Audio of Anthony Kennedy: The mandate fundamentally changes the relationship between citizens and the federal government

posted at 4:15 pm on March 27, 2012 by Allahpundit

Ed touched on this earlier but you should listen to the clip, as it’s surely the single most momentous exchange from today’s momentous hearing. If the mandate ends up being cashiered, this will be its epitaph.

A dirty little secret about Kennedy: He’s not nearly as centrist when it comes to the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment as he is on, say, abortion and gay rights. He’s been the fifth vote for a conservative majority on several landmark cases finding limitations on federal power. I get the idea sometimes from righties who don’t pay much attention to the Court that they view him as another Souter, but that’s not remotely fair. In fact, it’s telling that he begins here by noting enumerated powers. The liberal view of the Constitution on economic regulation is, for all practical purposes, that the only restraint on federal power is the Bill of Rights. My sense of how they imagine those rights is as a sphere that’s been carved out that the feds can’t invade, but as long as they stay outside of it, they can do anything they want. In reality, of course, it’s the feds who are trapped in a sphere. That’s the point of enumerated powers — to lock them inside an area within which they can act but from which they’re not supposed to escape. Everything outside that sphere is reserved for the people and their state governments. (That’s the point of the Tenth Amendment.) Kennedy seems to take that same basic view. It’s entirely possible that he’ll drive a stake through the mandate’s heart.

But it’s also possible that he won’t:

Later on, it would appear that Kennedy had some doubt about whether the health insurance market was, in fact, a unique phenomenon. But near the end of the entire argument, when challengers’ lawyer Michael A. Carvin was at the lectern, Kennedy made a comment that he may have started to see the issue differently.

To understand its significance, the context of this later remark is important. Justice Breyer had again, as he had done several times during the challengers’ argument, stressed that Congress was confronted with a situation in whch some 40 miliion people did not have insurance, and that gap was, in fact, having an effect on commerce that was substantial. “So,” Breyer said, “I thought the issue here is not whether it’s a violation of some basic right or something to make people buy things they don’t want, bujt simply whether those decisons of that groujp of 40 milliion people substantially affect the interstate commerce that has been set up in part” through a variety of government-sponsored health care delivery systems. That, Breyer told Carvin, ”the part of your argument I’m not hearing.”

Carvin, of course, disputed the premise, saying that Congress in adopting the mandate as a method to leverage health care coverage for all of the uninsured across the nation. Kennedy interrupted to that that he agreed “that’s what’s happening here.” But then he went on, and suggested that he had seen what Breyer had been talking about. “I think it is true that, if most questions in life are matters of degree,” it could be that in the markets for health insurance and for the health care for which insurance was the method of payment “the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries. That’s my concern in the case.”

If Kennedy can be persuaded that health care is sui generis, maybe he’ll split the baby by voting to uphold ObamaCare while emphasizing that a mandate for any other industry would be flatly unconstitutional. Not sure how that argument will work — listen to Roberts in the second clip below wonder why a cell-phone mandate would be any different than one for health insurance — but that’s the left’s best hope. Speaking of which, their explanation for today’s disaster appears to be not that they have a weak case on the merits but that Donald Verrilli’s performance was the legal equivalent of fumbling 10 times in the Super Bowl. In fairness to them, some of his exchanges with the Court are painful to read; the liberals on the bench had to bail him out repeatedly. But look: No case of this magnitude is being decided by oral arguments. If you think Breyer and Kagan and Sotomayor and Ginsburg were aggressive in arguing his case for him today, wait until they start going to work on Kennedy behind closed doors. Obama has four very good lawyers on his side in the Supreme Court’s chambers. Verrilli’s performance is unfortunate and terrible optics for O-Care’s superfans, but it’s not changing any votes.

Here’s the full transcript of today’s argument and complete audio. If you have the time, dive in.

Update: Orin Kerr notes the million-dollar phrase in Kennedy’s comments today: “Heavy burden of justification.” He didn’t suggest that mandates are always and everywhere unconstitutional, only that in order to justify using one the feds need to point to some very special and compelling circumstances. The whole question now is whether the allegedly “unique” health-care market is special and compelling enough to get Kennedy to vote with the left.

Update: To see what I mean about the liberal view of the Constitution, read lefty Michael Tomasky wondering why we can’t settle this issue with simple democracy. America elected a Congress that passed a mandate; if the people don’t like the mandate they came up with, let ‘em elect a new Congress to undo it. In other words, in lieu of enumerated powers in Article I, he’d apparently let Congress run wild with regulation and leave it to voters to rein them in. That’s a fine idea, and the Court’s ridiculously expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence sometimes flirts with it, but it’s not the system we have. Enumerated powers mean something or they don’t.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Obama wants to lose this. His lawyer is intentionally throwing the case. The mandate gets struck down, but the other provisions — “children” on their parents’ insurance until age 26, must cover all pre-existing conditions but cannot charge more for it — stay. The insurance companies will be belly up within two years and people will be screaming for the government to “do something.” Hello, single payer health care.

Rational Thought on March 27, 2012 at 4:21 PM

…I didn’t know this!….Oh krap!…now, I’m going to have to read it!

KOOLAID2 on March 27, 2012 at 4:56 PM

States are not limited to enumerated powers; the federal government is.
Attention ABRtards, for the nth time: That’s the difference between Romneycare & Obamacare.

Dark Star on March 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

So, it’s not a matter ideology, just a matter of legalities, then?

kingsjester on March 27, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Two Things stick out to me on the arguments from Gen. Verrilli.

GENERAL VERRILLI: No, that’s quite different. That’s quite different. The food market, while it shares that trait that everybody’s in it, it is not a market in which your participation is often unpredictable and often involuntary. It is not a market in which you often don’t know before you go in what you need, and it is not a market in which, if you go in and — and seek to obtain a product or service, you will get it even if you can’t pay for it.

and later

GENERAL VERRILLI: So, let me try to state it this way: The Congress enacted reforms of the insurance market, the guaranteed-issue and community-rating reforms. It did so to deal with a very serious problem that results in 40 million people not being able to get insurance and therefore not access to the health care environment.

So I’m wondering how people without insurance get a service when per his argument those 40 million people do not have access to the health care. Wish one of the Justices would have discussed that hole in his arguments.

waingro on March 27, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Attention ABRtards, for the nth time: That’s the difference between Romneycare & Obamacare.

Dark Star on March 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Uh, I get that. I believe the mandate is bad policy. Period. On that, they are the same.

Bitter Clinger on March 27, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Maybe we should have a government option for healthcare. For those that want to place their life in the hands of the government, they can agree to pay for a government plan that covers what the government wants to cover with only doctors and other medical resources that agree to be part of the government plan.

The money collected from the suckers participants would be put in Al Gore’s lockbox. The premiums collected can not be used for any other government program AND the government cannot borrow or use ANY funding from other government programs. Once the funds are gone for the year, the medical care is gone for the suckers participants .

In addition, the private health care system option (the rest of us) will have no legal obligation to cover the uninsured or illegal aliens. The government suckers participants will have to rely on the charity of friends, family and the community when the funds are exhausted.

If they want choice and want to be do-gooders, then let’s them share the cost (and benefits-hahahhahahha) of their convictions.

bigjacket on March 27, 2012 at 4:56 PM

There is some precedent on this. An unanimous opinion from the Rehnquist years called Duquesne Power & Light.

You cannot regulate a business out of business by making it impossible to earn a fair profit. Don’t recall the details, but Richard Epstein of U Chicago Law (who had a few things to say about former law school colleague Obama elsewhere), had a column on it in the WSJ in late 2010.

Wethal on March 27, 2012 at 4:47 PM

I recall that, but it doesn’t mean the Obama Administration won’t try. They always win when they run against “greedy insurance companies.” It would be yet another case that would have to make its way to the Supremes, because Obama would find leftists in the lower courts to side with him. There is also the question here of severability, which no one seems to be commenting on. Since the health care law had no severability clause — which is apparently unheard of with such legislative packages — many assume that if the mandate goes down, the whole law goes down, but I have not seen much discussion of that. If that is the case, though, I think it is much more likely that the Court will uphold the mandate — provided they can find some “limiting” issues for Kennedy and Roberts to hang their hats on. Given that it’s the Supreme Court, they’ll likely find their own words — “this doesn’t apply to any other commercial activity” — to be all the limits they need.

Rational Thought on March 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM

milcus on March 27, 2012 at 4:52 PM

I’m not so sure. It seems that the pivot to “political messaging” as to whether the mandate is a tax or a penalty was more at hs discretion. And that flopped spectacularly.

He may be a very good litigant, but we’re not exactly judging him by the standards of the public defender in My Cousin Vinny here. He’s now in the same ranks as Ted Olson and Robert Bork, and he’s failing to measure up.

KingGold on March 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Did anyone hear that Roberts’ analogy to cell phones? Is this guy serious? Who forged his transcript??? WOW these guys are supposed to be smart????

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

If the mandate gets tossed, the whole thing comes to a stop before implementation.

State AG’s will run it back into the circuits and bring it to a grinding halt. 0 knows this.

The only way Barry can jam it into effect, without a mandate, is if he wins re-election and keeps the Senate. I’m not sure what his options would be at that point, maybe an executive order.

budfox on March 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Remember Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI)?

It was “supposed” to provide every person with a guaranteed retirement account. And yet, the only people who are required to “purchase” this “insurance” are people who actually work.

Even though every person alive is expected to grow old.

Same thing with Medicare – that’s supposed to be medical “insurance” for when you get old, but the only people paying into it are people who work.

Even though every person over the age of 65 will probably need medical care between then and the time that they pass away.

So not everyone has to PURCHASE these “services”, even though they are American citizens (and don’t get me started on people who collect these bennies illegally).

So, yes – this IS a fundamental transformation of the contract between the citizenry and the government….

TeresainFortWorth on March 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Clearly, the conservative members of the Supreme Court want women to die on the floor.

Lily on March 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

How long before a ruling is handed down..?

d1carter on March 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

June.

INC on March 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

maybe an executive order.

budfox on March 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

If re-elected, that would become a Royal Decree.

Rex Lex and all that.

coldwarrior on March 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Rational Thought on March 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM

The unfortunate thing about Duquesne Light is that Rehnquist, O’Conner, Souter and Stevens are all gone.

If Obama got one or two more appointments, I could see his court distinguishing Duquesne Light somehow. Just because it was unanimous, doesn’t mean it’s “super duper precedent,” (as Alren Specter called Roe).

Wethal on March 27, 2012 at 5:01 PM

To see what I mean about the liberal view of the Constitution, read lefty Michael Tomasky wondering why we can’t settle this issue with simple democracy. America elected a Congress that passed a mandate; if the people don’t like the mandate they came up with, let ‘em elect a new Congress to undo it.

Okay, game over obamacare lost.

Scott Brown?

2010?

cozmo on March 27, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Oh, so you’re just a Lib, then? After all, you’re attacking a Conservative Judge who will be instrumental in overturning Obamacare. What other reason would you have to be doing that right now on a onservative site?

kingsjester on March 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

A lib-ertarian! (But not the “blame America first” variety.)

Scalia’s willingness to shred the Constitution to prevent some guy in CA from growing a scary plant on his own land provides ammunition for Obamacare.

EddieC on March 27, 2012 at 5:02 PM

I’m betting SCOTUS will uphold the mandate, if only because this is an election year and they don’t want to be seen as influencing the result. The Supreme Court hasn’t stood up to the Executive Branch in any meaningful way since Schlecter Poultry Corporation v. United States. The Judicial Branch tries so hard to stay so far above the fray that its forgotten its purpose.

Hint: The US Government is not The United Federation of Planets. We don’t have a Prime Directive.

troyriser_gopftw on March 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM

This isn’t standing up to the Executive Branch at all. Congress passed this clusterfark of a law, and its powers are at issue here. The Court agreed to hear the case knowing this is an election year; they could have just as easily denied certiorari.

The Court is always loath to overturn an act of Congress, but it has been done and it has been done more frequently in recent years, and particularly based on Congress’ over-reliance on the Commerce Clause.

I don’t know if it was mentioned in arguments, but there is a brief filed by a large group of economists, including several Nobel Prize winners, that totally demolishes the government’s case. It proves that the health care market is not unique, that uninsured people do not cause any significant distortion in costs paid by the insured, and that average health care costs of the uninsured are small and easy for the average person to bear out of pocket.

rockmom on March 27, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Prediction..Alana Kagan,votes in favour of Hopey!!

canopfor on March 27, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Really going on out a limb there, eh Canuck?

AZCoyote on March 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM

INC on March 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Thanks…

d1carter on March 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Still neutral, 50/50, some promise.

Bmore on March 27, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Scalia’s willingness to shred the Constitution to prevent some guy in CA from growing a scary plant on his own land provides ammunition for Obamacare.

EddieC on March 27, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Verilli tried to use that case in his argument and Scalia demolished him. People who grow marijuana are unequivocally participating in a market, even if they are growing it for themselves. People who choose not to buy health insurance and pay for their own health care costs are not participating in the insurance market. Apples and oranges.

rockmom on March 27, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Although it is highly unlikely, the best possible outcome for me (besides the overturning of Obamacare, or at least the mandate) would be the Supremes overruling its Wickard decision. Gonzales is different, I think, in that wheat —unlike marijuana — is not and was not a schedule 1 controlled substance. (Perhaps that should be changed.)

youknowit on March 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Barry’s people are not throwing the case.

They never expected it to make it this far, and now they’re relying on the lefty judges.

You have to go by how sure the MSM lefties were over the ruling. Dead-set confidence to the point they were wondering if Thomas would be the sole holdout. Now, they’re looking at Solomon splitting the baby, which they know won’t work and will force a total restructure of Obamacare.

If that’s the case, then bases will be motivated, which is exactly what Barry does not need to win. Obama needs suppressed turnout, because the summer is going to suck wind thanks to gas and inflation.

budfox on March 27, 2012 at 4:52 PM

On the contrary, it was “Barry’s people” who asked for the fast track to the Supremes — before the election. Maybe they were being over-confident, or maybe they figured they’d win either way. Obama wins, he campaigns on his sweet Constitutional health care “reform.” Obama loses, he campaigns on “free” health care for all. Win-win.

Rational Thought on March 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Did anyone hear that Roberts’ analogy to cell phones? Is this guy serious? Who forged his transcript??? WOW these guys are supposed to be smart????

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

…LOOK ^ The Village Idiot, giving an assesment!^
…oh…you so smart!

KOOLAID2 on March 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

d1carter, no problem.

I don’t know if it was mentioned in arguments, but there is a brief filed by a large group of economists, including several Nobel Prize winners, that totally demolishes the government’s case. It proves that the health care market is not unique, that uninsured people do not cause any significant distortion in costs paid by the insured, and that average health care costs of the uninsured are small and easy for the average person to bear out of pocket.

rockmom on March 27, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Thanks for this info.

INC on March 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Did Verrilli study law with Pokemon cards?

Terp Mole on March 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Very close, he got a B.A. from Yale and his J.D. from Columbia Law School.

Or should I call it “Colombia Law School”?

His main problem is that his real areas of “legal expertise” are telecommunications, media and First Amendment law.

None of those fields were what he was arguing for today.

Del Dolemonte on March 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM

States are not limited to enumerated powers; the federal government is.

Attention ABRtards, for the nth time: That’s the difference between Romneycare & Obamacare.

Dark Star on March 27, 2012 at 4:51 PMSo, it’s not a matter ideology, just a matter of legalities, then?

kingsjester on March 27, 2012 at 4:56 PM

It’s a matter of how the US Constitution works. Point.Blank.Period.

Now, if you don’t like the way the US Constitution works and want to reduce it to “legalities,” I suggest you join the Left.

Dark Star on March 27, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Obama wants to lose this. His lawyer is intentionally throwing the case. The mandate gets struck down, but the other provisions — “children” on their parents’ insurance until age 26, must cover all pre-existing conditions but cannot charge more for it — stay. The insurance companies will be belly up within two years and people will be screaming for the government to “do something.” Hello, single payer health care.

Rational Thought on March 27, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Nah, that’s not what’s happened here at all. Congress got too clever and simply ignored the Constitution, and really didn’t think anyone would challenge it. The whole Obamacare scheme is to essentially provide socialized medicine through private insurance companies. Because it maintains a fig-leaf of private ownership of the insurers, we can’t call it socalized medicine, and the high premiums everyone is forced to pay are not called taxes.

rockmom on March 27, 2012 at 5:09 PM

States are not limited to enumerated powers; the federal government is.
Attention ABRtards, for the nth time: That’s the difference between Romneycare & Obamacare.

Dark Star on March 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

So govt run health care is OK as long as it’s run out of a state capital instead of DC.

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Update: Orin Kerr notes the million-dollar phrase in Kennedy’s comments today: “Heavy burden of justification.” He didn’t suggest that mandates are always and everywhere unconstitutional, only that in order to justify using one the feds need to point to some very special and compelling circumstances. The whole question now is whether the allegedly “unique” health-care market is special and compelling enough to get Kennedy to vote with the left.

This worried me a bit, by the way. The last thing we need is a big step down the slippery slope by expanding Comstock and Raich to say “the Commerce Power allows the government to force you to eat broccoli, provided that it can satisfy a heavy burden of justification that the requirement is necessary and proper to effectuate the regulation of interstate commerce.”

Outlander on March 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Did anyone hear that Roberts’ analogy to cell phones? Is this guy serious? Who forged his transcript??? WOW these guys are supposed to be smart????

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

What prevents the government from making us buy a cell phone?

lorien1973 on March 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

KOOLAID2 on March 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Same as usual, nothing new from you this bagger. You should learn to use your help, it might come in handy someday.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Dark Star on March 27, 2012 at 5:09 PM

I love the Constitution. It gives me the freedom to decide whether or not I need to buy Health Insurance.

kingsjester on March 27, 2012 at 5:11 PM

I am looking forward to hearing Mark Levin’s opinion of today’s hearing.

karenhasfreedom on March 27, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Dark Star:

Had Romneyare been called DemocratGovernorsNameCare you’d be screaming about govt over reach. But it was implemented by your boy so it’s all good to go.

O-Care = R-Care. Only difference is in how much it will cost. R-care is in the tens of billions, O-Care is in the trillions. The rest is noise.

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:11 PM

His main problem is that his real areas of “legal expertise” are telecommunications, media and First Amendment law.

None of those fields were what he was arguing for today.

Del Dolemonte on March 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Verrilli’s main problem is that he was attempting to defend the indefensible and got called out on it. There’s only so much lipstick the Administration can lacquer on that pig. . .

Outlander on March 27, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Same as usual, nothing new from you this bagger. You should learn to use your help, it might come in handy someday.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Nice sentence structure, Walt Whitman.

kingsjester on March 27, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Attention ABRtards, for the nth time: That’s the difference between Romneycare & Obamacare.

Dark Star on March 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Uh, I get that. I believe the mandate is bad policy. Period. On that, they are the same.

Bitter Clinger on March 27, 2012 at 4:56 PM

You might get that — and I’m not saying I disagree with a state mandate being bad policy. BUT, the whole “Romney is the worst nominee to go against Obama because he authored RomneyCare and therefore can’t attack him on it” meme? Yeah, you know the one. That’s a bunch of horsesh!t.

Dark Star on March 27, 2012 at 5:12 PM

On the contrary, it was “Barry’s people” who asked for the fast track to the Supremes — before the election. Maybe they were being over-confident, or maybe they figured they’d win either way. Obama wins, he campaigns on his sweet Constitutional health care “reform.” Obama loses, he campaigns on “free” health care for all. Win-win.

Rational Thought on March 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

With a bonus of one more data point to undermine the public’s confidence in the Supreme Court. I have no doubt that Obama will tie this decision together with Citizens United and maybe even Bush v. Gore for good measure. Do not be surprised to see a major smear campaign against Scalia and Thomas become a key element of the Obama reeleection effort.

rockmom on March 27, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Did anyone hear that Roberts’ analogy to cell phones? Is this guy serious? Who forged his transcript??? WOW these guys are supposed to be smart????

simplesimplesimplesimon on March 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Should the Government force you to buy a cell phone for emergency use, even if you don’t need it?

Not surprised his question went right over your head. After all, O’bama won 70% of the high school vote in 2008, a new record.

Why do you Hate America?

Del Dolemonte on March 27, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Did anyone hear that Roberts’ analogy to cell phones? Is this guy serious? Who forged his transcript??? WOW these guys are supposed to be smart????

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

What prevents the government from making us buy a cell phone?

lorien1973 on March 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Dude don’t even bother. These are the same imbeciles who think that because you have to buy car insurance, Obamacare is A-OK. They’re leftists. They’re imbeciles. ‘Nuff said.

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Rational Thought on March 27, 2012 at 4:21 PM

I think Prof. Althouse agrees with you.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/03/jeffrey-toobin-on-sgs-argument-today.html

Cindy Munford on March 27, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Not surprised his question went right over your head. After all, O’bama won 70% of the high school vote in 2008, a new record.

Why do you Hate America?

Del Dolemonte on March 27, 2012 at 5:13 PM

I think you meant to say 70% of the high school DROPOUT vote.

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:14 PM

KOOLAID2 on March 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Same as usual, nothing new from you this bagger. You should learn to use your help, it might come in handy someday.

simplesimplesimplesimon on March 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Wow, you really slapped him down.

(Quaking in Boots)

Del Dolemonte on March 27, 2012 at 5:14 PM

The Obama admin is not throwing this case. Obama doesn’t want to lose here.

The more likely reason for the poor performance is overconfidence. They thought they had this in the bag to the point where it was a question of whether it would be 6-3 or even better.

McDuck on March 27, 2012 at 5:14 PM

This isn’t standing up to the Executive Branch at all. Congress passed this clusterfark of a law, and its powers are at issue here. The Court agreed to hear the case knowing this is an election year; they could have just as easily denied certiorari.

The Court is always loath to overturn an act of Congress, but it has been done and it has been done more frequently in recent years, and particularly based on Congress’ over-reliance on the Commerce Clause.

I don’t know if it was mentioned in arguments, but there is a brief filed by a large group of economists, including several Nobel Prize winners, that totally demolishes the government’s case. It proves that the health care market is not unique, that uninsured people do not cause any significant distortion in costs paid by the insured, and that average health care costs of the uninsured are small and easy for the average person to bear out of pocket.

rockmom on March 27, 2012 at 5:02 PM

There are parallels. Look again at Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. Congress passed the National Recovery Act, which in turn empowered the President; i.e., the Executive Branch ‘to implement industrial codes to regulate weekly employment hours, wages, and minimum ages of employees. The codes had standing as penal statutes.’ By ruling in favor of Schechter Poultry, the SCOTUS essentially dismantled the NRA. I would call it standing up to the Executive Branch.

Same thing here: The Affordable Health Care Act is called ObamaCare for a reason. President Obama views its passage as the centerpiece of his legacy. If the court strikes down ObamaCare in whole or in part, then–indirectly at least–it serves as a rebuff to both Executive and Legislative overreach. So yes, it is standing up to the Executive Branch. So there. Nyaah.

troyriser_gopftw on March 27, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Dark Star:

Had Romneyare been called DemocratGovernorsNameCare you’d be screaming about govt over reach. But it was implemented by your boy so it’s all good to go.

O-Care = R-Care. Only difference is in how much it will cost. R-care is in the tens of billions, O-Care is in the trillions. The rest is noise.

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:11 PM

No, actually, I would not. Unlike a lot of people here, I actually understand how the US Constitution works, how the separation powers works and what state’s rights mean. So don’t you ever presume to tell me what I would be saying.

Dark Star on March 27, 2012 at 5:15 PM

After all, O’bama won 70% of the high school dropout vote in 2008, a new record.

Del Dolemonte on March 27, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Fixed.

BTW, the previous record of 61% was also held by a Democrat, in 2000.

Del Dolemonte on March 27, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Same as usual, nothing new from you this bagger. You should learn to use your help, it might come in handy someday.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

You O-bots have your own language now? Neat. Let me try:

Nothing new O-bot you from this. Learn to help use your O-bot. Handy might someday O-bot bagger.

How’d I do?

Rational Thought on March 27, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Didn’t Ted Kennedy die in the middle of all of this drama? Isn’t that the reason the severability clause was never added to the bill?

They did this bill in a really sneaky way to get around the 60 vote requirement, using reconciliation. I think Pelosi had been counting on Reid to add it because it would not have gotten through her end, and then Kennedy died.

So they didn’t have the 60 votes anymore, so they were stuck trying to get as much as they could into the bill. They removed Pelosi’s bill and put in Reid’s bill and used the excuse it was a budgetary thing, so they could use reconciliation. Then they didn’t need the 60 votes. However, because Kennedy was no longer in the Senate, they didn’t have the votes to get the severability clause into the bill when it went back over to Pelosi to ram through in the dead of night.

Anyone else remember that? Rush mentioned something about this today. However, I was driving at the time and didn’t catch all of what he said on this.

karenhasfreedom on March 27, 2012 at 5:16 PM

“Michael Tomasky wondering why we can’t settle this issue with simple democracy.”

Because a “simple democracy” is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. This is why we have democratic republic within the framework of a government with only limited, enumerated powers.

tommyboy on March 27, 2012 at 5:17 PM

No, actually, I would not. Unlike a lot of people here, I actually understand how the US Constitution works, how the separation powers works and what state’s rights mean. So don’t you ever presume to tell me what I would be saying.

Dark Star on March 27, 2012 at 5:15 PM

You like many Rombots confuse whether something is constitutional with whether something is a good idea. If Romney imposed a $10K tax per citizen of MA it would be constitutional. Doesn’t mean it would be a good idea or a sign he’s conservative.

You’re right. R-Care is constitutional. Doesn’t mean it’s not a far left idea implemented by a far left governor.

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Kennedy’s comments today: “Heavy burden of justification.” He didn’t suggest that mandates are always and everywhere unconstitutional, only that in order to justify using one the feds need to point to some very special and compelling circumstances.

and let me add, the government’s argument is wrong that the food market doesn’t apply. No, you don’t know what foods you will need until you become allergic to a food, or the researchers discover coffee is bad and grapes are good – which changes every few years so that coffee becomes good again and grapes are bad. You may also have a child who is either allergic or is hyperactive due to red dye. All sorts of things happen in the food market that change not only peoples’ wants, but their needs. AND, if all people would only eat their broccoli and stop eating ice cream and Twinkies, the cost of health care would come down!

So, if the govt can mandate health care, surely it can mandate all things that affect the cost of health care such as exercise, food, smoking, drinking, race cars, guns, and marbles (kids swallow those things and drive up health care you know).

katablog.com on March 27, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Same as usual, nothing new from you this bagger. You should learn to use your help, it might come in handy someday.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Use your derangement for good, little one.

Whining to your betters is not your strong suit.

cozmo on March 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Ezra Klein is very nervous, always a good sign.

“Smart Power”

Schadenfreude on March 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Same as usual, nothing new from you this bagger. You should learn to use your help, it might come in handy someday.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

resist, we much!!!

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Heh, I love it when 0syndrom is rattled.

Schadenfreude on March 27, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Attention ABRtards, for the nth time: That’s the difference between Romneycare & Obamacare.

Dark Star on March 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Uh, I get that. I believe the mandate is bad policy. Period. On that, they are the same.

Bitter Clinger on March 27, 2012 at 4:56 PM

It was made clear today that they are different…after all the whole point to the arguments is that the federal government can not go beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution. However, states are not so confined.

Mitt Romney vetoed more than a dozen provisions in the Mass Health Care bill. He also wanted an incentive to buy insurance rather than a penalty for not buying and he wanted high deductible cheaper insurance. The Democrats nixed all of that.

But there are differences..maybe the most important one being that Romneycare was and is supported by the people of that state and is has been found to be constitutional..btw, the Heritage Foundation were the ones who helped write Romneycare and conservatives thought it was a good idea at the time.

If you actually care about the difference between Romneycare and Obamacare..you can go here link

Terrye on March 27, 2012 at 5:19 PM

A dirty little secret about Kennedy: He’s not nearly as centrist leftist when it comes to the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment as he is on, say, abortion and gay rights.

FIFY

Stoic Patriot on March 27, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Didn’t Ted Kennedy die in the middle of all of this drama? Isn’t that the reason the severability clause was never added to the bill?

They did this bill in a really sneaky way to get around the 60 vote requirement, using reconciliation. I think Pelosi had been counting on Reid to add it because it would not have gotten through her end, and then Kennedy died.

So they didn’t have the 60 votes anymore, so they were stuck trying to get as much as they could into the bill. They removed Pelosi’s bill and put in Reid’s bill and used the excuse it was a budgetary thing, so they could use reconciliation. Then they didn’t need the 60 votes. However, because Kennedy was no longer in the Senate, they didn’t have the votes to get the severability clause into the bill when it went back over to Pelosi to ram through in the dead of night.

Anyone else remember that? Rush mentioned something about this today. However, I was driving at the time and didn’t catch all of what he said on this.

karenhasfreedom on March 27, 2012 at 5:16 PM

I believe Reid did not want a severability clause because he feared a challenge to the IPAB. He really, really wants that thing in effect. I don’t think any of the leading lights in Congress thought for one second that the mandate would be challenged.

rockmom on March 27, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Mitt Romney vetoed more than a dozen provisions in the Mass Health Care bill. He also wanted an incentive to buy insurance rather than a penalty for not buying and he wanted high deductible cheaper insurance. The Democrats nixed all of that.

Terrye on March 27, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Those mean old Democrats, always getting in the way of poor, poor Willard. So I guess when Harry Reid says no to Willard, he’ll just shrug his shoulders and say OK Harry, you get your way. Right?

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Mitt Romney vetoed more than a dozen provisions in the Mass Health Care bill. He also wanted an incentive to buy insurance rather than a penalty for not buying and he wanted high deductible cheaper insurance. The Democrats nixed all of that.

Terrye on March 27, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Does this look like a man who isn’t happy with the bill he’s about to sign?

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:23 PM

So I guess when Harry Reid says no to Willard, he’ll just shrug his shoulders and say OK Harry, you get your way. Right?

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Not if tru-cons keep his feet to the fire and remind him how he got there.

Sorry, my mistake, tru-cons are gonna’ sit this election out.

cozmo on March 27, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Did anyone hear that Roberts’ analogy to cell phones? Is this guy serious? Who forged his transcript??? WOW these guys are supposed to be smart????

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM

What prevents the government from making us buy a cell phone?

lorien1973 on March 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Dude don’t even bother. These are the same imbeciles who think that because you have to buy car insurance, Obamacare is A-OK. They’re leftists. They’re imbeciles. ‘Nuff said.

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:13 PM

The government incurs liability if an individuals goes into the hospital in a catastrophic event and is unable to pay for their care because care must be provided whether they can pay or not. There is no other situation that compares.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

So govt run health care is OK as long as it’s run out of a state capital instead of DC.

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

I am so stinking sick of this stupid argument! Enough already!

I have not seen anyone here say that they like Romneycare or think it’s a good idea. What has been repeatedly said by most (certainly me) is that it is constitutional at the state level in spite of the fact that it is a really bad idea.

We get it, you hate Romney. I really don’t like Romney either. But can you at least be intellectually honest on what most people are saying about the difference between Romneycare being constitutional versus it being terrible statist policy? There are plenty of intellectually honest arguments to be made against Romney without falling back on the intellectually dishonest argument that people who recognize it’s legality must also think it’s a spiffy neat idea.

gravityman on March 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Not if tru-cons keep his feet to the fire and remind him how he got there.

Sorry, my mistake, tru-cons are gonna’ sit this election out.

cozmo on March 27, 2012 at 5:23 PM

You’re the world’s Number 1 idiot if you think Romney will care what cons think. He has told us to go to hell in the primary, and yet you idiots think he will care what we say once he’s elected.

I used to think Mittbots were just naive. I now know that’s not the case and instead you’re just stupid.

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Listening to Verrilli’s responses is like listening to DWS talk about any subject. Just keeps mindlessly repeating the same talking points without actually answering questions or clarifying remarks.

NathanHale on March 27, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Tomorrow:

Three: Severability (the domino effect issue) 10 a.m. ET Wednesday, 90 minutes of oral arguments

If the individual mandate section is ruled unconstitutional, must the entire law collapse as well? . . .

Four: Medicaid “coercion” (the national policy implications issue) 1 p.m. ET Wednesday, one hour of oral arguments

This hearing will look at whether states can be forced by the federal government to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration, with the risk of losing that funding if they refuse.

INC on March 27, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Same thing here: The Affordable Health Care Act is called ObamaCare for a reason. President Obama views its passage as the centerpiece of his legacy. If the court strikes down ObamaCare in whole or in part, then–indirectly at least–it serves as a rebuff to both Executive and Legislative overreach. So yes, it is standing up to the Executive Branch. So there. Nyaah.

troyriser_gopftw on March 27, 2012 at 5:15 PM

It’s called Obamacare because Republicans knew it was a disaster and wanted to tie it around Obama’s neck! NOBODY in the Administration has ever called it that. Debbie Whatshername-Schultz took to the House floor to complain that calling it that is actually racist!

Obama wanted “a” bill; if you recall, he opposed the mandate in the primaries while Hillary supported it. There is almost nothing in the bill that Obama actually campaigned for or which his staff wrote. He punted it all to Reid and Pelosi and just said “I’ll sign whatever you can get the votes for.”

I suppose we could have called it Pelosicare, that would have been more accurate.

At any rate, the politics of this are not very relevant to how the Court will decide this; as I said, if they had cared about that they wouldn’t have agreed to hear the case to begin with.

rockmom on March 27, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I don’t understand the argument that health insurance is unique because everyone will enter it one point or another.

If there is just one case where that doesn’t hold true, and there is, then how isn’t that argument not being blown out of the water?

Case 1: I die peacefully in my sleep of old age.
Case 2: I win the lottery and self-insure.

p0s3r on March 27, 2012 at 5:28 PM

tates are not limited to enumerated powers; the federal government is.
Attention ABRtards, for the nth time: That’s the difference between Romneycare & Obamacare.

Dark Star on March 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Romneycare, even if constitutional at the state level, is still socialism, and your boy was urging Obama to use it as a model at the federal level. Nitwit

james23 on March 27, 2012 at 5:28 PM

I believe Reid did not want a severability clause because he feared a challenge to the IPAB. He really, really wants that thing in effect. I don’t think any of the leading lights in Congress thought for one second that the mandate would be challenged.

rockmom on March 27, 2012 at 5:21 PM

What kind of challenge to the IPAB (death panels, peeps)? In the courts or by the peeps or to get the bill passed? I don’t remember that much of the discussion at the time, other than the left freaked out when Sarah Palin called the IPAB a death panel. That was some fun entertainment watching the heads explode.

And since the tea party and then the O’Care passed with no Republican votes (except for the dude who lost his re-election in New Orleans), why on earth would Reid believe no one would challenge the mandate? That boggles my mind.

karenhasfreedom on March 27, 2012 at 5:28 PM

I have not seen anyone here say that they like Romneycare or think it’s a good idea. What has been repeatedly said by most (certainly me) is that it is constitutional at the state level in spite of the fact that it is a really bad idea.

gravityman on March 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

You haven’t read much here then. Lots of people have said they like Romneycare because it’s a free market solution to health care. Then they turn around and accuse Obama of a communist takeover of health care for doing the exact same thing.

R-Care = O-care, just with fewer zeros at the end of the price tag. Anyone who defends R-care but then opposes O-care is either a liar or a fool. No two ways about it.

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:28 PM

The government incurs liability if an individuals goes into the hospital in a catastrophic event and is unable to pay for their care because care must be provided whether they can pay or not. There is no other situation that compares.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

If the world was fair and everyone had skin in the game, the hospital wouldn’t be required to treat people that can’t pay.

Wait till eating becomes a right and dieting “affects interstate commerce”.

BobMbx on March 27, 2012 at 5:30 PM

The government incurs liability if an individuals goes into the hospital in a catastrophic event and is unable to pay for their care because care must be provided whether they can pay or not. There is no other situation that compares.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Not in a privately funded hospital or any medical facility that does not accept federal funding….and even those that do accept federal funding are liable for shortfalls in remuneration of medical costs.

And, private hospitals can refuse care. If warranted, they are obligated to merely stabilize the patient for transport to a facility that will accept them.

Last time I checked, we do not have a federal medical systems.

coldwarrior on March 27, 2012 at 5:30 PM

That’s a bad argument in my opinion. In other words, because you have to pay $1 a month in emergency phone call coverage, we’ve got the power to enact a social contract-changing mandate with a price tag of trillions of dollars. If that is the best argument the Obama administration can muster, ACA is DOA.

pwh on March 27, 2012 at 4:39 PM

It is even worse than you say. Not everyone has a phone. The argument he uses would require that the 9-1-1 emergency fee also come with a requirement to pay for a phone line or a mobile phone whether you want one or not. On top of that, the government will tell you what phones you are allowed to use as well as what requirements the service must provide. The 9-1-1 is still voluntary, you do not have to pay for phone service.

astonerii on March 27, 2012 at 5:31 PM

The government incurs liability if an individuals goes into the hospital in a catastrophic event and is unable to pay for their care because care must be provided whether they can pay or not. There is no other situation that compares.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Only because the govt forces the hospital to treat the patient. If the hospital could refuse treatment, this wouldn’t be an issue. There’s a crazy idea, make people pay for their hospital treatment. Radical, I know. Next thing you know sluts will be forced to pay for their condoms too.

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Yes, I’ll take heart that day 1 marks a blow to ObamaCare.

Trust Kennedy to argue his own position?

Rather, expect treachery given no reason to trust Anthony Kennedy’s word. He’ll avoid being the minority vote, but does not generally vote on upholding constitutional principle.

Still, faith precedes the miracle that America needs: LIBERTY.

maverick muse on March 27, 2012 at 5:31 PM

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

0syndrome does not meet the high standards for HA trolls. He is at best second rate. I have already instructed him on how to improve his techniques. Apparently he has not heeded this advice. He is beneath our standards, hence my lack of reply to him. When you all get him all educated up, i.e. fattened up, let me know. Until then 0sydrome is worthless to hunt.

Bmore on March 27, 2012 at 5:32 PM

I think Prof. Althouse agrees with you.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/03/jeffrey-toobin-on-sgs-argument-today.html

Cindy Munford on March 27, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Interesting. Yeah, that looks like what she’s hinting at. I just don’t see a downside here for Obama if he loses this, and I really see an upside. If Obama wins, the country will be focused on getting a Republican Congress and a Republican in the White House in order to repeal the law. If he loses, that will become far less urgent and all those Obama voters who know they screwed up, know they showed incredibly bad judgment in 2008, will get to do it all over again and tell themselves it wasn’t bad judgment after all. That’s what they’re waiting for — something that tells them they weren’t the flaming idiots they think they are for voting for Obama.

Rational Thought on March 27, 2012 at 5:33 PM

And since the tea party and then the O’Care passed with no Republican votes (except for the dude who lost his re-election in New Orleans), why on earth would Reid believe no one would challenge the mandate? That boggles my mind.

karenhasfreedom on March 27, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Democrats convinced themselves that the Tea Party was a bunch of hypocrites whose only real beef with the bill was a that it cut $500 billion out of Medicare. In fact I don’t recall much of a focus on the mandate in the Tea Party rallies. It was the entire bill, the secrecy in which it was written, the bogus cost estimates, the Cornhusker Kickbacks used to bribe people into voting for it, and the way the Democrats blew off people showing up at the town halls in August that drove the 2010 backlash.

Seriously, you have to think like a Democrat to understand. There is a lot of radical stuff in this bill that the progressives wanted, and the IPAB is at the top of the list; the mandate was the medicine they had to swallow to keep the overall scheme private and at least economically feasible.

rockmom on March 27, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Same as usual, nothing new from you this bagger. You should learn to use your help, it might come in handy someday.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Nice sentence structure, Walt Whitman.

kingsjester on March 27, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Hey, give Zero-bama a break, ‘English as a Second Language’ courses can be tough.

slickwillie2001 on March 27, 2012 at 5:33 PM

I used to think Mittbots were just naive. I now know that’s not the case and instead you’re just stupid.

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:25 PM

You’re no better. Fact is, you’re worse.

John the Libertarian on March 27, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Those mean old Democrats, always getting in the way of poor, poor Willard. So I guess when Harry Reid says no to Willard, he’ll just shrug his shoulders and say OK Harry, you get your way. Right?

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:21 PM

You do know there’s a different set of challenges faced by a Republican governor of, say, Texas and a Republican governor of, oh I don’t know, Massachusetts or New Jersey? You are aware of the differences between these states, yes?

Are you aware of Ronald Reagan’s record as Governor of California? You do know he governed as a moderate, right?

By necessity, a Republican governor of Massachusetts, the bluest state in the Union, must tread carefully in order to govern effectively and achieve his or her goals, with every move carefully calculated to take into account the possible responses of the opposition. A Republican governor of Texas, on the other hand, usually doesn’t have to care what the Democrats think or do or say. Democrats don’t matter much in Texas. That isn’t the case in Massachusetts.

But you know all this. You’re just denigrating Romney on this score because…well, because.

troyriser_gopftw on March 27, 2012 at 5:34 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM

IF SCOTUS upholds ObamaCare, they have set a new precedent that over rides hundreds of years of precedent in contract law. Forcing a person into a contract and not only that, but dictating to both parties of the contract what the terms of the contract must be.

IF 40 million (and I believe it’s really a lot less) do not have access to health insurance, how many more Americans are being forced (in direct violation of the US Constitution and contract law) to now purchase something they don’t want or need. And yes, I do say need, because there are many Americans who are willing and able to simply purchase a catastrophic medical policy and pay any other medical expense our of pocket. A person in their 40′s and up, who has paid all their life for any pregnancy or contraceptive services they wanted (through insurance or out of pocket) should not now be forced to purchase those services not only for themselves and others who choose not to pay.

Perhaps what the government should have worked on was a way to provide those without medical insurance some type of govt sponsored catastrophic policy rather than forcing millions of Americans to give up their current medical ins. and current doctors just to supposedly provide 40 million Americans will medical ins. that they may or may not need.

katablog.com on March 27, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Justice Breyer had again, as he had done several times during the challengers’ argument, stressed that Congress was confronted with a situation in whch some 40 miliion people did not have insurance, and that gap was, in fact, having an effect on commerce that was substantial.

This is the most absurd concept I’ve ever heard.

My guess is several hundred million people don’t an RV, and that certainly has a larger impact of interstate commerce than health insurance. Just imagine the size of our economy if everyone had to buy, fuel, insure, and maintain a 40′ Winnebago.

I can make the argument for that just as technically appealing as the argument for ObamaCare.

BobMbx on March 27, 2012 at 5:35 PM

GENERAL VERRILLI: That — that absolutely
is a justification for Congress’s action here. That is
existing economic activity that Congress is regulating
by means of this rule.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Verrilli, you could say
that about buying a car. If people don’t buy cars, the
price that those who do buy cars pay will have to be
higher. So, you could say in order to bring the price
down, you’re hurting these other people by not buying a
car.
GENERAL VERRILLI: That is not what we’re
saying, Justice Scalia.

JUSTICE SCALIA: That’s not — that’s not
what you’re saying.

GENERAL VERRILLI: That’s not — not -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: I thought it was. I
thought you’re saying other people are going to have to
pay more for insurance because you’re not buying it.

GENERAL VERRILLI: No. It’s because you’re
going — in the health care market, you’re going into
the market without the ability to pay for what you get,
getting the health care service anyway as a result of
the social norms that allow — that — to which we’ve
obligated ourselves so that people get health care.

I mean, certainly, all of those who don’t buy cars are causing my taxes to be higher to pay for public transportation ( drivers, buses, fuel, etc), so it’s a fact that choosing to be a non-participant in the vehicle market affects commerce.

preallocated on March 27, 2012 at 5:36 PM

But you know all this. You’re just denigrating Romney on this score because…well, because.

troyriser_gopftw on March 27, 2012 at 5:34 PM

So…it’s okay that he has stated several times that he’s proud of Romneycare?

kingsjester on March 27, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Same as usual, nothing new from you this bagger. You should learn to use your help, it might come in handy someday.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Step away from your keyboard, Forrest.

Chuck Schick on March 27, 2012 at 5:36 PM

The government incurs liability if an individuals goes into the hospital in a catastrophic event and is unable to pay for their care because care must be provided whether they can pay or not. There is no other situation that compares.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Everyone pays for criminals theft, vandalism and so forth. Much more than 2% of the cost of services in many industries. These are uncompensated actions. Should we be allowed to nationalize every single industry in the country because of this? The total healthcare that is uncompensated in this entire country is just shy of 2% of all the cost of medical care provided in the country. 2% or $1 out of every $50. Just to give you a hint of government run health care, medicare and medicaid lose about 10% and that amounts to 4% of all medical care dollars to fraud.

The place where the government does control health care demonstrates it is far less efficient in providing health care. You lose. Get lost.

astonerii on March 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM

When you all get him all educated up, i.e. fattened up, let me know. Until then 0sydrome is worthless to hunt.

Bmore on March 27, 2012 at 5:32 PM

He/she is incapable of spelling, let alone a coherent thought.

Alas, this is the type of troll we have been relegated to. The smarter trolls fear the rhetorical ninjas that inhabit HA.

Even our newbies can eviscerate their best warriors without breaking a sweat.

cozmo on March 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM

The government incurs liability if an individuals goes into the hospital in a catastrophic event and is unable to pay for their care because care must be provided whether they can pay or not. There is no other situation that compares.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Not in a privately funded hospital or any medical facility that does not accept federal funding….and even those that do accept federal funding are liable for shortfalls in remuneration of medical costs.

And, private hospitals can refuse care. If warranted, they are obligated to merely stabilize the patient for transport to a facility that will accept them.

Last time I checked, we do not have a federal medical systems.

coldwarrior on March 27, 2012 at 5:30 PM

The fact is most hospitals are not completely private and rely on the government to make up for the shortfall of having to cover indigent people and people without insurance. There are about 50 million American’s with no insurance and another 20 million with only catastrophic insurance that require very high co-pays they can’t afford.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM

You do know there’s a different set of challenges faced by a Republican governor of, say, Texas and a Republican governor of, oh I don’t know, Massachusetts or New Jersey? You are aware of the differences between these states, yes?

Are you aware of Ronald Reagan’s record as Governor of California? You do know he governed as a moderate, right?

By necessity, a Republican governor of Massachusetts, the bluest state in the Union, must tread carefully in order to govern effectively and achieve his or her goals, with every move carefully calculated to take into account the possible responses of the opposition. A Republican governor of Texas, on the other hand, usually doesn’t have to care what the Democrats think or do or say. Democrats don’t matter much in Texas. That isn’t the case in Massachusetts.

But you know all this. You’re just denigrating Romney on this score because…well, because.

troyriser_gopftw on March 27, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Don’t give me this crap dude.

NJ is as blue as MA and Chritie’s fought the Dems. He hasn’t always won but he didn’t just run and hide in a corner the way Mittens did. There are lots of examples of Republican govenors of blue states who govern center-right. It is possible if the governor actually believes in center-right policies. Willard governed as a far left liberal because that is who he is.

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:38 PM

The government incurs liability if an individuals goes into the hospital in a catastrophic event and is unable to pay for their care because care must be provided whether they can pay or not. There is no other situation that compares.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

This is a crap argument. First, “the government” doesn’t incur any liability, because the uninsured person is billed for the services, and nearly half pay those bills. If the others choose not to pay their bill, ordinary bill collection procedures kick in. Does the government incur liability when free-loaders max out their Visa cards and refuse to pay? Second, the number of uninsured is far, far lower than the Obamamedia likes to report. This has always been a solution on search of a problem. The US has the finest health care system in human history.

Rational Thought on March 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM

cozmo on March 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Yep. Shame really. Maybe he’ll get better at it over time. I have my doubts. ; )

Bmore on March 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM

The government incurs liability if an individuals goes into the hospital in a catastrophic event and is unable to pay for their care because care must be provided whether they can pay or not. There is no other situation that compares.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Everyone pays for criminals theft, vandalism and so forth. Much more than 2% of the cost of services in many industries. These are uncompensated actions. Should we be allowed to nationalize every single industry in the country because of this? The total healthcare that is uncompensated in this entire country is just shy of 2% of all the cost of medical care provided in the country. 2% or $1 out of every $50. Just to give you a hint of government run health care, medicare and medicaid lose about 10% and that amounts to 4% of all medical care dollars to fraud.

The place where the government does control health care demonstrates it is far less efficient in providing health care. You lose. Get lost.

astonerii on March 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM

The difference with healthcare is that, the cost of catastrophic events can cost tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands. People who cannot pay for their healthcare are not held criminally liable however, in case of industry theft their is criminal liability and even more importantly the industry self insures for these events.
As it is, everybody pays extra for individuals without insurance, their cost is factored into healthcare and even worse it is affecting the solvency of the country due to the ever growing healthcare budget.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 27, 2012 at 5:42 PM

People who grow marijuana are unequivocally participating in a market, even if they are growing it for themselves.

rockmom on March 27, 2012 at 5:04 PM

If they’re growing it on their own land, for their own consumption, they’re participating in interstate commerce? You sound like Sotomayor.

EddieC on March 27, 2012 at 5:42 PM

The government incurs liability if an individuals goes into the hospital in a catastrophic event and is unable to pay for their care because care must be provided whether they can pay or not.

Not prior to ObamaCare law/raised taxation/raised cost/ruin of service quality, termination of natural rights.

Payment plans can be arranged with all concerned after emergency hospitalization without medical insurance, as things have stood.

As things stand (tenuously), hospitals bear the brunt of financing what patients’ fail to pay. And many go bankrupt and close because of the previous federal interference, passing previous legislation ordering hospitals to provide services regardless of whether the patient has financial means to pay for services rendered.

And that provides one huge incentive for illegal aliens to enter America, taking advantage of our medical hospitalizations without paying (raising the cost to those who actually pay for services rendered, and also clogging emergency rooms with non-emergencies, slowing vital service availability).

maverick muse on March 27, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Willard governed as a far left liberal because that is who he is.

angryed on March 27, 2012 at 5:38 PM

That just can’t be true though. He likes grits and NASCAR.

mike_NC9 on March 27, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4