Supreme Court

Liberals Might Be Mad if the Court Rules Against ObamaCare, But the Public Won't

|

Over the weekend, progressive pundit Michael Tomasky set out his expectations for the Obama administration should all or part of the president's health care law be struck down by the Supreme Court. After admitting that there isn't much that can legislatively, he wrote that when the decision drops, he'll be "watching for rhetoric, tone, even body language." And the signals better be clear: The Obama administration and its fellow Democrats "had damn well better dispense with the usual liberal woe-is-me hand-wringing and shoulder slumping and come out swinging. They had better communicate to their base that they stand for something, it's important to them, and they're pissed." In other words, get angry.

Liberal pundits may be angry if the high court rules against the health law's mandate. But the public won't be. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey released today shows yet again that the public is not on the law's side. According to the poll, "37 percent say they would be pleased if the Supreme Court finds the law unconstitutional, versus 22 percent who say they would be disappointed with that outcome." Which tracks with other polls, including a March Reason-Rupe poll reporting that 50 percent of the country viewed the law unfavorably, and a New York Times poll from earlier this month in which only 24 percent of respondents said they wanted the Supreme Court to "keep the entire health care law in place."

NEXT: Gene Healy on Obama's Laughable Commitment to Transparency

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. I have a feeling Thursday could be an “avoid Facebook” day, but I thought that about Wisconsin, and nobody said a goddamn thing.

    1. Isn’t every day an “avoid Facebook” day?

      1. I wish Friendster had won the social network wars.

      2. no kidding. i quit facebook when i became aware they sold personal info w/o user permission. ‘sides, facebook is really for women considering 2/3rds of users are women per facebook

        1. Yes, Facebook sells the information you freely give away to anyone walking down the street.

          Even if they didn’t sell your personal information you gave away to anyone walking down the street, you still gave away your personal information to anyone walking down the street.

    2. Every day is an avoid Facebook day.

      1. Borg share thoughts, gentlement. Care to explain yourselves?

        1. Fun fact: Epi goes to cosplay conventions as Locutus.

          1. I thought it was as The Traveler.

            1. He goes as Kung-Fu Wesley Crusher. Everyone who’s not a stupid dum-dum face knows that.

            2. I told you that in secret!

              1. Also, this can’t be posted enough.

              2. How dare you menace me with your dynamic marital arts action!

            3. I thought it was as The Traveler.

              Winner winner chicken dinner.

              In an intersection of Facebook and Star Trek, does anyone else find it funny that George Takei is the King of Facebook Memes?

              1. Shouldn’t that be the Queen of Memes? He does have a certain resemblance to Leona Hemsley, and certainly has the gravitas.

                1. Also: he’s gay.

                  GROOVUS YOU’RE A HOMOPHOBE AND RACIST!

                  1. Actually, wouldn’t that be LACIST?

                2. Oh my!

      2. Time stamps are a bitch.

    3. I’m already seeing the “BUT HEALTHCARE ACCESS IS A HUMAN RIGHT NOT A PRIVILEGE!!!!” crap.

      There are few things in terms of political arguments that I hate more than that statement.

      1. There are few things in terms of political arguments that I hate more than that statement.

        I’d add it’s also amazing when you start a discussion about it by saying “So, you’re OK with doctors being modern-day slaves?” and they look back at you with a blank stare. It doesn’t even cross their mind that providing a service to another person necessarily requires a portion of the service-giver’s life.

        1. I’m not real people, like CORPORAYSHUNZ and stuff. I’m not allowed to have a say for some odd reason.

        2. I’d add it’s also amazing when you start a discussion about it by saying “So, you’re OK with doctors being modern-day slaves?” and they look back at you with a blank stare.

          ^^^this. Drives me insane. It’s like watching a 90 year old try and operate an iPhone. Utter and complete cognitive dissonance.

        3. But Doctors are, like, rich and white and edumactaed and shit. PATRIARCHY!

        4. “You don’t understand! It’ll just be that rich people have to pay more in taxes and everything will be fine!”

      2. The next time someone tells you that, ask them how much money’s worth of health care. Because it makes no logical sense to argue both that health care is a “human right”, and that there needs to be rationing.

        1. I respectfully disagree.

    4. I gave it up earlier this year until Jan 20 of next year. I doubt Im going back then.

    5. I also noted the strange post-Wisconsin silence, but I think that was a one-off. Judging by the number of posts yezterday castigating SCOTUS for their Montana ruling, I think Thursday on facebook is going to be toxic for thinking people.

    6. Facebook has taught me that 98% of my friends don’t give a damn one way or the other about politics. And here’s another picture of my cat.

      1. ^ This

        …And the other 2% don’t have a clue.

  2. “37 percent say they would be pleased if the Supreme Court finds the law unconstitutional, versus 22 percent who say they would be disappointed with that outcome.”

    *scratches head*

    What do the other 50 percent say?

    1. Mixed feelings.

      1. That’s the problem, though, isn’t it?

        It’s “mixed feelings” all the way down.

        It seems that most Americans want some kind of government healthcare (government healthcare well beyond what we have now), free insurance and birth control, coverage mandates, get-your-government-hands-off-my-medicare*, public option…

        *has anyone ever wondered if that guy was a liberal troll? That he painted up a bullshit sign and slipped into the tea-party ranks? Because that would be pretty damned genius of that were the case.

        1. Most Americans want the most they can get, for as little as they can pay. I think that’s basic Economics, though.

          Many believe that the best way to pay less, is to have their government force others to pay instead of them. They don’t get the TANSTAAFL principle.

          But they don’t necessarily want “government healthcare” either. They just want something for nothing, if they think can get it, from wherever they think they can get it.

    2. What do the other 50 percent say?

      “what’s a supreme court?”

  3. “24 percent”

    —————–

    So about 75,000,000 Americana are certified idiots. Great.

    1. Which tracks with other polls, including a March Reason-Rupe poll reporting that 50 percent of the country viewed the law unfavorably,

      Man, these polls are really messy.

      “views the law unfavorably”.

      That supposes that 50% view it favorably. It’s further possible that the 50% that don’t view it favorably are annoyed because there’s no public option and it isn’t single-payer-ey enough.

      Even if the Supreme Court strikes this bitch down with fire, this country will get some kind of single-payer system within the next decade. Biden will close the loop in 2016.

      1. I’m nowhere near your level of pessimism, but I agree that it’ll take a hell of a clusterfuck to pull us towards health care deregulation at all.

        1. True pessimism is, “Once the electrical power grid ceases to function, health care will be completely deregulated. What’s left of it, anyway.”

        2. Less of a clusterfuck that it would take to put Biden in the White House, short of an all-out fraudulent election, though.

      2. If it can’t be done with legislation, then it will be done through regulation and executive order.

        Checks and balances be damned!

        1. If it can’t be done with legislation, then it will be done through regulation and executive order.

          Afraid you could be right. I don’t see them EVER giving this up. And I don’t think anyone R or D have the intestinal fortitude to stop it either.

          1. So Obama or his successor goes full Mussolini on us?

        2. Checks and balances be damned!

          I’ll check YOUR balance buddy!

          1. I’m not your buddy, guy!

            1. I see what you did there.

            2. I’m not your guy, friend!!

      3. this country will get some kind of single-payer system within the next decade.

        How in hell would they manage to pass single-payer?

        In order to just barely enact this pile, the Democrats had to simultaneously control the White House, control the House, have 60 Senators, and bribe their own Senators, after paying off both PhRMA and the insurance companies to not campaign against it.

        No. You can expect all sorts of stupid piecemeal regulation, sure. But single-payer is not a political possibility.

        1. Remember when Bart Stupak was the most important person in America for like, two days? Man, memories.

          1. I would still like to have a little talk with him…

          2. Bart “As long as you don’t make me do stuff I don’t like, sure, I’ll let you control everyone else!” Stupak is a chode.

        2. How in hell would they manage to pass single-payer?

          Remember how no one who was part of the tobacco MSM back in the 90s was talking about taxing fatty foods or controlling what people eat?

          Yeah, I remember that.

      4. this country will get some kind of single-payer system within the next decade.

        Not gonna happen. No money.

        1. “There is a lot of accumulated wealth in this country, and it just isn’t fair. It needs to be spread around.
          “Income tax alone cannot do it.
          “While the inheritance tax reclaims some of these ill-gotten gains, that wealth needs to be taxed now. For the benefit of us all.
          “That is why I have created a wealth tax on estates worth more than a million dollars. Millionaires can afford it. They’re millionaires!
          “With this new tax we will be able to pay for a single-payer health care system.
          “Since the political will does not exist to do this in Congress, I have declared an emergency and used emergency powers to make it so.
          “Thank you. That is all.”

        2. Not gonna happen. No money.

          Seriously, RC… when did that stop any expansion of government?

  4. The best thing liberals could do if Obamacare goes down is not have a tantrum or talk about wild schemes involving packing the court, but just be honest.

    Just say, “We never liked the mandate anyway. We wanted Medicare for all. So if we can’t have the mandate, we’re going to start working TODAY on passing Medicare for all.”

    But that would require them to be a) honest and b) adults, so they won’t do that.

    1. I’m spent some time, and I think I can accurately predict the typical liberal response to a nullification of ObamaCare:

      “WAAAAH! WE’RE ALL THIRD-WORLD RAPE VICTIMS NOW! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!”

      1. “… and to all the people (sniff) watching out there…(sniff)… the Supreme Court (sniff) died today (sob).”

        1. “This was it. If we didn’t win tonight, the end of the USA as we know it, just happened.”

          1. Their Bill Paxton moment will be yummy and sweet.

            1. Game over man….Game over!

    2. That won’t happen, as emotion, not reason, is their primarily motivator. Besides, they’re the ones that saddled the country with this stupid mandate. Maybe if they hadn’t mistaken the 2006 and 2008 elections as a mandate for them, they might not have come up with this alternative and equally dumb mandate.

      1. They only lost because they were outspent, thanks to evil capitalist corporations.

        1. Seriously, why don’t they just come up with a fictional supervillain called Corporator or something like that? Just as solidly based in reality, but they could more completely control the marketing and presentation of his evil overlordship from his evil corporate lair.

          1. Why make one up when there is the evil Kochtapus?!?

            Muahahahahaha!

            1. At least I spelled Kocktopus correctly!

              1. I rely on Firefox’s spell checker. So when it ain’t in the dictionary, chances are I’m going to get it wrong.

                1. It would help if you think in Russk, sarc. Otherwise, the Firefox is useless.

                  1. It would help if you think in Russk, sarc. Otherwise, the Firefox is useless.

                    Whoa, there’s a blast from the past.

                    1. Whoa, there’s a blast from the past.

                      Da, Tovarisch! Ja ozhidaju shto TY ponimaete!

                2. If you have a Google toolbar load your dismally spelled version in it. I’m amazed by two things in this regard. How many ordinary words the spell check doesn’t recognize, and how Google will sort out your bad spelling every time.

              2. At least I spelled Kocktopus correctly!

                joe’z law strikes again.

                1. I was waiting for someone to call that out.

                  1. I was waiting for someone to call that out.

                    A Clint Eastwood reference took precedence, Epi.

                    1. You can post more than once. You’re just lazy.

                    2. You can post more than once. You’re just lazy.

                      And you’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny. *neener!*

          2. They have, his name is David Koch.

            KOCHTOPUS

            1. He’s quasi-real, though. I’m saying that they should go full fa?ade.

              1. Why? Quasi-real is better.

                1. No, because the failure of the real-life analogue to live up to their apocalyptic claims is a major problem. Better to go totally fictional and control the message.

                  You’d think they’d have learned from the whole quasi-fictional climate debate. Should’ve stuck with computer models only, leaving reality and its pesky lack of cooperation out altogether.

          3. *GARH*GFGE* Corporator wins every time *evil snake hiss*

            1. That’s because you have incompetent minions, Cobra Commander. You really should listen to Destro more often.

              1. or Fumbles.

                1. It’s always been Fumbles

            2. Corporator and his masked sidekick, Lime Ted (Liability)!

      2. I’m honestly wondering why they passed it so fast. I mean, look at it in retrospect.

        Even though some reasonable people disagree on whether Obama is a lock in 2012, he was certainly viewed as a lock in 2008 within their own circle.

        They wolfed the legislation through Congressional throat like they this one rare, fleeting moment. Almost like they thought he was a one-term president. Why? They actually could have moved much more slowly and deliberately, using concensus-building and possibly passed something that much less controversial.

        1. I wondered about that too – they were certainly acting like their majority would last forever – and the HHS was given way too much power, allowing a future Republican/Socon president to wreak all sorts of trouble.

        2. he was certainly viewed as a lock in 2008 within their own circle.

          Clarification: He was viewed as a lock for 2012 in the first couple of years of his presidency.

          1. I’m still of the opinion he is, Paul.

            1. Everyone knows my opinion on Biden 2016… so… yeah.

            2. You think Obama is going to win in 2012?

              1. I do. I do not underestimate to appetite of the entitlement types, including middle class people who loves the individual portions of ObamneyCare. That should tell you all you need to know.

                1. that fact that Obama ever became president certainly shows the direction the country is heading.

                  It ain’t gonna be pretty (no matter who wins).

              2. You think Obama is going to win in 2012?

                All signs point to yes.

        3. I really shouldn’t be multi-tasking here at work while writing comments. I should concentrate on one time-wasting exercise at a time.

        4. They wolfed the legislation through Congressional throat like they this one rare, fleeting moment.

    3. I’m sure they will “come out swinging.” The liberals will take swings at the Constitution, the Court, Republicans, reality, etc…

      They will look like the immature idiots they are.

  5. This just means 37% of America doesn’t know what’s good for them and needs some “convincing”.

  6. We keep inching towards the day when the president (not necessarily this one, but who knows?) declares himself to be dictator because the other branches are not “following the will of the people” or some such nonsense.
    If Obamacare is struck down, we’ll jump a foot closer to that day.

    1. Certainly, he and his followers have made some suggestions that if the other branches don’t do “what is necessary” (i.e., what he wants) he will have to act unilaterally. He’s already done this, with his invasion of Libya, his nullification-by-waiver of NCLB, and his executive DREAM act. The only question is how far he will push it.

      1. Chavez is just a template.

    2. I hear a lot of talk like that, and I am the same mind. The left certainly seems to be of a mind to do it but it may not turn out like they think.

      There is an awful lot of talk also about kicking the shit out of them if they try.

      1. Everyone, left and right, seems to say that about every president of not-my-team, but it never happens.

        However, I do agree that each president makes it a little worse and closer to happening.

  7. Regardless of what I or anyone at REASON.com thinks of Obama-care, one can not say the the PUBLIC will be happy with Obama-care being overturned.

    Polls are Polls. One never really knows. Many people my age (late 40s) are enjoying the fact that their kids (in early 20’s) are covered by the work plan.

    I know libertarians hate the emotional argument but, people with sick children are not going to be happy with it.

    And, if the 80% of americans that are happy with their healthcare came down with a disease or injury in which they end up getting the run-around from insurance, they would not like it either.

    ObamaCare Sucks. I’m a liberal, I would have preferred a PUBLIC plan for those that could not afford private insurance and I would have had a means-test in order to join such a plan. Obama was too much of a Pussy to offer it. Instead, we get this crap.

    1. qeripotyqerkmn TRANSPARANCEE zcx,.vmnzcxv e9ruy mndsfg 4t49gv v9yfr4kjbvffv 4ti9h3gyfv egikhgf OBAMACARE RIGHT gur98rgf9og AAAGGGHHH!!!

    2. “Polls are Polls. One never really knows. Many people my age (late 40s) are enjoying the fact that their kids (in early 20’s) are covered by the work plan. on the road to a life of mollycoddling.” Do you think Daniel Boone was still on his parent’s health insurance plan at the age of twenty-five? Lewis Clark? Martin Luther King?

      1. Do you think Daniel Boone was still on his parent’s health insurance plan at the age of twenty-five?

        That’s not fair. Not all of us could kill a bar’ when we were 3.

        1. Where’d my fucking ampersand go between Lewis and Clark?

          1. Ampersands have been sacrificed on the altar of trolls.

            1. on the alter of john/mary stack u mean

        2. [oldnerd]
          “Born on a mountain in Tennessee
          Greenest state in the land of the free
          Raised in the woods so’s he knew every tree
          He killed him a b’ar when he was only three

          Davy, Davy Crockett, king of the wild frontier.”
          [/oldnerd]

      2. Seriously. As the mother of three twenty-somethings, I can’t imagine adults in their age range willingly remaining that dependent on their parents.

    3. Shorter Alice Bowie: “Medical care is a right because the public says so and mandates are just and proper. Now bend over…”

      1. It’s a sockpuppet. Who cares what it says?

    4. Hey, the reason I can buy prescription drugs in Mexico 100x cheaper than in the USA is because the drug was INVENTED in the USA in the first place.

      I’m all for a free market in healthcare for the middle class and the wealthy.

      I want a public option for the poor and for people in eligible for health insurance (pre-existing condition, elderly, etc.).

      1. Alice’s suggestion here really isn’t that offensive to most libertarians. However, there are going to have to be “death panels” on a public option.

      2. Why a public option instead of a subsidy?

        1. I’m for a public option where all providers are government employees. If you are on the Government Dole, you must go to government run clinics/doctors and use government inventory of medicine.

          I don’t mean equal results for all. Of course, the private health sector (free market) will offer quicker and better quality care.

          I’m going to lose every time to the free market argument since 90% of the people never fall sick or get seriously injured. Trust me, every person who has a child with leukemia wishes it were different.

          If you have a child with leukemia and you have a home, a bank account, and assets; in a free market one must lose all before being eligible for the public option. I don’t like it. If I were king i wouldn’t have it that way. But that is what your typical American wants…until their child comes down with leukemia and the insurance company gives them the run-around.

          1. If you have a child with leukemia and you have a home, a bank account, and assets; in a free market one must lose all before being eligible for the public option.

            You know, we have a public option right now: its called charity care, and you know what?

            Its not even second class care.

            Yeah, you have to be broke before they stop trying to get you to pay. But if you can pay, why shouldn’t you? I mean, if keeping your stuff means more to you than keeping your kid alive, just give the kid up. And if keeping your kid alive means more to you than keeping your stuff, then you shouldn’t be complaining.

            1. I disagree with charity care. It won’t be enough. You are describing India, Mexico, Dominican Republic, and all those other countries were charity is the only option. Don’t get me wrong, Americans do give to charity. I don’t think it would be enough.

              Beside, look how stingy Americans are about offering free healthcare to the poor. Not to mention that millions of Americans support War over general healthcare.

              I do agree with your second point. People that can pay should pay. But once the parent has nothing after selling off all assets, I feel that a civilized society should tax everyone to offer basic and catastrophic healthcare to the poor.

              1. Beside, look how stingy Americans are about offering free healthcare to the poor. Not to mention that millions of Americans support War over general healthcare.

                I don’t think you can prove that. If the gov were to stop bombing the hell out of every foreign nation it didn’t like and put that money into SCHIP, medicare and medicaid, the average american wouldn’t even blink an eye.

            2. Why shouldn’t you be forced to seek out charity home security protection instead of making me pay for police?

              In a civilized country a person shouldn’t have to make that choice. We should be free to collectivize some costs so as to minimize individual risk. It’s just social insurance. It’s hard to understand and it’s not communism.

              1. not* hard to understand

              2. Tony. Civilizing America on theft at a time.

              3. If you want someone to protect your home only, then you should be forced to pay for it yourself or get someone to donate his/her time. But police don’t protect any one person’s home. They don’t (or at least shouldn’t) spend any more time patrolling outside your house than my house. And, since everyone benefits from the police, everyone should pay a proportional share (adjusted for those that get more benefit because, for example, they have more property).

                That’s not remotely comparable to medicaid funded medical care, which is rendered to one person and only one person receives the benefit, and for which that person pays nothing in taxes.

            3. You are going to lose that argument Tony. Libertarians believe we should all hire private security and not collectively pay for police.

              1. I know you are, in general, abysmally stupid but even you must realize that most law enforcement agencies won’t reply to property crimes these days. Private security is an expense which prudent people generally pay for like the water or the electric bills.

                The police have no obligation to provide your security or pursue those who have violated your property or person.

          2. “If you have a child with leukemia and you have a home, a bank account, and assets; in a free market one must lose all before being eligible for the public option. I don’t like it.”

            Who gives a fuck what you like? Why on earth should I pay for your shit? Grow the fuck up.

            1. There you go. Here’s a guy that’ll definitely give to charity.

              1. You’re such a piece of shit.

                You know what I hate the most about leftists? The total smugness they have when they steal from people. They honestly, truly, believe that pointing a gun at someone and taking their hard earned money is morally righteous. How can someone be that morally depraved? When did committing an act that every single human civilization for the past five thousand fucking years has recognized and punished as a crime become a laudatory action?

          3. Then those hospitals are just going to be awful. Possibly worse than nothing at all. And we’ll get media exposes showing the horrid conditions in those hospitals ala Walter Reed and state mental hospitals. And then that will be the basis for calls for more funding. Congress will then throw more funding at the awful hospitals. And then they will continue to be awful, but add thousands of more employees and suck up more money. Repeat process.

            1. Every time I hear a liberal go on about how wonderful government healthcare is, I think back to the dysfunctional mess that is the military healthcare system.

              When I have to wait a month just to get an appointment to have an ingrown toenail taken care of (and having the secretary tell me to LIE that I needed emergency treatment to get seen sooner), and the private clinic got me in and out in 30 minutes, which option do you think I’m going to believe is superior?

              1. And, that is what I want.

                A public clinic that cures people and triage.

                And private free market care.

                1. A public clinic that cures people and triage.

                  We’re paying $800 billion for 50 million recipients of Medicare and Medicaid. How on earth are we going to afford catastrophic care for 300 million? Because everyone is going to develop a life-threatening ailment at some point.

                  It’s way past time for us to accept that we are mortal, and that it’s not society’s responsibility to keep us alive at all costs.

                  1. We paid $11billion a MONTH for war over a period of nine years.

                    It’s way past the time for us to accept that we shouldn’t hitting up the tax payers for WAR.

                  2. We can afford it. Unless you are OK with us not covering your loved ones?

          4. Public catastrophic coverage makes more sense than anything else, IMO.

            Nobody WANTS leukemia. You can’t fake it. There’s no need to have economic disincentives.

            If we are going to have public health insurance, it would make the most sense to have a mostly-free-market healthcare system, including insurance, and to socialize catastrophic insurance.

            There are many problems with this, but all told, it would be a better solution than the public/private crap we have now, where you can see a doctor for the common cold for a few bucks, but a real medical catastrophe will leave you and your family ruined.

            1. Amen. And that is from a Liberal.

              1. There’s no need to have economic disincentives.

                Are you fucking high? There’s always a need for economic disincentives.

                Besides, if you honestly think such a system would stay that way, I got a bridge to sell you. The whole history of government entitlement programs proves this. Look at Social Security. Originally designed to help the very aged who outlived their savings, its now a gravy train. People who collect this year for the first time are going to collect for at least 15 or 20 more years.

                All safety nets turn into hammocks. Every single fucking one.

                1. Yes Virginia…There is such thing as a big, stingy, meanie!!!

                  So now the liberal comes out…

                  What’s wrong with the hammock?

                  Especially for the elderly that are not rich. I agree that SSN cash monthly benefits should be means-tested and people should be thrown in JAIL for fraud. If I were King, seniors that have assets that generate more than two or three the median income would not receive a cash benefit. I’m so generous (spending all of your money) I’d even let them have healthcare.

                  Do you think kids should also go out and work as well? Us humans extended childhood by about ten years. It’s a good thing.

      3. I want a public option for the poor and for people in eligible for health insurance (pre-existing condition, elderly, etc.)

        We’ve got that–they’re called Medicare and Medicaid, and they cost over $800 billion a year for 50 million people.

        Anyone screaming for universal healthcare needs to explain why that is a better option than this, using actual data and not pointless platitudes about compassion for the poor:

        http://www.oftwominds.com/blog…..07-09.html

    5. “I would have preferred a PUBLIC plan for those that could not afford private insurance and I would have had a means-test in order to join such a plan. ”

      Isn’t that what medicaid is?

      If they were actually interested in doing things that allowed market forces to bring down costs, the existing safety net would start catching everyone again that couldn’t afford private care. But they weren’t really interested in allowing costs to come down via any kind of market process.

      1. I think the COST problem is due to insurance. The vast majority of Americans (i heard 80%) are covered by insurance. That means that they don’t pay for basic care. They don’t pay for medication. THE THIRD PARTY DOES. And that is a problem. Had you only had THIRD PARTY for poor and elderly, the COST would not be as high.

        A few years ago, my wife dropped our 1 1/2year old and required five stitches on the lip. Once in the emergency room, any father would pay anything for their daughters face. This is where healthcare is in-elastic and I argue free market doesn’t work for emergency care since you need it there and now.

        The doctor charged us $3800 for five stitches. I had a high-deductible plan (which i got rid of and don’t recommend for people with children or women that can become pregnant). So, I was responsible for the entire thing. When I told the doctor to send me to collections and we’ll resolve this in court or via collection agency, he asked if I lacked insurance. I told him yes. He lowered the price to $1,200.

        So, THIRD PARTY PAYER for the 80% of Americans is what I believe ran up the cost of healthcare.

        1. “The doctor charged us $3800 for five stitches.”

          You left out all of the other associated costs of the visit. How convenient.

          1. The hospital was separate. That’s a funnier story. The $3,800 was a plastic surgeon and not the ER surgeon. But like I said, once negotiated, $1,200 I thought was a fare price for the 15min of work. He did a great job.

            The hospital tried to charge me $4,500. When I called them, I assumed they were double charging me for the surgeon. There weren’t. That is the price they charge for people coming into the ER with a Level 8 injury…whatever that means. Nevertheless, I called the hospital and they said the treatment was erroneously classified (in their favor) and the charge was lowered to $1,100 if i remember correctly.

            So, insurance would have paid $3800 for the plastic surgeon (because they pay ANYTHING for an EMERGENCY) and $4,500 for the ER (since this hospital was out of my plan). I ended up paying less than $2,500 as a private consumer.

            Like I said, I’m for the FREE market for the regular Joe. However, we need government funded safety nets for the poor and elderly.

            1. Why the elderly? Are they too frail for the free market?

              1. Adam, the reason they created medicare is because the elderly (rich or poor) and the disabled (rich or poor) are un-insurable. You are un-insurable if you’ve had a DUI conviction in some places. Can you imagine a 66 year old that had a heart attack?

                1. Well some elderly are uninsurable, but certainly not all. And some people who are not elderly are uninsurable, but you left them out of your “government funded safety nets for the poor and elderly.”

                  And I disagree that uninsurability was the reason for Medicare. Medicare was the first step in what many on the left hoped would lead to single payer. They picked the elderly as the first group because they were a sympathetic bunch.

                  1. That is the cynical conspiracy theory of the liberals creating a simple payer. To Liberals, single payer seems to be a solution. It was truly that elderly and disabled were unable to get care after everyone else was insured.

                    I’m liberal, but I don’t agree with the party on this. I think there should be NO PAYER…including insurance for 80%-90%. The majority of people should pay for their own medication, treatment, and doctor visits. Emergency treatment and catastrophic treatment need to be addressed separately. People that an afford a few thousand bucks for emergencies should pay.

                    We need something for grandma, the blind, the poor, etc. And that can be in the form of FREE clinics with government employees and NOT single payer to free-market doctors…this is how we got into this mess.

                    1. Then you are not that far off from the views here. If the government would stop distorting the insurance markets with tax preference, much more healthcare would be out of pocket, and this would bring costs down. This would also increase access for the poor and also make any public safety net for a small percent of people less expensive.

                      Getting rid of the insurance distortion is one of the things that needs to be done to allow markets to bring costs down.

                    2. Amen.

    6. AFAIK there was nothing to prevent health plans from covering kids in their 20s. It’s just that now, *all* plans require that, so *all* plans are more expensive. Which is another instance of what “progressives” have been doing for decades: adding mandates that make health insurance more expensive. And now that it’s very expensive, well, more government intervention is required!

      1. My employer’s health care provider told us the premiums would actually go down – due to more young, healthy people – if every participant put his 24-26 yr. old kids on their Plan. Trouble is, the only ones who do are those who kids have really expensive medical problems already.

  8. NBC was involved in the poll so I am guessing it was doctored to come out in favor of Obamacare. That it didnt in spite of that really says something.

    1. It’s all in the questions and choices.
      Get them right and you can get the result you want.
      At least that’s what the left says when Rasmussen reports something they don’t like.

  9. Holder Contempt Vote Set for Thursday

    Obamacare ruling set for Thursday

    It’s getting good.

    1. Perfect metaphor for Thursday.

  10. According to the poll, “37 percent say they would be pleased if the Supreme Court finds the law unconstitutional, versus 22 percent who say they would be disappointed with that outcome.”

    @ Marketwatch (a website of the WSJ that provides financial markets news data) they had a online poll thingy which had 70%/30% against approving the mandate

    OK, yeah, its a financial website, and the people perusing it probably arent’ screaming liberals. But I was mildly surprised.

  11. “had damn well better dispense with the usual liberal woe-is-me hand-wringing and shoulder slumping and come out swinging. They had better communicate to their base that they stand for something, it’s important to them, and they’re pissed.”

    And if they don’t, tough guy Michael Tomasky will totally kick their asses! And they better be afraid, because this guy is scary as shit. Wouldn’t want to meet him in a dark alley!

    1. If John Cusack fucked Adrian Brody we’d get that guy.

    2. I don’ know, that gin blossom in the middle of his face is pretty threatening.

      1. He Hulks out when drunk.

        1. No, he looks like he cries and shits himself when he drinks too much.

  12. Oh no, not angry lib-tards!

    Here’s hoping more than a few of them decide to do the right thing and go protest “buddhist monk in Saigon” style.

  13. Anyone who thinks that Obama is going to be reelected just because people were stupid last time are WAAYYYYY overlooking the “I’m not a racist this time because I already voted for him once” logic. Obama was elected because many typically-right voters felt guilty not voting for the black guy and wanted to make “history.” Freakin’ Bill Kristol got choked up on election night, for Chrissakes.

    The only people voting for Obama this time are hard core leftists and 98% of blacks… He is going to be routed in the electoral college by 150 votes and lose by 10+ points in the popular vote.

    1. Anyone who thinks that Obama is going to be reelected just because people were stupid last time are WAAYYYYY overlooking the “I’m not a racist this time because I already voted for him once” logic.

      If only. There weren’t that many people who voted for him on the I’m-not-a-racist premise.

      The number of people who would have proudly voted for John McCain but voted for Obama so they could claim simpatico with minorities has to be infinitesmally small.

      Here’s the top five reasons why THIS blogger is voting for Obama again in 2012:

      #1? Buffett Rule? “The money’s got to come from somewhere,” Obama said.

      #2 ? He thinks people should have access to free preventative health care? why is this an issue?

      #3 ? He is fighting on behalf of women’s reproductive rights?

      #4 ? repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell ?.and announcing his support of marriage equality ?

      #5 ? The Life of Julia

      Read ’em and weep.

      1. There weren’t that many people who voted for him on the I’m-not-a-racist premise.

        No link.

        1. WAAYYYYY overlooking the “I’m not a racist this time because I already voted for him once” logic.

          No link.

          I’m not sure what you’re saying here.

          If I understand you, you’re taking issue that I make a statement with no supporting evidence. Fair enough, I was responding to a statement with no supporting evidence.

          If that’s the case, I withdraw my statement and demand the original poster support his statement with evidence.

          1. No link.

            I’m not sure what you’re saying here.

            I seriously doubt you genuinely do not/did not understand the simple, two-word response, “No link.

            If that should somehow actually prove to be true, however… then: goddamn.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.