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

[Bakunin]

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

As MinnFan pointed out, you are dead wrong according to precedent. The market for broccoli is clearly an interstate one, and Congress could certainly regulate that market by requiring (or forbidding) people to eat it.

Isn't the market for pretty much anything an interstate one these days?

 

[FreshFish]

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

Isn't the market for pretty much anything an interstate one these days?

There certainly is an interstate "market" for air, no doubt about it, given that the weather patterns typically move either from the southwest to the northeast, or down from Canada, or up from the Gulf?

I understand that there is already a secret plan being held in abeyance until after the court rules; if PPACA is indeed found to be constitutional, this secret plan will solve the revenue problem by using EPA guidelines to impose emissions penalties on everyone who breathes, since all of us produce CO[SUB]2[/SUB] every time we exhale.

[aside: how inconsistent is it for any administration, on the one hand, to encourage people to buy electric cars from Government Motors, while simultaneously and deliberately it also sets out to increase the price of coal-generated electricity? I can understand in theory how they might advance an argument in favor of one or the other, but both, at the same time!?!?!?

 

[5mn_Major]

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

[aside: how inconsistent is it for any administration, on the one hand, to encourage people to buy electric cars from Government Motors, while simultaneously and deliberately it also sets out to increase the price of coal-generated electricity? I can understand in theory how they might advance an argument in favor of one or the other, but both, at the same time!?!?!?

Not inconsistent. There's a belief that we have an opportunity to both move the country off a reliance on fossil fuels, most of which will be imported no matter what we do, manage the worst poluting elements, while simultaniously trying to have the US own alternative technology rather than someone like the Chinese.

Follow up question...how inconsistent is it for the GOP to consistently say that the deficit is pretty much at the tops of the federal priorties...while simultaniously voting in favor of government subsidies for big oil industry (or is it Government Oil) which made 134B in profits last year?

 

[WeWantMore]

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

Follow up question...how inconsistent is it for the GOP to consistently say that the deficit is pretty much at the tops of the federal priorties...while simultaniously voting in favor of government subsidies for big oil industry (or is it Government Oil) which made 134B in profits last year?

Yeah, I mean who would vote for something like that?

Me? I favor getting rid of all subsidies, tax breaks, etc. But it's super disingenuous to call them "tax breaks for big oil" as Obama and friends do.

 

[WeWantMore]

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

Put another way, the liberal wing kind of has a point - if Congress can legally usurp the entire industry with nationalized care paid for by taxes, why can't it utilize the market if Congess thinks that's a more efficient means?

A point in what sense? A logical one, sure. A constitutional one? I don't know. I mean, we're talking about a case where on Monday the government strenuously argued the mandate was not a tax. Then everybody came back on Tuesday so they could argue it was. Not sure logic has much place in the law, as I'm sure you know.

For instance, the Office of Legal Council is apparently of the opinion that killing a US citizen (and his teenage son) without trial is A-OK. While, of course, pouring water down his throat would have been a super no-no. Constitutionally, they might even have a point.

 

[unofan]

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

I understand that there is already a secret plan being held in abeyance until after the court rules; if PPACA is indeed found to be constitutional, this secret plan will solve the revenue problem by using EPA guidelines to impose emissions penalties on everyone who breathes, since all of us produce CO[SUB]2[/SUB] every time we exhale.

I guess it's not really a secret plan, if you've heard about it...

 

[leswp1]

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

Eating veggies certainly does have an effect on commerce though when you consider that a it was ruled interstate commerce when a farmer grew wheat for his own consumption.

How is buying insurance from within your state's boundres interstate commerce?

Thats my point with all this. You can broaden anything to have an effect. So where is moral boundary for liberals?

Not getting into the 'liberal thing'. I hate inflammatory labels.

The interstate commerce thing is pretty easy. Insurance is absoluely not within state borders. People who work for companies out of state get insurance from out of state. They farm out their support phone banks across state lines, people travel to other states and then need to use insurance. Currently each state has all sorts of crazy laws about insurance. Before the law changed some states required mammos/GYN care be covered without need of referral. Some did not. If the insurance came from a different stat this was a nightmare. They required referral that the State said was illegal. Until things got straightened out it was a mess. The hospital wouldn't have the order because the stat didn't want it tbut the insurance did.

As MinnFan pointed out, you are dead wrong according to precedent. The market for broccoli is clearly an interstate one, and Congress could certainly regulate that market by requiring (or forbidding) people to eat it.

THey could not howver require the market to provide the broccoli for free if someone walked in and said they were hungry. They do that for healthcare.

Ah, so you demonize the industry for high prices, and then demonize them for giving away free samples like drug dealers. Typical double standard. I've come to expect nothing less.

Advertising: the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., especially by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.

All advertising is promotional. Not all promotions are advertising. Simple logic eludes you once again, Foxton.

As for sources: Google it yourself. I posted the source. You want a link, go find it like I did. It wasn't too hard. I know you can do it all by yourself.

"free samples' are not 'Free". we need to listen to the pitch to obtain them. Samples are for non-generic drugs. They are unique in the class of drug so if you give sample you can't switch to generic when it runs out. It also is a tool for them to get the patient started on the drug and lever the insurance into paying for a treatment /accepting prior auth on drug because the patient is already treated successfully. This is a brilliant maneuver on their part. It absolutely is promotional and advertising. It happens to be a great way to give people what they can't afford but it is a drip in the bucket for those in need. (there are some pharma co that have indigent programs that actually work but the hoops to leap thru now are crazy)

 

[5mn_Major]

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

Republicans never change their policy? Regardless, why not make the best decision possible today?

Also, this let's the GOP off the hook? Seems to me that one party doesn't shut up about cutting government intervention in business...and its not that of Obama.

Yeah, I mean who would vote for something like that?

Me? I favor getting rid of all subsidies, tax breaks, etc. But it's super disingenuous to call them "tax breaks for big oil" as Obama and friends do.

The opinion piece's agenda is so obviously to use the bill to slam Obama...it complains that the bill singles out some of big oil but not others, that its singling out the oil industry imparticular, yet that somehow the subsidy cuts don't go far enough. As its so politically agenda laden, you have no idea if the guy would have voted for the bill or not.

Soo...let me sum up your post here. You personally agree with my point that its inconsistent for the GOP to put the deficit at the top of federal priorities, but vote in favor of big subsidies for oil...and you support passing the presidents bill.

 

[WeWantMore]

Soo...let me sum up your post here. You personally agree with my point that its inconsistent for the GOP to put the deficit at the top of federal priorities, but vote in favor of big subsidies for oil...and you support passing the presidents bill.

Yes, something like that. Like I said, I support getting rid of all subsidies.

Just pointing out that for an Obamapologist like yourself, your position is laughable.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

Just pointing out that for an Obamapologist like yourself, your position is laughable.

You just said you supported my position and half a post later its laughable. Hmmm...

 

[FreshFish]

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

Follow up question...how inconsistent is it for the GOP to consistently say that the deficit is pretty much at the tops of the federal priorties...while simultaniously voting in favor of government subsidies for big oil industry (or is it Government Oil) which made 134B in profits last year?

Who are you asking? It's pretty clear that I am no Republican partisan!

My simplistic formulation is that Repugnicans are thieves and Dummycrats are robbers. One takes your money by sleight of hand while the other takes your money overtly. Either way, they are taking your money.

 

[FreshFish]

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

THey could not howver require the market to provide the broccoli for free if someone walked in and said they were hungry.

um, they actually do something similar, except that they give these people little cards first so that they are not 'shamed and embarrassed" when they go to the store to demand their "free" food. At least in those cases, the store gets paid, just not by the person who gets the food.


that aside, I do sympathize with the plight you describe. People's services are being conscripted against their will without pay and that's not right either.

 

[LynahFan]

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

THey could not howver require the market to provide the broccoli for free if someone walked in and said they were hungry. They do that for healthcare.

Of course. We already have a health care mandate in this country - hospitals (ERs in particular) MUST treat patients, regardless of ability to pay. The problem is that this is so far an asymmetrical mandate - a mandate only on the providers, without a balancing one on the consumers. Have 'em both or ditch 'em both - can't have one without the other, as we're painfully learning.

 

[Kepler]

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

The four "liberal judges" were strictly put there to legislate from the bench. There's no other reason that Clinton and Obama put them there.

Try again.

The judicial activism of the last 10 years has come from the right, not the left.

 

[amherstblackbear]

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

Try again.

The judicial activism of the last 10 years has come from the right, not the left.

Conservative justices are political activists, too? That's unpossible!

 

[Priceless]

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

I liked Scalia's rebuttal when the Solicitor General said people received care at ER's because of "societal norms to which we've obligated ourselves"

Scalia's response: Don't obligate yourselves

Translation: Doctors should let people die rather than treating them.

I also like that Scalia was excluding himself from society.

 

[amherstblackbear]

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

Someone should have asked whether it's the ER's place to determine applicability and breadth of coverage or, failing that, ability to pay.

Or perhaps Scalia had already thought it out, and reasoned that we could simply start micro-chipping people, pet dog-style, with information about health insurance or private escrow accounts for emergency care.

 

[WeWantMore]

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

I liked Scalia's rebuttal when the Solicitor General said people received care at ER's because of "societal norms to which we've obligated ourselves"

Scalia's response: Don't obligate yourselves

Translation: Doctors should let people die rather than treating them.

I also like that Scalia was excluding himself from society.

His point was, Congress has created this problem for itself. Can they then come back and say, "My god, look at this problem! Give us the power to fix it."?

Kennedy asked something similar, "Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?"

 

[WeWantMore]

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

You just said you supported my position and half a post later its laughable. Hmmm...

Yeah, not quite.

I support ending subsidies, loopholes, tax breaks, etc. across the board. You aren't seriously suggesting that's Obama's position are you? He loves them long time. Just not for "big oil".

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Try again.

The judicial activism of the last 10 years has come from the right, not the left.

I never said that Roberts, Alito, and Scalia weren't put there for political reasons... after all, I think we all remember the Harriet Myers mess...