Thoughts ?
Fox News Healthcare Ruling
CNN Healthcare Ruling
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(177)
-
▼
June
(11)
- Healthcare for All !!!
- Romney Immigration 2 Step
- Arizona Immigration Ruling
- Minnesota High Stakes Testing
- The "Decent" Wage?
- Government Control vs Globalization?
- God and Variation
- Gov't Should Encourage Dependency?
- Religious Folks Oppose MN Marriage Amendment
- Wisconsin Sees the Light?
- MN Dept of Education MMR Info
-
▼
June
(11)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
22 comments:
the most interesting comments that I have read re today's scotus ruling:
How far the four dissenters were willing to go
I thought this comment by the author was most interesting. "it's important that Americans understand that there are now four justices on the Supreme Court who effectively want to overturn the 20th century. Based on the flimsiest of arguments, the four dissenters want to kill progressive legislation basically because their political ideologies tell them to do so."
I thought the Supreme court was to evaluate laws against the Constitution, not against variation that occurs over time. If it always uses a relative landmark to guide us by, we could end up totally off the original course.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, bent over backwards to uphold a law that should have, by all common sense jurisprudence, been struck down in its entirety. Congress went out of its way to make certain that the "penalty" for not having insurance was NOT a tax, and then argued in court that it WAS a tax. Most court decisions use the deliberations of Congress as a guide for their interpretations, this one did the opposite. But under that approach, the court would have found the mandate unconstitutional and then, because Congress repeatedly declined a severability clause and insisted it was a "comprehensive package," struck down the entire law. Apparently Roberts did not want to do that, and said as much. The other four (liberal) justices were just worthless window dressing and should be replaced by thoughtful conservatives ASAP. At least two of them are unqualified, IMHO.
J. Ewing
In terms of commonsense jurisprudence, the case against Obamacare was sheer nonsense. As my friend Bruce Barlett suggests, a federal government that can make a diner serve a black person can do just about anything. As for the distinction between a tax and a penalty, it's simply absurd, beyond absurd, that the fate of the most important federal policy initiative of this century should turn on a quibble. The founders would have been astounded and appalled that such an outcome was even a possibility.
By the way, there is nothing inherently liberal about letting a piece of legislation stand. It is in fact, the conservative choice.
--Hiram
John,
Wouldn't it create much chaos and uncertainty for business if precedent didn't matter. Wouldn't there be unlimited lawsuits in the courts to see how this Federal Judge or this group of SC Justices will rule. When cases are decided no one will know if/when the decision will be overturned. It seems to me that overturning precedent should be quite rare, increasing civil rights seems like a good example.
As I know little about constitutional law, I do rely on experts. Here is another related link that I found interesting
Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War
I am not much of a Constitutional expert either, however I do pretty good with logic.
Imagine that the Constitution is an immoveable post in the forest. (unless an amendment is passed) System success is judged by how close we stay to that post. It is the "absolute" measurement point.
If all issues are measured by their distance from the post, there should be little variation no matter how much shift occurs. (ie Left, Right, Conservative, Liberal) The only way there could be a big shift in any direction would be if we fail to stay near the post.
Now precedant is important in lower court rulings because they try to enforce existing laws. However, the Supreme Court should always be measured by how far the laws have moved away from the post. That is their function.
"Wouldn't it create much chaos and uncertainty for business if precedent didn't matter."
While a system based on precedent is not the only just legal system possible, precedent is important in our legal system. One way to view decisions is to ask to what extent they settle issues, and in the alternative, to what extent do they open the area for further litigation. Through it's activism, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has created a lot of uncertainty in recent years, and created the opportunity for lots of new litigation. Justice Roberts' decision in the Obamacare case has the potential for that.
I never thought the legal criticisms of Obamacare had any merit at all. They have no precedent in constitutional history. A government whose interstate commerce power allows it to require an owner of a diner in a small town in Alabama to serve a black customer, that does not allow the diner owner to remain inactive, certainly has the power to regulate a major, national and even global industry like the health care. The diner owner must even serve broccoli if it happens to be on the menu. That's not very far at all from the post at all.
--Hiram
I compare this ruling to be more equivalent to what the Liberals call "Payroll taxes" and I call "Forced savings/insurance"...
The irony is that soon the Liberals will be calling Healthcare coverage a regressive tax instead of another wealth transfer mechanism...
The reality is that the money for the additional coverage will need to come from someone, and one can not get blood from a turnip. Therefore I assume the majority of us will see some kind of cost increase.
I don't make much of a distinction between taxes, penalties, I guess forced savings/insurance. In economic terms, these distinctions are mostly irrelevant.
Money to pay for America's health care needs always had to come from someone. It was always just a question of who would get the bill. One way or another, it would always end up being the taxpayer.
--Hiram
I thought the liberal message was the people were dying because of no or inadequate healthcare. If they were dying and not getting the expensive and extensive healthcare, the tax payers were not paying bill.
Whereas now the uninsurable and uninsured will be in the pool. Neither able to pay premiums equal to their risk. Maybe the banks will do better due to fewer bankruptcies, however the rest of us will pay more. For better or worse...
"I thought the liberal message was the people were dying because of no or inadequate healthcare."
That's not the problem exactly. We have made the commitment to provide health care, we just haven't made the commitment to pay for the health care we provide. So somebody ends up bearing the cost. Free health care isn't free. Since we pay for that health care already, I don't see why it would cost us more. I would like to take a look at reducing costs, but that isn't politically viable since any attempt to reduce costs will be attacked as rationing, and socialized medicine conducted by death panels.
The uninsured and the uninsurable have always been in the health care pool. Now they will be required to pay for the services they receive.
--Hiram
I agree with John that insuring millions more poor people through medicaid expansion and subsidizing premiums for the near poor is going to cost a lot of money that needs to come from somewhere. My favorite blogger, Ezra Klein, gives an example of how it will help help
the uninsured
I think the GOP will have a somewhat successful campaign against Obamacare as a tax increase, which will help Romney, but it won't be effective enough for him to win.
There is still much work to be done on controlling costs for everyone. Close to 20% percent of GDP is crazy. Bring on more rationing where insurance companies and govt won't pay for unproven/ineffective treatments.
Rationing? Really? Well, unless that monstrosity appears you are going to see it, and the "death panels" will quickly become a reality, just as they have in England (see recent news stories). The problem with rationing, other than that people die in misery unnecessarily, is that it compounds itself over time. Because there is no proper compensation for doing it, doctors, drug researchers and medical device makers quit improving or go out of the business entirely. A recent survey found that 5 out of 6 doctors would seriously consider leaving the profession if Obamacare was fully implemented!
And the big problem is that Obamacare compounds rather than solving the problem! If government would get further OUT of the health care marketplace, costs would drop to where those uncovered millions could afford their own health care or insurance, and the supply (and quality) would go UP because of the increased demand and reduced regulation. Who do you want diagnosing and prescribing for your illness-- a doctor being paid by you to care for you, or a doctor being paid only if he prescribes what some bureaucrat has decided is the correct treatment for what you have?
J. Ewing
The problem is the aging of the population, and Obamacare has nothing to do with that.
--Hiram
The problem is that government solutions do not work and, over time, create lower quality and higher costs, and Obamacare is more of the same poison we've already taken. The aging of the population has nothing to do with that.
J. Ewing
Government solutions work just fine. And often they are the only solutions available.
--Hiram
If you are talking about government-run health care, I think you will be unable to prove that the government solution "works fine." I can cite mountains of empirical evidence that it does not. Where is the evidence that it does?
J. Ewing
Ironically, my friend was asking a couple of Canadians what they thought about their system. Strangely they were very happy...
More on Cost Increases.
CNN Opinion Piece
Bummer... If what they say about FSA'a is true...
Odd. The Canadians I meet, some of whom work in the system, others who need it, are universally appalled.
J. Ewing
The folks we were talking to are in road construction...
Mine were shopkeepers, ranchers, fishermen and nurses, to mention a few.
J.
Post a Comment