- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Supporters of Obamacare: Are there no free market solutions to Healthcare?
Posted on 1/12/14 at 7:35 am to ironsides
Posted on 1/12/14 at 7:35 am to ironsides
quote:
Ehhh malpractice insurance?
So is buying auto insurance.
See above.
Now we see how much conservative really care about the limitations placed upon Congress by the Constitution. There are none when the favor a law.
You guys are the quintessential Republicans.
0
Posted on 1/12/14 at 8:33 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:Obamacare was ruled Constitutional, was it not?
You've just poo pooed every conservative's argument against the constitutionality of Obamacare.
quote:Again, Obamacare was ruled Constitutional, was it not?
Thanks for proving how important "original intent" is to a conservative. Zip.
Posted on 1/12/14 at 10:31 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Obamacare was ruled Constitutional, was it not?
Uh yes. But not because of the economical impact. Four conservatives thought it was unconstitutional as it did not fall under the ICC. Four liberals thought it did. Roberts found it came under Congress' taxing power. So that's why it was ruled constitutional. Not for the reason you gave.
So are you arguing med mal falls under Congress' taxing power?
quote:
Again, Obamacare was ruled Constitutional, was it not?
You're sounding like SEC Crazy.
All 5 conservatives on the Court found it did not fall under the ICC and you're arguing that because Roberts found it fell under the Taxing Power and Constitutional, then med mal would also be constitutional because it falls under the ICC? Seriously?
I mean I realize you learned all about law at the Holiday Inn but educate yourself some. Your position is diametrically opposed to 99% of conservative thinking. And that's a fact.
So how do conservatives claim this falls under the ICC when they argued Obamacare did not and the Supreme Court did not?
Posted on 1/12/14 at 10:51 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
So are you arguing med mal falls under Congress' taxing power?
quote:
Mechanism of action in the healthcare arena could take many forms. One might be financial incentive for states enacting a no-fault, worker's-comp type plaintiff reimbursement tort option, and disincentives for those which did not.
Certainly, it could.
The program would be set up, more or less, as an extension of workers' comp. You seem to think that is impossible. I told you when this business of socializing medicine started, watch out, you might be next. Well . . . you may be.
Posted on 1/12/14 at 10:57 am to NC_Tigah
Workers comp is not federal.
Posted on 1/12/14 at 11:00 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:Did you not read my previous post?
Workers comp is not federal.
Posted on 1/12/14 at 11:07 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Serious question: upon what authority would Congress pass a law re tort reform?
I would like to see Congress limit what a lawyer can recover from a clients settlement...say 10% at max.
Plus, there are no BS add-ons billed to their clients:
2 minute telephone call: $250
One ream of paper: $75
Ink pens: $30
Meals: $200
etc
On top of a 50% Federal tax rate the lawfirm must pay on any settlement $$ they receive, a special fee would be imposed for them for a fund to help needy children, say another 10% of that.
That would be a great reform in the courts, don't you agree?
Posted on 1/12/14 at 11:15 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Did you not read my previous post?
Yes.
Did you read my question?
Posted on 1/12/14 at 11:20 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
upon what authority would Congress pass a law re tort reform?
it clearly falls under the current definition of "commerce"
Posted on 1/12/14 at 11:22 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
so you think going to your local doctor and suing him affects interstate commerce? Seriously?
is eating at a local diner somehow less of an effect on interstate commerce?
or growing your own wheat for your own personal consumption?
This post was edited on 1/12/14 at 11:23 pm
Posted on 1/12/14 at 11:22 pm to Reubaltaich
quote:
I would like to see Congress limit what a lawyer can recover from a clients settlement...say 10% at max.
And under what section of the Constitution would Congress get it's authority to limit fees?
quote:
On top of a 50% Federal tax rate the lawfirm must pay on any settlement $$ they receive, a special fee would be imposed for them for a fund to help needy children, say another 10% of that. That would be a great reform in the courts, don't you agree?
I think it's great! Congress could do that under it's taxing power. But to pass constitutional muster, it would have to be a 50% tax on all businesses with the additional 10% tax for the needy.
Posted on 1/12/14 at 11:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it clearly falls under the current definition of "commerce"
That's not the test.
Posted on 1/12/14 at 11:28 pm to Vegas Bengal
if owning a local diner falls under the ICC, the practice of law certainly does
now if you want to reject the absurdly low threshhold, then i will agree
now if you want to reject the absurdly low threshhold, then i will agree
Posted on 1/12/14 at 11:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
is eating at a local diner somehow less of an effect on interstate commerce? or growing your own wheat for your own personal consumption?
You may have a point if this were 1965 or 1936 but it's not.
If Obamacare is not constitutional under the ICC, and it's not according to this court, then certainly med mal would not be.
Posted on 1/12/14 at 11:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if owning a local diner falls under the ICC, the practice of law certainly does
Do you even practice law? Seriously?
Posted on 1/12/14 at 11:31 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
You may have a point if this were 1965 or 1936 but it's not.
huh? when did they change the words of the constitution?
quote:
If Obamacare is not constitutional under the ICC
the personal mandate is not constitutional under the ICC.
Posted on 1/12/14 at 11:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
SFP i'd love to hear your response to my post on the first page. I'll repost it here for you:
quote:
I don't like Obamacare for a lot of reasons but I will answer your question anyway.
The main reason health care costs are so out of control in this country compared to others is because in other countries there is a clearinghouse of sorts that will collectively bargain for prices on heath care products. People with health problems are in no position to act like consumers the way they would for a car or a tv so consumers are gouged as a result.
If there were a private, yelp type organization that would bring everything together and either collectively bargain for services or make it a lot easier/more practical for people to act as they normally would as consumers then I would be fine with that.
Posted on 1/12/14 at 11:36 pm to Draconian Sanctions
you're on the right track but you miss the problem, which is that we don't negotiate prices b/c we're over-insured and rely on a third party (insurance or the government) to set prices. this + forcing expensive ER care are why our costs are out of whack
just look at the study that was just released that showed giving more people medicaid led to higher costs b/c they will increase their abuse on the ER even though they also increased preventative care
when we have no incentive to haggle, then we won't. when we have no cost-motive, we will abuse the system and won't care about costs. when we can shift payment to "the other guy" then we will
just look at the study that was just released that showed giving more people medicaid led to higher costs b/c they will increase their abuse on the ER even though they also increased preventative care
when we have no incentive to haggle, then we won't. when we have no cost-motive, we will abuse the system and won't care about costs. when we can shift payment to "the other guy" then we will
Posted on 1/12/14 at 11:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
which is that we don't negotiate prices b/c we're over-insured and rely on a third party (insurance or the government) to set prices. this + forcing expensive ER care are why our costs are out of whack
just look at the study that was just released that showed giving more people medicaid led to higher costs b/c they will increase their abuse on the ER even though they also increased preventative care
when we have no incentive to haggle, then we won't. when we have no cost-motive, we will abuse the system and won't care about costs. when we can shift payment to "the other guy" then we will
you're largely trying to twist your anti-consumer conservative views to fit a defensible narrative. You're not exactly wrong per se but you do a great job of dancing around the real issue which ultimately boils down to health care companies squeezing every last dollar they can out of the average joe, social and economic consequences be damned.
This post was edited on 1/12/14 at 11:40 pm
Posted on 1/12/14 at 11:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:none of it is.
the personal mandate is not constitutional under the ICC.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News