The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

According to the WSJ

Personally, I think it would make for a fascinating book. If I was a clerk, I'd be documenting everything and I'd start penning the story now. Release it when I retire.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Two unnamed sources? They're either some combination of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, or someone's spouting bullshiat.

If it was the justices then it's a new low, even for Antonin "I Never Met a Microphone I Didn't Like" Scalia.

It would be pretty stupid, too, for the three amigos to act like sorority girls. This is one decision; they are going to be on the Court together for years.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

That was Nixon back in 1973. I thought RR got rid of it.

The 55 rule wasn't repealed until 1994 but I believe your start date is accurate.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

We should because it costs us more if they don't. For the 1 billionth time, people not having health insurance does not equal people not getting health care. They ARE getting care, on our dime.

And that should stop. Kill all the lawyers that sue hospitals for denying these deadbeats care. Then kill all the people that are too stupid to get health insurance and then show up expecting help when they're shot / have a heart attack / are afflicted by some other problem.

The solution, as always, is that all these people should be killed, ground up into a human form of ground beef, and served to the homeless at soup kitchens.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

And that should stop. Kill all the lawyers that sue hospitals for denying these deadbeats care. Then kill all the people that are too stupid to get health insurance and then show up expecting help when they're shot / have a heart attack / are afflicted by some other problem.

The solution, as always, is that all these people should be killed, ground up into a human form of ground beef, and served to the homeless at soup kitchens.

Soylent Green is people!

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order


My healthcare plan in a nutshell.

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Not to pile on, but exactly right about how Mittens ain't getting away with saying the law is the balls for Massachusetts but unconstitutional, wrong, socialism, etc when applied to the country. That's frankly a ridiculous position. Either you are for making people get insurance or you're against it. Either you are for using the taxing power of the (state or fed) govt to bring about this change or you're not. Either you think mandatory insurance brings down overall healthcare costs as people are hitting the ER less for basic care or you don't believe that's true. For once in his life Williard is faced with a cut and dry issue, and he's going to have to take a stand.

Thus far the "Test Case State" hasn't shown much in the way of bringing down costs or ED visits.

Per capita health spending is 15% higher than the national average and although premium growth has slowed in recent years, Massachusetts has the highest individual market premiums in the country.

ER visits may be up by 8% per capita (while the US average is up only 6%) based on one source or 9% by another.

Access remains an issue in MA

about one in five adults reporting problems finding a doctor who would see them in 2009

If local experience here in MI is anything close to what it is in MA (feel free to chime in Les), many Dr/NP/PAs will not accept medicaid as it currently is paying hospitals about $0.70 per $1 cost and providers $0.50

The argument/discussion should not be about who scored the most political points, did Roberts sell out, or is it a tax or isn't it. It should be about where is the leadership we need to have an actual debate on healthcare coverage and cost. Sadly, both political clown camps and the buffoons leading them would rather play gottcha instead of providing said leadership/governance. IMO, it doesn't matter if Rommney or Obama wins the election in Nov., we still lose on the healthcare issue.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

The argument/discussion should not be about who scored the most political points, did Roberts sell out, or is it a tax or isn't it. It should be about where is the leadership we need to have an actual debate on healthcare coverage and cost.

This is true. I believe that debate has been taking place and will continue to, among health and insurance providers and patient groups. The political debates we see are just the tip of the iceberg.

Politicians are like theologians -- their job is to interpret the facts to best fit their theory. That is the opposite of the scientific method. Politicians are very good at providing leadership to drive towards an agreed-upon policy, but they are not the correct instrument to choose between policies based on the merits. When we are looking for that kind of leadership, we have always had to look elsewhere.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Thus far the "Test Case State" hasn't shown much in the way of bringing down costs or ED visits.

ER visits may be up by 8% per capita (while the US average is up only 6%) based on one source or 9% by another.

Access remains an issue in MA

If local experience here in MI is anything close to what it is in MA (feel free to chime in Les), many Dr/NP/PAs will not accept medicaid as it currently is paying hospitals about $0.70 per $1 cost and providers $0.50

Premiums are higher after making demand so inelastic that it is practically vertical? What a shocker!

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

buster, check this out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-bauer/romney-health-insurance_b_1298150.html

While I'm not thrilled with the source, the bottom line is its based on a federal study showing premiums growing slower than the national average, AND slower than neo-con dreamland Texas even though that state has approx 25% of the population uninsured to about 2% for Mass. Regarding higher premiums, of course healthcare, like just about everything else is more expensive in Massachusetts as its usually the wealthiest or close to the wealthiest state in the country. The trick is are premiums and costs coming down. Yes on question 1, and with a 160M reduction passed this year for healthcare spending by the state yes on question 2.

The larger point however is that you can't begin to control costs until you have everyone participating in the system. Otherwise both free riders and those who for financial reasons put off care for too long will destroy any efforts to keep costs under control. Right now Mass is embarking on a law to keep healthcare costs growing at the rate of the economy. Imagine the savings if the feds could achieve that?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

The larger point however is that you can't begin to control costs until you have everyone participating in the system. Otherwise both free riders and those who for financial reasons put off care for too long will destroy any efforts to keep costs under control.

Well, technically there is a way under those circumstances to still keep costs under control. eLynah mentioned it. It does not appear to have broad appeal.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

The larger point however is that you can't begin to control costs until you have everyone participating in the system. Otherwise both free riders and those who for financial reasons put off care for too long will destroy any efforts to keep costs under control. Right now Mass is embarking on a law to keep healthcare costs growing at the rate of the economy. Imagine the savings if the feds could achieve that?

The only way that you can impliment that law right now is to ration care.

While people receiving care without insurance is an issue, its costs are a drop in the bucket of the total healthcare bill in this country. The real reason that costs are going up so rapidly is because the gov't has subsidized demand while shorting supply. The gov't pay for 50% of healthcare in this country. State gov'ts (and now National) have forced all kinds of goodies into everyones' health plan so dramatically increasing the cost of a policy eventhough I'm pretty sure a guy doesn't need to be covered for pregnancy. Most of the cost of going to the doctor has been weiped away through low co-pays.

Then, instead of letting providers increase their prices to deal with increased demand (encouraging more people into the field) you tell them they can only receive 70% of the actual cost ensuring a shortage of providers.

The truly sad thing is that gov't gets into the system, messes it up, and then people clamor for gov't to come in and fix what it just broke. Obamacare will be no different. I just hope that people here will realize that its the gov't who screwed up the system and want them out of it instead of creating another worthless "fix".... I'm not holding my breath.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

The only way that you can impliment that law right now is to ration care.

While people receiving care without insurance is an issue, its costs are a drop in the bucket of the total healthcare bill in this country. The real reason that costs are going up so rapidly is because the gov't has subsidized demand while shorting supply. The gov't pay for 50% of healthcare in this country. State gov'ts (and now National) have forced all kinds of goodies into everyones' health plan so dramatically increasing the cost of a policy eventhough I'm pretty sure a guy doesn't need to be covered for pregnancy. Most of the cost of going to the doctor has been weiped away through low co-pays.

Then, instead of letting providers increase their prices to deal with increased demand (encouraging more people into the field) you tell them they can only receive 70% of the actual cost ensuring a shortage of providers.

The truly sad thing is that gov't gets into the system, messes it up, and then people clamor for gov't to come in and fix what it just broke. Obamacare will be no different. I just hope that people here will realize that its the gov't who screwed up the system and want them out of it instead of creating another worthless "fix".... I'm not holding my breath.

There's a few other things that have GREATLY increased health care costs: Law Offices Of (LOO) James Sokolove, LOO Bruce Fagel, Injury Helpline... I'm sure you could name some other similar factors that are in your area.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Well, technically there is a way under those circumstances to still keep costs under control. eLynah mentioned it. It does not appear to have broad appeal.

You know you support my approach. Just admit it openly and be done with it. There's no sense in continuing this charade.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

You know you support my approach. Just admit it openly and be done with it. There's no sense in continuing this charade.

I don't recall your approach but as a guess I'd say somewhere in there is kill them all and let God sort them out.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

This is great.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I don't recall your approach but as a guess I'd say somewhere in there is kill them all and let God sort them out.

Scroll to the youtube clip I posted yesterday morning in this thread.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Scroll to the youtube clip I posted yesterday morning in this thread.

"Near sighted."

Nice.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

The only way that you can impliment that law right now is to ration care.

While people receiving care without insurance is an issue, its costs are a drop in the bucket of the total healthcare bill in this country. The real reason that costs are going up so rapidly is because the gov't has subsidized demand while shorting supply. The gov't pay for 50% of healthcare in this country. State gov'ts (and now National) have forced all kinds of goodies into everyones' health plan so dramatically increasing the cost of a policy eventhough I'm pretty sure a guy doesn't need to be covered for pregnancy. Most of the cost of going to the doctor has been weiped away through low co-pays.

Then, instead of letting providers increase their prices to deal with increased demand (encouraging more people into the field) you tell them they can only receive 70% of the actual cost ensuring a shortage of providers.

The truly sad thing is that gov't gets into the system, messes it up, and then people clamor for gov't to come in and fix what it just broke. Obamacare will be no different. I just hope that people here will realize that its the gov't who screwed up the system and want them out of it instead of creating another worthless "fix".... I'm not holding my breath.

And where Mass is addressing this issue is to move away from payments by procedure to overall care by patient. Now that everybody has insurance this is a lot more doable. Its going to take some changes of behavior across the board from patients to providers but the state can put its attention in this direction after getting over the mandatory insurance hump.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

There's a few other things that have GREATLY increased health care costs: Law Offices Of (LOO) James Sokolove, LOO Bruce Fagel, Injury Helpline... I'm sure you could name some other similar factors that are in your area.

When in doubt, blame the lawyers...always a great strategy.

You are, of course, forgetting that the biggest driver in medical malpractice premium increases is the power of modern medicine to keep victims of malpractice alive.

The biggest med mal verdicts aren't for the estates of people who die. They're for people who must now live for 50 or more years with gross disfigurement, nonworking organs, and the like. Past damages and loss of consortium are drops in the bucket compared to future medical costs and future damages.

When doctors screwed up in the past, people died. Now they don't always die.

When people ask for caps on medical malpractice cases, they're asking to screw over those people who now require round the clock nursing care because some surgical resident botched a procedure in order to save themselves $1 on their health insurance premiums.