T1B

He struck down the entire law not just the individual mandate.

"Or, as discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals,"
[...]
"Not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system."

Nonsense like this could have been avoided with a single, socialised payer system. It simply becomes illegal to refuse treatment to a patient.

So the judge is full of shit, then. Why did you start this thread?

88 wrote:

Dr_Phibes wrote:

"Or, as discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals,"
[...]
"Not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system."

Nonsense like this could have been avoided with a single, socialised payer system. It simply becomes illegal to refuse treatment to a patient.

It is already illegal to refuse treatment to a patient.

No, it isn't. Try showing up at your doctors office and tell them you don't have insurance and can't pay for the office visit.

88 wrote:

mvscal wrote:He struck down the entire law not just the individual mandate.

True, but not because any other part of it was unconstitutional. He concluded that the Individual Mandate was essential to the rest of the law, and reasoned that Congress would not have passed it without the Individual Mandate. So he left it to Congress to determine what to do rather than attempting to sort out what should remain after striking the Individual Mandate.

In other words, he struck down the entire law not just the individual mandate.

When people have insurance, they're prone to visit doctors and preventive measures save $. That's half the battle - information.

I'll guess treatment for gunshot wounds is relatively minor compared to treatment for the uninsured elderly, you've got a flair for drama.

88 wrote:Read the opinion and then, if you still don't understand what the Court did, I will try to explain it to you.

I can read. He struck down the entire law not just the individual mandate. Your pedantic "clarifications" are irrelevant and unnecessary . You lawyers just can't help yourselves though, can you?

Have you people ever heard of a bottom line summary?

88 wrote: I agree with the Court.

Then you are an idiot. Read footnote 14 and get back to me.

Dr_Phibes wrote:
Nonsense like this could have been avoided with a single, socialised payer system.

Uhm... wouldn't that mean an Individual Mandate to purchase insurance from the single payer system?


:facepalm:

88 wrote:If we had 50 different state programs, we could see what works and what doesn't and tailor each state's program to best suit the needs of its people.

Funny guy...

We've had publicly funded health care for the needy in Oregon for many years now (The Oregon Health Plan).


THINK, 88 -- who is going to be all over a program like this?

I'll give you a hint -- it's a faction of the group that identifies itself with a "D" after their name.

But regardless of party affiliation, do you really believe any entrenched politician is going to see to it that the program provides the best benefits to the most people, or do you think they'll use it to buy votes and line their buddies' pockets?


As a "veteran" of this system of many years, I can can tell you which scenario comes to fruition.

Doesn't matter what a white male's status is -- he'll be laughed at if he has the nerve to apply (matter of fact, a friend of mine had some serious health issues that kept him from running the sole-proprietor business he had just inherited, and couldn't afford to insure himself yet -- and he was even told "you've got some nerve applying as a white man" -- I guess it's his job to fund it, but never benefit, even though he qualified under the guidelines).


Single pregnant women? No prob.

Illegal aliens? No questions asked, EVER.


Lifelong Oregon taxpayer? Get back in that ditch and make us some more money, bitch!

The program is billions in the hole, and that's just over the next year.


Of course, there's the layers and layers and layers of "administrators" making 6-figures (and a FAT benny package), which perform the important task of... well, we don't know exactly what they do, but they swear it's important.



A bad idea, even at the state level (but at least it's legal at the state level, whereas it's clearly not at the federal level).


Just way too much money to give that many corrupt people a run at.

I think the people who feel that strongly about it should maybe start spending their own money, rather than everyone else's, and start setting up some clinics that operate off private donations -- these already exist around here, and they work a hell of a lot better than the public clinics (or so I'm told).

I think it's touching that so many insured guys have taken it upon themselves to go to bat for those oppressed uninsured people out there. I mean, people already with health insurance, fighting for the constitutional rights of their fellow uninsured citizens. Defending their constitutional right to remain uninsured. It's just like the Freedom Riders of the 60's.

Q, West Coast Style wrote:I think it's touching that so many insured guys have taken it upon themselves to go to bat for those oppressed uninsured people out there. I mean, people already with health insurance, fighting for the constitutional rights of their fellow uninsured citizens. Defending their constitutional right to remain uninsured. It's just like the Freedom Riders of the 60's.

No insurance here.

I've enjoyed good health -- yet there's a segment of the population that believes that since I enjoy good health, they're entitled to a portion of my income, because their health isn't as good as mine.


Of course, if the Do-Gooders would stop trying to figure out newer, even-stupider ideas to makes us all "a little more equal," I might be able to buy a policy that is suitable for me -- like enacting laws that say I have to purchase any insurance I might want from an Oregon company, that carries with it mandates that said policy MUST cover smoking cessation (even though less than 1-in-5 smoke), and sex change operations, and other stuff I have no interest in.


Oh, there's been plenty of "health care reform" offered up by the government -- and every last bit of it has taken a turn for the worse.


You want "reform"? Get your fucking paws off my wallet, and keep your fucking nose out of any agreement I may or may not make with a private insurance company, regardless where they might be located. Like maybe let me go down a checklist, and select the insurance options that are appropriate for me?


Nah -- the Do-Gooders know what's best for me.

It depends on who you ask.

/s/

Dinsdale wrote:I've enjoyed good health --

Assuming that maybe 5% of what you've posted over the years is actually true, with respect to your smoking, choice and number of sexual partners, etc., . . .

Either this is complete bullshit, or you're the unfamous version of Keith Richards, as in when you die, your body should be donated to science so they can determine how you managed to live so long.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:I've enjoyed good health --

Assuming that maybe 5% of what you've posted over the years is actually true

I laughed.

Terry in Crapchester, speaking of Dinsdale wrote:...or you're the unfamous version of Keith Richards...

Um...

1. unfamous

Being well-known for having a pirate impact on society, a community, and/or the world.
So now you see there's a big difference between unfamous and infamous

Look! Omar is unfamous for pirating music.

2. Unfamous

A word to describe some of the amazing talent you can find on youtube, myspace and any other multitude of entertainment sites.

These people are in no way famous and can usually go out in public without being mobbed, but still have a very large following usually in the hundreds of thousands.

There is also a chance these people will become truly famous; ie. a house hold name.

"Hey have you ever heard that sick guitarist KillrBuckeye on youtube? He can shred like a demon!!"

"No man he must be unfamous"

"Hell yeah! Who the fuck wants to be famous?"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=unfamous

Maybe I should've put a hyphen between un and famous.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Assuming that maybe 5% of what you've posted over the years is actually true

To us perpetually single party animals, truth is indeed starnger than fiction.

with respect to your smoking, choice and number of sexual partners, etc., . . .

Either this is complete bullshit, or you're the unfamous version of Keith Richards, as in when you die, your body should be donated to science so they can determine how you managed to live so long.

Let's not forget the drinking... lots and lots of drinking.

Which was kind of a problem when I came down with a liver disorder, and mistook it for the flu*, and self-medicated with... lots and lots of alcohol... which is kind of like the correct form of medical treatment, except that it's actually the exact opposite... that was kind of a bummer.


But in reality -- I very, very rarely get sick. I can go years without a cold, and haven't had the flu in forever (**knocks on wood**). Besides the shitty disk in my back, I'm a freaking picture of motherfucking health.

88 wrote: I'll bite. Where is the legal reasoning FAIL here?

First off in relation to Raich what this dim sum for brains is saying is that the Interstate Commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate non Interstate non Commerce but it can't regulate this. That is just idiotic.

Turning to footnote 14 this activist judge is really a pompous ass. A cancer patient has a 'choice' to stop using the medication her dr says she needs and her state says she is entitled to be able to receive? That is his stance right? So the court can mandate that the cancer patient has to take a certain drug (or at least a drug from a certain list) if she wants to get better but she can't be forced to pay for that drug using insurance? Do I really have to go on?

And just so we are clear as to my position on the whole thing, this law is clearly well out side the IC but so is Raich and Wikard. Try to say that R and W are cool but the mandate isn't is asinine.

Dinsdale wrote:I came down with a liver disorder...

Q: How do you know when it's your liver and not your pancreas?

A: If it's your pancreas, you won't live long enough to tell anyone much about it.

War Wagon wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:I came down with a liver disorder...

Q: How do you know when it's your liver and not your pancreas?

A: Go see a doctor (even a marginally competant one, in this case) to figure out why your skin and eyeballs have turned yellow.

FTFY

88 wrote: The Court noted that there is no opt out position in the Individual Mandate, like there is in Wickard or Raich (i.e., choosing not engage in the activity of growing wheat or weed).

Ya can't 'opt out' of cancer either.

I don't understand your "cancer patient" statement at all? Where did that come from?

So you have no idea as to the facts of the relevant cases. So noted.

It certainly doesn't come from Footnote 14.

If you could research your way out of a wet paper bag you would see that it does.

You need to explain what it is that the Court said that makes you draw such a conclusion. I don't see it at all.

The court made it sound like Miss Raich had an option. She didn't. Her and her dr tried all the other options. There were none left to try. She had no choice.

Again I think the mandate is wack but the court can't say, with a straight face mind you, that poor Miss Raich had an option and have me take anything else they say seriously.

The problem is that the IC clause has been twisted into a pretzel and that means that any case decided based on one of the cases that twisted it into a pretzel is going to be twisted into a pretzel too.

Capisci??

88 wrote: Angel Raich is still alive. She claimed to have many medical conditions, but cancer was not one of them:

A) My bad on the cancer.
B) “Claimed?” So now you are a dr too?

The problem with your position is that Angel Raich's "medicine" of choice is a substance that is not recognized by Congress as a "medicine" and a substance which Congress decided to regulate by making it illegal to cultivate, distribute, possess and/or use (all very stupid decisions, in my opinion, but that is beside the point).

A)The problem with your position is that Congress does not have the right to make that call.
B)One could easily say that Congress has made it illegal for you to spend the last few dollars you have every month on anything but insurance if you have not already bought insurance. Certainly that is no more wack than saying the Interstate Commerce clause also controls Non-Interstate Non-Commerce.
C)One could easily say that the Feds are forcing Miss Raich to buy X drug or a drug from X list which is the same as the Feds telling you to buy insurance.

What if her doctor had prescribed "medical" crystal methamphetamine?

Then she’d get pretty amped.

Angel Raich did not have an "opt out" position because she did not have a lawful "opt in" position.

Because the Interstate Commerce clause regulates Non-Interstate Non-Commerce. Gotcha.

She was not permitted by federal law to cultivate, distribute, possess and/or use weed for any reason as a matter of federal law.

And you are not permitted by federal law to spend the last few dollars you have every month to buy anything but insurance if you have not already purchased it.

Jsc810 wrote:

Q, West Coast Style wrote:I mean, people already with health insurance, fighting for the constitutional rights of their fellow uninsured citizens. Defending their constitutional right to remain uninsured.

Is there a constitutional right to health care?

Sure. There just isn't one that says you get to make somebody else fucking pay for it.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:[Assuming that maybe 5% of what you've posted over the years is actually true..

I'll take the under on that one.

You & what army?

88 wrote:What if her doctor had prescribed "medical" crystal methamphetamine?

In a sane world, that would be between her and her doctor to sort out.

BSmack wrote:

88 wrote:What if her doctor had prescribed "medical" crystal methamphetamine?

In a sane world, that would be between her and her doctor to sort out.

Uhm...


Uhm...


Doctors prescribe methadrine and dexadrine all the time, dumbasses.


It's the widely accepted treatment for narcolepsy.


I spent a grand total of 0.00 hours in med school to learn that.



You both need to take a lap.