                Shithead, are you familiar with the term ‘false dichotomy’? You should look it up so you don’t look as stupid as you are.

              2. Overutilization is a problem and a predominant driver of high costs in the US (but it’s not a problem the uninsured have). What drives it? The fact that doctors and patients are incentivized to overutilize, yes in part because of 3rd party paying.

                Isn’t this a compelling argument for less regulation, and the creation of a real, and free market. Once people start paying healthcare costs directly prices will signal changes needed in the market.

                If prices climb it will signal the need for more doctors, nurses, equipment, facilities, etc. Conversely, if prices crater it will be a sign of over supply.

                The law of supply and demand is why I can buy a Blu-ray player for $80 at Best Buy instead of $1,000 (circa 2006) . What do you have against people buying cheap medical services?

          3. Tony|3.28.12 @ 8:52PM|#
            …”That’s the whole point of why healthcare is a unique market.”

            You made the claim, shithead. Prove it.

          4. You’re subsidizing the purchase of health insurance!

            Uhhh..no. We are now, but he wants to remove that subsidy. Read again.

          5. I’m disappointed in you Tony. You didn’t call him an evil capitalist for saying people could be turned away and die on the street.

      2. Let’s not gild the lily here. Vet treatment is cheap partly because no one gets five-figure sums of treatment without paying. If the homeless guy who gets hit by a car and needs emergency surgery and access to a ventilator could just be euthanized like a sick puppy, it would be different.

        1. “If the homeless guy who gets hit by a car and needs emergency surgery and access to a ventilator could just be euthanized like a sick puppy, it would be different.”

          True, and what happens now is that the hospital provides that, and the costs are spread over those who do pay. At a much lower overall cost than any proposed government-regulated system.
          Further, the outlier you mention drives costs to some degree, not the nearly 5:1 delta mentioned.

          1. Your argument, sans data on the differences in cost, is that we might as well allow freeloading because a system in which people pay for their own costs–basic economic fairness that underpins a market system–might require some taxes to implement?

            Penny pinching isn’t principle anyway.

            1. OK, shithead, listen up:
              Tony|3.28.12 @ 10:12PM|#
              “Your argument, sans data on the differences in cost,”
              See data above, shithead.

              “is that we might as well allow freeloading because a system in which people pay for their own costs–basic economic fairness that underpins a market system–might require some taxes to implement?”
              No, shithead. There is no way to avoid freeloading if any economic good (such as medical care) is offered ‘free’. Is that clear, shithead? Further, since freeloading is a given, it is best to pay for it as cheaply as possible.

              “Penny pinching isn’t principle anyway.”
              And, I’ll presume, shithead, you’re stupid enough to think that has some relevance. Only because you’ve constantly proven both your stupidity and your dishonesty.
              Is that clear, shtihead?

              1. since freeloading is a given, it is best to pay for it as cheaply as possible.

                In a public system things are paid for presuming a stake for all citizens, so leaving out subsidies for the poor (which exist for other purposes, such as morality), there is no freeloading.

                All completely irrelevant since when you compare countries it’s clear what the cheaper option is, and it’s not the more market-based freeloader-allowing one we have. It is in fact the most expensive option known.

                1. Tony, would you mind answering *any* of my rebuttals? You’re making about as strong of a case as Verrilli did today.

                2. Tony|3.28.12 @ 10:38PM|#
                  “since freeloading is a given, it is best to pay for it as cheaply as possible.

                  In a public system things are paid for presuming a stake for all citizens, so leaving out subsidies for the poor (which exist for other purposes, such as morality), there is no freeloading.”

                  So, shithead, leaving out freeloading, there’s no freeloading, right?
                  Oh, and stuff your concept of ‘morality’; morality as defined by serial liars isn’t worth considering.

                3. I love how you think that people paying for their own health care or health insurance is ‘freeloading.’

                  I also enjoy how you think the 49% of Americans who pay no Federal income tax would not be ‘freeloading.’

    4. Well Tony you do seem to know a lot about incoherent fantasies. I don’t know that there is a more incoherent one than thinking national healthcare works.

      1. Define works. It merely works better in practice than the system we have (had), unique in the civilized world for not being a national system covering all.

        1. Yeah, our system really sucked before Obamacare. Life expectancies of 25 years…millions of people dying from smallpox every day…no new medications, surgeries or treatments ever…people running to Cuba, Canada and Mexico for medical care.

          Hey, wait a minute…

          1. Note only that, it was much more expensive!
            Well…….

          2. People have a right to higher standards than yours.

            1. Tony|3.28.12 @ 10:13PM|#
              “People have a right to higher standards than yours.”

              WIH does your warped mind presume that to mean, shithead?

              1. That people shouldn’t be forced to live under your regime just because you say so. Even if your regime is the 1970s healthcare status quo, for whatever bizarre reason.

                1. Tony|3.28.12 @ 10:25PM|#
                  “That people shouldn’t be forced to live under your regime just because you say so. Even if your regime is the 1970s healthcare status quo, for whatever bizarre reason.”

                  Shithead, go to Canada and die.

            2. YEAH MOAR FREE STUFF

            3. YEAH MOAR FREE STUFF

            4. YEAH MOAR FREE STUFF

        2. I define ‘works’ as producing health outcomes inferior to America’s everywhere it’s tried. FOR THE CELLECTIVE.

          1. MOAR FREE STUFF

    5. Re Tony @ 8:34.

      Back to first principals.

      It’s none of your business whether I have healthcare of not. The mirror image is also true.

      1. The problem is, it is my business. CBO estimates $1000 extra costs for families because of treatment of the uninsured. Why do you have a right to freeload on me? Just because the problem can’t be solved without government? That, my friend, is an argument against the free market, not for it.

        1. Why is it you business that your healthcare provider chooses to provide free care to the uninsured and elects to charge you more?

          You could seek out cold-hearted physicians and only get care from them.

          Personally, I don’t mind paying more to see a doctor that does charity work. My dentist/orthodontist did some charity work in another country. It would be absurd to call those kids “freeloaders” because they got care for free, and my dentist/orthdontist decided to charge higher fees so he could afford to travel over there.

          1. Well, they don’t choose that, because they are required by law to treat regardless of ability to pay.

            Should we do away with that law? OK, then we no longer have freeloading, we have patient dumping. Much better!

            Don’t do away with that law? OK, then we’re forced to pay for freeloaders (and doctors are forced to charge more).

            Which of these systems are you defending over one that makes healthcare a right for people who want to pay for a system to implement that right?

            1. I am defending people to be free to provide goods and services for sale at whatever price they wish.

              1. So you choose the patient dumping option?

                1. If a doctor doesn’t want to treat a patient, sure, that’s his or her right.

                  Geesh. I’m sure glad I don’t have to accept every customer who walks in my door. I’m especially glad I don’t have to sell my services for free.

                  Now can we get back to your defense of your Constitutional right to have a low fear of dying when you go to restaurants?

                  1. After you explain why I should accept a society in which people are denied medical care just because they can’t afford it (which would include most old people in your ideal system)?

                    You presume a total and absolute right to engaging in commerce, with all the protections (contract enforcement, laws against theft, etc.) that requires, but assume no responsibility on your part to the society that gives you the ability to do that?

                    1. Tony|3.28.12 @ 11:26PM|#
                      “You presume a total and absolute right to engaging in commerce,..”

                      Not “presume” shithead, simply state the fact.

        2. Tony|3.28.12 @ 10:27PM|#
          “The problem is, it is my business. CBO estimates $1000 extra costs for families because of treatment of the uninsured. Why do you have a right to freeload on me? Just because the problem can’t be solved without government? That, my friend, is an argument against the free market, not for it.”

          OK, I was going to suggest a contest on how many lies shithead’s post contained. Not worth it.
          There are four statements, a lie, followed by a misdirection/half-truth, a false dichotomy, and another lie. So the answer would be “two”, disregarding shithead’s other dishonesties. Not worth any contest.

          1. Debate with Tony is about as productive as asking Mary Stack to stop crapflooding.

            He expressed complete faith in the Democratic process and said if we don’t like the ACA, we should vote in a new Congress. I asked him how he felt about Prop. 8 passing with 70% of votes.

            His response of course is silence.

            1. Complete faith hardly. Interesting how I’m both bigger on democracy and bigger on tyranny at the same time. Which form of tyranny do you prefer? What alternative to electing a new Congress do you propose to do away with a law you don’t like? Trust in the courts, fine, that’s where I go with respect to Prop 8 too.

              Civil rights entail a special set of protective policies because civil rights are different from the normal business of the people. There’s nothing undemocratic about supermajoritarian barriers to overturning civil rights. Democratic institutions made those rules.

              1. Tony|3.28.12 @ 10:49PM|#
                “Interesting how I’m both bigger on democracy and bigger on tyranny at the same time”

                No, shithead, it isn’t. Are you familiar with the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’?
                If not, you should look it up. It might make you look not quite so stupid as you are.

              2. Civil rights include the ability to sell a good or service for whatever price I want, or the right not to be forced to sell it at all.

                1. Yes, but like all rights it’s not unlimited. You have no right to sell poisoned food. Do you believe that you should have that right? What about my right to peruse eateries with low fear of dying? Rights conflicts happen. That means they must be balanced in a fair way by some method. Hopefully not “let him with the most money decide.”

                  1. You have no right to have a low level of fear. You do have a right to choose to only buy food from someone you trust.

                    The awesome thing about negative rights is that there’s no conflict. And how you define “poisoned food”? Much of the food the government tells us is safe actually kills us slowly with diabetes and heart disease.

                    1. I do have a right to vote for people who will enact regulations on food that is sold to the public. What denies me that right?

                      Your society would clearly be worse than mine to live in, so I get that you think I should be forced to live in it, I just don’t get how you justify that.

                    2. Californians thought they had a right to vote for enacting a regulation preventing gay couples from getting married. Who are you to deny them that right?

                      They think they have a right to be in a society free of the “gay agenda” trying to seduce their children into the “gay lifestyle”.

                    3. Yeah our rights claims are competing. I intend to win. They can fuck off and die for all I care. Who are you proposing be the arbiter in these matters? Nobody ever gets to that part. King Ron Paul? Who? Are these things not being worked out in the system as they are supposed to?

                    4. Tony|3.28.12 @ 11:22PM|#
                      “Yeah our rights claims are competing.”

                      No, shithead, one more lie.
                      You have no ‘right’ to an economic good.

                    5. Tony|3.28.12 @ 11:22PM|#
                      …”They can fuck off and die for all I care.”

                      Well, shithead, why not call in the KGB and get it done?

                    6. Tony|3.28.12 @ 11:12PM|#
                      “I do have a right to vote for people who will enact regulations on food that is sold to the public. What denies me that right?”

                      Sure you do, shithead, and what does your fantasy have to do with anything?
                      You can vote for unicorns, too.

                    7. Can I bring popcorn to the movie that plays in your mind when you think about how a more libertarian world would be?

                  2. Tony|3.28.12 @ 11:04PM|#
                    “Yes, but like all rights it’s not unlimited.”

                    “Congress shall make NO law…” shithead.

                  3. This is dumb on so many levels, but I’ll just start with the most obvious. I do not have the right to sell you poisoned food because that would be murder (or attempted murder if, by some unfortunate circumstance, you survived) and I very definitively DO NOT have the right to try to murder you. So there are no competing rights involved here, AT ALL. This has ZERO to do with commerce.

                    I don’t blame you for your for the complete stupidity of your arguments on this topic, though. It’s hard to make a decent argument for something that is clearly a crappy bill that has no redeeming qualities and needs to die, especially if you’re not very bright to begin with.

              3. Democracies are extremely scary. That’s why our framers didn’t develop one.

                1. Democracies are extremely scary. That’s why our framers didn’t develop one.

                  ^^^ This +1

    6. I love that, for you, a government that leaves you alone is tyranny.

      Keep up the stellar logic Tony.

  13. Yeah, Linda Greenhouse was right. Absolutely no substance to the arguments against the individual mandate. Only meaningless words.

  14. Tony,

    Let me clue you in. I live 20 miles from the health care heaven called Canada. I have lost 2 Canadian friends who were waiting lists fatalities. My wife was working for a Canadian company when she had a major heart attack about 2 years ago. When she got back to work many of her Canadian colleagues told her how lucky she was. They all pretty much said if she had lived in Canada she would probably be dead. Interestingly enough there have been two Quebec Premiers in recent history who in the face of life threatening health issues opted for treatment in the US. In practice the Canadian health care system is not what it is cracked up to be.

    1. Anecdotal:
      Do you know where the Canadian quints were born?
      “A rare set of identical quadruplets were born this week to a Calgary woman after she was sent to give birth in Montana because of a shortage of neonatal beds in Canada.”
      http://www.canada.com/topics/n…..f760931f1a
      Hey, shithead, tell us again about ‘universal access’ under your ‘wonderful’ plan. C’mon, let’s hear it!

    2. I had a Canuck buddy that would have been paralyzed in a matter of weeks if he hadn’t had access to American CAT scans. Had a pinched nerve in his neck and a Canadian CAT scan was 3-4 months off. He got one in Detroit in two days.

    3. Anecdotal: born in a public hospital myself for “free”. Born premature, crammed into a crowded nursery, didn’t gain weight and my mother had to fight with the nurses to get them to bring me to her so she could try to feed me.

      Oh and after the birth she got to hang out in a crowded room with all the other new mothers, most of whom were smoking. Real healthy, that.

      My favourite “universal access” story is the young man in Quebec who had acute appendicitis, drove himself to the hospital, but forgot his Medicare card. They told him to go home and get it. He did, but died on his way back.

      Real universal access you’ve got going on there. Universal access to get denied care if you don’t have a piece of paper on you, and universal access for me to get thrown in a crowded nursery, unable to gain weight until my mother took me home.

    4. I have American relatives who don’t get insurance through work and thus would be financially ruined or worse if a catastrophic illness or injury were to happen.

      You’re bitching about rationing, i.e., cost saving. Fine maybe Canadians should pay more taxes to subsidize faster access. Assuming your anecdotes prove anything (look at actual data on wait times). You’re arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Is penny pinching good or not? If people with means want to come to America to get superior care, they’re always welcome to, but the Canadian system covers everyone and that’s the point.

      But your conclusion is impermissible, imo: some people should be left without coverage at all so that you can have a shorter waiting room experience, and you’re not willing to pay for any alternative.

      1. Maybe your relatives should consider buying insurance on the individual market. I do, and have since I was a legal adult.

      2. Tony|3.28.12 @ 10:19PM|#
        “I have American relatives who don’t get insurance through work and thus would be financially ruined or worse if a catastrophic illness or injury were to happen.”

        Strangely, shithead, you provided no link for your claim. Further, you haven’t shown they can’t pay for their own coverage, shithead.
        Next, YOU were the one claiming ‘universal access’ for your fave system, shithead.
        Now you’re claiming it would do that if only Canadians paid even more than they do for a system which can’t delivers beds, shithead.
        Peddle your lies elsewhere, shithead.

      3. So what you mean by “covers everyone” is really just that everyone gets the same level of care or lack thereof, regardless of his financial station. But if the entire Canadian system consisted of one underfunded hospital in Toronto and a 1 million year waiting list for a CAT scan, well, that apparently would still count as “universal access.”

        1. Yeah, but one presumes citizens would be willing to pay for both universal access and quality care. No one’s pretending healthcare can be without costs. The whole point is the costs are universal so they might as well be paid for universally, just like the costs of foreign invasion or crime.

          To mirror your hyperbole, ten kazillionaires could be the only people in America who could afford healthcare, but it would be the best damn healthcare in the world, which is to say America has the best healthcare in the world!

          1. Tony|3.28.12 @ 10:53PM|#
            “Yeah, but one presumes citizens would be willing to pay for both universal access and quality care.”

            Now, that’s FUNNY coming from a socialist.

          2. I privately insure against the costs of crime and otherwise take steps to prevent it.

            The idea that government prevents crime is absurd.

            1. So do away with police and courts, and crime would remain static?

              1. You said that the cost of crime is born publicly and universally. Most of the cost of crime, or preventing it, or indemnifying against its losses, is born privately and in a very lopsided manner.

                1. Oh, same with healthcare. Same with war, for that matter. Still, some things are considered universal problems and best dealt with universally. A war won’t equally kill everyone, but we still are willing to socially pay for national defense. We may pay much more for it than will ever be necessary given our individual risk. That is, it’s insurance. Police and punishment are insurance against crime. It’s all future risk we’re mitigating, knowing full well that life is a lottery. In this insurance model, the more buyers-in, the cheaper it is for everyone.

                  1. Tony|3.28.12 @ 11:18PM|#
                    “Still, some things are considered universal problems and best dealt with universally.”

                    Yes, and medical care is considered such by shitheads.

              2. Tony|3.28.12 @ 10:58PM|#
                “So do away with police and courts, and crime would remain static?”

                False equivalence, shithead. You know of no other.

              3. Note that they said ‘prevent’ crime, not ‘prosictue’ crime.

      4. So death is preferable to financial ruin?* Makes sense to me.

        *Of course the “financial ruin” description is bullshit. What they will have is bad credit for a while, which will also go away rather quickly if they pay everything else on time.

      5. Assuming your anecdotes prove anything (look at actual data on wait times).

        It appears you are the one that didn’t look at wait times.

        For Ontario (9 out of 10 patients complete their procedures in this time):

        Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) 91 days
        Computerized Tomography (CT) 41 days
        Kidney Stone Removal Surgery 70 days
        Hip Replacement Surgery 189 days

        If you have kidney stones or need a hip replacement you have to suck it up and endure the pain until it is your turn. If you need imaging prior to scheduling surgery start adding up the wait times.

        1. Holy crap, when they thought I had appendicitis I got a CT scan (I think that’s what it was) in a freaking strip mall in an hour.

      6. Tony, if the U.S. government hadn’t been screwing around with the health insurance market since the 1940’s, your relatives would be able to afford decent coverage.

        Also, major medical is generally fairly affordable. I had it when I was in college and it was under $50 a month.

        IDK if that’s still going to be available once “Obama-care” kicks in though. My understanding is that everyone is pretty much forced to buy into a HMO/PPO system.

      7. I love that YOUR scenario has an “if” in it and you still think you’re comparing apples to apples.

  15. And, of course, no answer from Tony on how to deal with the problem that the Canadian model results in DEAD PEOPLE if you show up in a Canadian ER without your Medicare card.

    Doctors like Ron Paul, on the other hand, frequently provided charity care to patients who couldn’t afford it (whilst simultaneously refusing to participate in Medicaid or accept government handouts).

    Tony really hates doctors who engage in charity care, doesn’t he?

    1. No system, including Canada’s, is perfect. You’re focusing on one alleged problem in theirs, but aren’t owning up to the implication that all of the US’s problems, including lack of access in the first place, make for a better system.

      1. Tony|3.28.12 @ 11:20PM|#
        “No system, including Canada’s, is perfect.”

        You’re right, shithead. Canadians come to the place where it is better.

      2. I don’t understand this lack of access problem you’re talking about, since people who have no insurance are seen for free at hospitals, which you previously cited as a moral imperative and part of some social contract, and the reason for high costs and the need to mandate that everyone pay upfront for insurance. If the uninsured don’t have access to health care, then the cost problem you previously cited shouldn’t exist.

        Unless you’re stuck in a socialist rhetorical caucus race, like Tony.

    2. “Tony really hates doctors who engage in charity care, doesn’t he?”

      Probably, since it would show society can prosper without coercion.
      Shithead is easy to understand:
      1) Shithead is certain he is right, regardless of evidence otherwise.
      2) Shithead will use any sort of sophistry or other dishonesty in discussion to convince others he is right. This is important, in that he is facile with the language and thoroughly dishonest in its use.
      3) Failing that, shithead would be more than happy to use guns, torture or other physical means to force others to agree with him AND DO WHAT HE WANTS!
      Shithead is, in short, Stalin minus the KGB.

    3. Tony hates poor people. That’s why he is so adamant about this and the repeal of the Bush Obama tax cuts.

  16. To summarize – Obamacare is a good thing, so what’s the Constitution got to do with it?

    But I don’t think the Supreme Court is deciding whether or not Obamacare is a good thing, they are deciding whether or not it is Constitutional.

    If they decide that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority to require us to buy stuff, that’s pretty much it for the Constitution.

    As bad as a shitty healthcare system may be, governments with unlimited power are worse.

    And I would like to thank Tony for at least suggesting that the Constitution may need to be amended to allow for Obamacare. Most supporters just suggest re-interpreting the Constitution to make it mean whatever they want it to mean.

    1. yup. i’ve even heard some liberals lament (larry tribe for example) that yes… the 2nd amendment truly does respect an individual right and he/they were wrong all those years.

      that’s refreshing.

  17. lol, the supreme Kangaro oCOurt cracks me up man!

    http://www.Anon-Works.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.