The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

[Bakunin]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Based on the feds using interstate commerce to justify raiding your pot garden grown for personal use in a state that doesn't forbid personal use, yes.

So basically the interstate commerce clause is going to be used to justify any mandate the government wishes to foist upon us. Lovely, just lovely.

Oh well, at least we got abortion out of it, so there's that.

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Interesting speculation in the Wall St Journal today....basically, IF Kennedy decides to support the Constitutionality of PPACA, then Roberts also would vote in favor, so that he could write the opinion (and by implication make it as restrictive as possible).

How amusing would that be, if the PPACA is upheld yet the four liberal justices write a dissenting opinion anyway!!

If they're in the majority, they write a concurring opinion (or concurring in part, dissenting in part)

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

If they're in the majority, they write a concurring opinion (or concurring in part, dissenting in part)

I knew that, it was merely a lame attempt at wit on my part; as I figured that what you phrased as "concurring in part" to be about 1% and "dissenting in part" to be about 99%.

In other words, the so-called "concurring" opinon would be aptly summarized as:

"How dare you give such a [insert adjective here] justification for this bill!!!!
WE think that the justification should be [whatever]."

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Here's a droll thought....whatever the decision on PPACA, each of the Justices writes their own opinion in support or dissent....that would be a good thing for the country, I think.

[duper]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I don't quite understand how a single-payor system inherently eliminates personal responsibility.

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I think for amusement's sake whenever Kennedy retires, he should get to pick his replacement. 5-4 forever!

[leswp1]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Congress didn't legislate it. That's why the SG explained that they are "societal norms." Congress didn't say, "We have a crisis where poor people go to the ER, are refused care and die." It's the other way around. People who don't have the economic means go to the ER and receive care. The cost is then spread out to everyone. The Congress is responding to the morality in society. We, as a society, are not willing to stomach people being turned away by the hospital because they can't pay for care. If someone has a heart attack, the first paramedics on the scene do not go through the victim's wallet to look for proof of insurance before putting them in the ambulance. Maybe in Scalia's view they should.

This except they had court cases that held the hosp/ambulance drivers responsible for driving to hosp farther away d/t lack of financial means

[Bakunin]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I think for amusement's sake whenever Kennedy retires, he should get to pick his replacement. 5-4 forever!

Replacement? Just put a silver dollar on the Court and have it flipped by a robot for each decision. Heads = vote with the conservative wing; tails = vote with the liberal wing.

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Replacement? Just put a silver dollar on the Court and have it flipped by a robot for each decision. Heads = vote with the conservative wing; tails = vote with the liberal wing.

If there is a case on gambling, does the coin get recused?

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

If there is a case on gambling, does the coin get recused?

We're going to grab that computer that won Jeopardy in those cases.

All Hail Our New Skynet Overlords.

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

This except they had court cases that held the hosp/ambulance drivers responsible for driving to hosp farther away d/t lack of financial means

Well, no, not "this".

Congress certainly did legislate it.

[leswp1]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Well, no, not "this".

Congress certainly did legislate it.

Wow. I am old. I didn't think that was that long ago. I do remember the coverage that led up to that law tho. It was all over the news.

This was about the same time they started to try capitated healthcare in our state. The insurances were paying a set figure for each patient in your panel (I think it was 11$ a month). The complex patients were being jetisoned from practices because they had the capability of bankrupting the practice if they were very ill or just if they needed to see you all the time because they were worried well. LIl was undertreated for his asthma and we switched Docs after the Doc he had was treating him suboptimally so he could save cash. Wanted us to use an inhaler on him (6 months old) rather than prescribe a nebulizer. They eventually legislated that away somehow (don't remember but it went away) but we don't learn. One of the Boston Hospital groups just signed an agreement with BCBS to try again. Bad motivation- you get the cash if you see the person less but if the person over-utilizes you lose big $. So the Docs see them less but the hospital takes the hit for the sequelae. Not that I haven't said this before but medicine should not be tied to for profit/cash.

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Well, no, not "this".

Congress certainly did legislate it.

So, like Justice Scalia, you would 'remove the obligation' and allow patients without means of payment to die. Make no mistake, when he blithely talks about not obligating yourselves, that's what he means. So if you're in a car crash and knocked unconscious, the first thing paramedics on the scene will do is look for an insurance card or call to check your credit score. That's a solid policy. That will certainly help the unemployment problem, welfare, Social Security etc. Dead people collect no benefits. Not only would you be eliminating the 40-50 million uninsured, you would knock off quite a few who are underinsured. I say "you" not because, like Justice Scalia, I'm excluding myself from society but rather I'll be among those no longer living. I hope you enjoy your new society.

Reminds me of a quote from Dickens...

[WeWantMore]

So, like Justice Scalia, you would 'remove the obligation' and allow patients without means of payment to die. Make no mistake, when he blithely talks about not obligating yourselves, that's what he means. So if you're in a car crash and knocked unconscious, the first thing paramedics on the scene will do is look for an insurance card or call to check your credit score. That's a solid policy. That will certainly help the unemployment problem, welfare, Social Security etc. Dead people collect no benefits. Not only would you be eliminating the 40-50 million uninsured, you would knock off quite a few who are underinsured. I say "you" not because, like Justice Scalia, I'm excluding myself from society but rather I'll be among those no longer living. I hope you enjoy your new society.

Reminds me of a quote from Dickens...

Congratulations, you've managed to miss the point entirely.

EMTALA is just fine. But the fact that Congress passed it, contra the SGs argument, does not give Congress extraconstitutional powers to find a way to pay for it.

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Wow. I am old. I didn't think that was that long ago. I do remember the coverage that led up to that law tho. It was all over the news.

This was about the same time they started to try capitated healthcare in our state. The insurances were paying a set figure for each patient in your panel (I think it was 11$ a month). The complex patients were being jetisoned from practices because they had the capability of bankrupting the practice if they were very ill or just if they needed to see you all the time because they were worried well. LIl was undertreated for his asthma and we switched Docs after the Doc he had was treating him suboptimally so he could save cash. Wanted us to use an inhaler on him (6 months old) rather than prescribe a nebulizer. They eventually legislated that away somehow (don't remember but it went away) but we don't learn. One of the Boston Hospital groups just signed an agreement with BCBS to try again. Bad motivation- you get the cash if you see the person less but if the person over-utilizes you lose big $. So the Docs see them less but the hospital takes the hit for the sequelae. Not that I haven't said this before but medicine should not be tied to for profit/cash.

Les

Would you give RomneyCare a + or a -?