Will ObamaCare Stand?

[GoodmanBrown]

---

Members do not see this ad.

No it's not decided. Kennedy has changed his mind before on critical decisions after the preliminary vote.

In one celebrated case decided in 1992, Rehnquist initially assigned Kennedy to write a majority opinion for five justices allowing prayers at public school graduations. In the end, Kennedy ended up writing the opinion for a different five-justice majority striking down the graduation prayers. According to several accounts, Kennedy simply changed his mind during the writing process.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/29/justices-meet-friday-to-vote-on-health-care-case/#ixzz1qjRMJEJC

That's interesting, though I have to think that if it's only happened once, the decision is probably set.

In the interest of discussion, I saw this article randomly on Google News. It has some quotes from the former Solicitor General Charles Fried that I'd read before. He seems quite shocked at the tone of the arguments.

 

[countingdays]

That's interesting, though I have to think that if it's only happened once, the decision is probably set.

In the interest of discussion, I saw this article randomly on Google News. It has some quotes from the former Solicitor General Charles Fried that I'd read before. He seems quite shocked at the tone of the arguments.

The LA Times seems to have searched out the opinions it wants to spread. They could have found plenty of people to quote about how it is appropriate for the court to overturn this unconstitutional law, but they are an enormously biased source of propaganda.



"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Thomas Jefferson

 

[GoodmanBrown]

The LA Times seems to have searched out the opinions it wants to spread. They could have found plenty of people to quote about how it is appropriate for the court to overturn this unconstitutional law, but they are an enormously biased source of propaganda.

Yeah, they totally searched out crazy liberals like Ronald Reagan's Solicitor General and top Justice Department lawyer. These are top conservative legal scholars they're polling. I'm gonna weigh their opinion more seriously than Ken Cuccinelli's any day.

 

[countingdays]

Yeah, they totally searched out crazy liberals like Ronald Reagan's Solicitor General and top Justice Department lawyer. These are top conservative legal scholars they're polling. I'm gonna weigh their opinion more seriously than Ken Cuccinelli's any day.

There are lots of 'conservative lawyers'. The LA Times chose to quote these 2 for a reason.

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for." Thomas Jefferson

Man, Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave to see how oppressive our government has become, stealing the fruits of your labor to give to others/ buy votes of others.

 

[IDBasco]

He seems quite shocked at the tone of the arguments.

He should be quite shocked by the overwhelming density demonstrated here-

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwy...ad-federal-money-it-doesn-t-sound-coercive-me

 

[GoodmanBrown]

He should be quite shocked by the overwhelming density demonstrated here-

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwy...ad-federal-money-it-doesn-t-sound-coercive-me

Yeah, Kagan kind of lost me on that one too. I did a double-take when I heard that snippet.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

There are lots of 'conservative lawyers'. The LA Times chose to quote these 2 for a reason.

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for." Thomas Jefferson

Man, Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave to see how oppressive our government has become, stealing the fruits of your labor to give to others/ buy votes of others.

I'm glad you like Thomas Jefferson and your new "Thomas Jefferson Book of Quotes," but Jefferson even then was just one voice among many. When the Supreme Court broke up state-sanctioned monopolies of steam boats in 1824, Jefferson was concerned about states' right to grant exclusive licensing to well-connected families. However, as president, he pushed through Congress an embargo on all shipping to foreign countries, effectively outlawing all exportation in the US. How's that for federal power?

My point is that taking some quotes from a founding father and superimposing your personal beliefs on them is not really that useful in determining the way the Supreme Court should handle cases in 2012.

 

[countingdays]

I'm glad you like Thomas Jefferson and your new "Thomas Jefferson Book of Quotes," but Jefferson even then was just one voice among many. When the Supreme Court broke up state-sanctioned monopolies of steam boats in 1824, Jefferson was concerned about states' right to grant exclusive licensing to well-connected families. However, as president, he pushed through Congress an embargo on all shipping to foreign countries, effectively outlawing all exportation in the US. How's that for federal power?

My point is that taking some quotes from a founding father and superimposing your personal beliefs on them is not really that useful in determining the way the Supreme Court should handle cases in 2012.

Our government was set up to protect individuals from the government, not to have the government protect individuals from themselves. This is not a government for the people. It is a government for the government and the people are it's subjects. What's the ultimate goal? They certainly don't show any signs of limiting their own influence over your life. Our current federal government is far far more oppressive than the British ever were.
The Supreme Court should handle cases in 2012, and in every other year, in a way that promotes individual liberty and limits the power of the government.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Our government was set up to protect individuals from the government, not to have the government protect individuals from themselves. Just because the courts and states have largely failed to prevent the growth of an oppressive federal government is no reason to give up. This is a decision that is more about individual liberty than it is about health insurance. They've already gone way way too far in asserting influence over your life and stealing the fruits of your labor. This is not a government for the people. It is a government for the government and the people are it's subjects. What's the ultimate goal? They certainly don't show any signs of limiting their own influence over your life. Our current federal government is far far more oppressive than the British ever were.
The Supreme Court should handle cases in 2012, and in every other year, in a way that promotes individual liberty and limits the power of the government.

Amen. And God Bless America!

 

[pgg]

The Supreme Court should handle cases in 2012, and in every other year, in a way that promotes individual liberty and limits the power of the government.

Unfortunately people would rather be endlessly taken care of, than be free to fail and die hungry or homeless.

Dirty little secret of liberty, you're on your own. But somewhere in the middle there's a happy medium where the government has enough power to give the truly needy what they need to get by (I don't believe voluntary charity ever can or will fill this role), without having enough power to take everything from the not-needy.

 

[Osteoimperfecta]

Call me paranoid, but does anyone else suspect the Obama administration intentionally wanted to loose this case and have the individual mandate struck down, so that one day the democrats can get what they truly want "PUBLIC OPTION". These conniving crooks are always up to something, and we all know the mandate thing was a GOP idea to begin with. Listening to Obama's lawyer arguing, you can tell he was not into the case at all. Striking down the law will fire up their base and rid them of a republican in democrat skin law they passed to save face. On the flip side, can someone explain to me why we as physicians will not like a mandate that everyone carry insurance, seeing as that is how we get paid?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Call me paranoid, but does anyone else suspect the Obama administration intentionally wanted to loose this case and have the individual mandate struck down, so that one day the democrats can get what they truly want "PUBLIC OPTION". These conniving crooks are always up to something, and we all know the mandate thing was a GOP idea to begin with. Listening to Obama's lawyer arguing, you can tell he was not into the case at all. Striking down the law will fire up their base and rid them of a republican in democrat skin law they passed to save face. On the flip side, can someone explain to me why we as physicians will not like a mandate that everyone carry insurance, seeing as that is how we get paid?

Paul Ryan. Vouchers allow the free market to work. Seniors pay more but the rest pay less. The system is carrying Medicare/Medicaid and no pay.

Obama can offer free insurance to the poor just like welfare and food stamps. He simply raises taxes which is what he does best. No individual mandate is needed.

 

[Osteoimperfecta]

Paul Ryan. Vouchers allow the free market to work. Seniors pay more but the rest pay less. The system is carrying Medicare/Medicaid and no pay.

Obama can offer free insurance to the poor just like welfare and food stamps. He simply raises taxes which is what he does best. No individual mandate is needed.

The only people that will care about a voucher will be those willing to buy insurance to begin with. A lot of the "uninsured" could care less if they had insurance, as far as EMTALA is there for them, while they pass the cost to the rest of us. Again, I am still not sure how a mandate that everyone carry the very instrument that gets us paid is bad for us(maybe not so much for the rest of the country). As much as I despise Obama, I think this mandate thing was a lifeline for physicians. The more people carrying private insurance, the better.

 

[IDBasco]

The only people that will care about a voucher will be those willing to buy insurance to begin with. A lot of the "uninsured" could care less if they had insurance, as far as EMTALA is there for them, while they pass the cost to the rest of us. Again, I am still not sure how a mandate that everyone carry the very instrument that gets us paid is bad for us(maybe not so much for the rest of the country). As much as I despise Obama, I think this mandate thing was a lifeline for physicians. The more people carrying private insurance, the better.

They won't buy insurance. They'll pay the fine and utilize gov "insurance". This goes for employers too. It will effectively put the private insurance cos out of business. This has been their hope all along. Sebelius even said as much.

 

[BLADEMDA]

They won't buy insurance. They'll pay the fine and utilize gov "insurance". This goes for employers too. It will effectively put the private insurance cos out of business. This has been their hope all along. Sebelius even said as much.

Agreed. The non paying patient gets evaluated by the Social worker for a voucher or state Medicaid. The no pay still exists but diminishes. Most of the poor in my area (at least half) want Medicaid but earn too much to qualify.

The system needs to be free market based or govt run; our current system is the worst of both worlds.

I hope we go with the Ryan plan but if ObamaCare holds up the entire system implodes in 10 years and we end up with a single payer system: That's the real goal of ObamaCare.

 

[IDBasco]

Agreed. The non paying patient gets evaluated by the Social worker for a voucher or state Medicaid. The no pay still exists but diminishes. Most of the poor in my area (at least half) want Medicaid but earn too much to qualify.

I don't know if the no pay really diminishes. The "mandate" fine doesn't apply to those with low income. But I seem to remember that number being 400% of poverty. If correct, I think that would be around 60k. There will be a lot of people without "skin in the game" if thats right.

The whole thing is a disaster. I don't think they could have done a worse job coming up with a system if they tried.

Edit- I think I missed what you meant by no pay. You meant from the aspect of being a provider, you receive no payment. So, perhaps, no pay would go down. But, and I really am speculating here, your mix will be reduced on the insurance portion and increased on the medicaid/medicare/etc. portion. Maybe its just a wash at that point? I don't know, but I can't believe it would be an advantageous change for most providers.

 

[countingdays]

I think it is bad for us as Americans who care about freedom.

I also think it is bad for us as doctors. It isn't about getting people without insurance to get insurance and then to have more surgery. we won't get more insured patients. The newly insured would be mostly healthy young people who won't be showing up in the OR anytime soon. The goal is to spread healthcare costs to more people who don't use it so that they can lower the costs for those who do. The democrat answer to every question is to steal from Peter to pay Paul.

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1539...-in-health-care-law/?playlist_id=933116663001



GOP Discovers $17T Funding Gap in Health-Care Law

 

[BLADEMDA]

• Obama: Supreme Court won't overturn health care law

Obama: Supreme Court won't overturn health care law

• 339
• http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74743.html#http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74743.html#
  
  

• Email
• Print

'We are confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,' says Obama. | AP Photo






Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74743.html#ixzz1quxX1wdW

 

[yappy]

Can you imagine, given the current trend, that in the future medicine will be fully gov ran the way education is. How demoralizing to think that voters could be treating physicians the same way they do public educators. "Your salary comes from my taxes etc etc." not realizing that they're receiving medical care at a premium.

Even my grandma was saying to me the other day that she thinks medicare way overpays physicians lol (dont hate she doesnt know any of the facts). I would never want my salary to be dictated by a voter.

 

[Osteoimperfecta]

• Obama: Supreme Court won't overturn health care law

Obama: Supreme Court won't overturn health care law

• 339
• 
  

• Email
• Print

'We are confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,' says Obama. | AP Photo






Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74743.html#ixzz1quxX1wdW

Again I am reading between the lines; the man wants the law overturned. No other reason to poke his finger at the very people who hold the fate of the law in their hands. Howard Dean said it months back, this particular law only serves to save face, but the democrats are better off without it. Plus it rids them of a fall election burden. Remember there were many times they would have preferred to back out of the whole healthcare debate but they were already way in over their heads. This is the next best thing for them. It is not close to the government grip the democrats want so they don't care. Now all they will say is "we might have been wrong but we tried". Believe it or not, it is a game of chess to these fools, and every move is calculated cold. Just look what he did with the whole birth control thing. As soon as we thought the catholic vote was about to turn against him , he turns it into a "war against women" and he is now up by almost insurmountable digits among women voters. Classic political thug/fraud.


More evidence of their scheme
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/opinion/frum-government-health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

"
If the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional the plan for universal coverage through private insurance, the U.S. will continue to evolve toward a government-led system -- albeit one much more expensive, and much less satisfactory, than the government systems of other advanced democracies.
Perhaps after a decade or two of discontent, somebody else will try another reform. But this time, the reform will proceed as an outright government program. There won't be any choice, if the Supreme Court of 2012 precludes as unconstitutional the private-sector alternative -- meaning that today's would-be champions of the free market will have unwittingly brought about the grandest expansion of government control since the 1930s."

 

[hoyden]

Can you imagine, given the current trend, that in the future medicine will be fully gov ran the way education is. How demoralizing to think that voters could be treating physicians the same way they do public educators. "Your salary comes from my taxes etc etc." not realizing that they're receiving medical care at a premium.

Even my grandma was saying to me the other day that she thinks medicare way overpays physicians lol (dont hate she doesnt know any of the facts). I would never want my salary to be dictated by a voter.

It may sound cynical, but they will get the same level of care as public school system provides for education. It is inevitable

No add-ons after 3 pm. An nothing except real emergencies

Oh, and we will unionize.

May not be bad at all 😉

 

[BLADEMDA]

Jason Reed / Reuters
President Barack Obama delivers remarks before signing the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act in the Rose Garden of the White House, April 5, 2012.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[DrCourtney]

I'm just a premed hopeful at this point doing research so excuse me if my question comes across a little ignorant but can someone explain to me why ObamaCare would be a bad? How would it directly hurt healthcare and reimbursements for doctors?

 

[MissAmanda]

anyone know of any good, thoughtful books/resources of how the recent policy changes will affect physicians' practices, like anesthesia? I am off in a few weeks and want to do some reading.