Discussion: Health And Healthcare III

[Matt]

Again, it is a matter of the judiciary ethics code. One violates it. The other does not. Can you at least acknowledge the legal distinction between the two?

 

[Franklin Richards]

If the ethics code allows a husband to get away with something a previous employee can't, then I suppose my problem is with the code.

I deal in justice not loopholes. Especially since the congress can write whatever code they like.


Do you hear the people sing?

 

[Matt]

One can be proven, the other relies on speculation. If you consider justice to be speculation, so be it. But don't complain when people are arrested because they MAY be doing something wrong.

One of these examples have legal evidence. The other relies on policing thoughts and speculation.

 

[Franklin Richards]

I think there is enough wiggle room in how "codes" work that they could find precedents that would disqualify a husband who pumps funds into a lobby that works against a case he's ruling over.

If there isn't enough wiggle room then why do we have a Supreme Court?

 

[dnno1]

Here's the audio and the transcript of Tuesday's oral Arguments.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Reports are coming in that Roberts and Kennedy are extremely skeptical over the individual mandate.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

The solicitor general, Verrilli was awful. It was like listening to a court-appointed public defender. He seemed to have no answers to any of the questions posed. The guy challenging the law (Colvin?) did a far superior job. And I say this as a supporter of the law. I will also say this though, pundits are making too big of a deal of the opening arguments. This thing needs time to shake out and there could be surprises. That said I'm not overly optimistic. The Obama administration deserves criticism for being arrogant and feckless when they let this bumbling amateur argue his signature legislation in an election year. If they lose the case, they probably will have deserved it.

 

[Matt]

Obama's mistake was not pushing for single payer. If Clinton were in office (or basically anyone with stones who could've really beaten the blue dogs into line), we'd probably have a single payer system right now (and while people may oppose single payer, it would be very hard to overturn in SCOTUS).

 

[Matt]

BTW, Petunia. I looked into it. You keep mentioning Thomas making money off of his wife's lobby. Liberty Central is a nonprofit and Virginia Thomas makes no money off. She is unpaid. Kinda shoots a hole in your argument that he profits off of the anti-Obamacare lobby, eh?

 

[Franklin Richards]

My argument was more of an insider trading angle. The Thomas Family invests in Liberty Central and therefore have a conflict of interest with the case.

 

[dnno1]

The solicitor general, Verrilli was awful. It was like listening to a court-appointed public defender. He seemed to have no answers to any of the questions posed. The guy challenging the law (Colvin?) did a far superior job. And I say this as a supporter of the law. I will also say this though, pundits are making too big of a deal of the opening arguments. This thing needs time to shake out and there could be surprises. That said I'm not overly optimistic. The Obama administration deserves criticism for being arrogant and feckless when they let this bumbling amateur argue his signature legislation in an election year. If they lose the case, they probably will have deserved it.

Actually Verrilli did have an answer to all of the Justices' questions. Now, he didn't speak as fluidly as the other attorneys, but he did have an answer... and the attorney who appeared on behalf of the respondents (the National Federation of Independent Businesses and others) was Michael Carvin. He kind of off and untrue on some topics saying that the government could not promote commerce when there have been several instances in the past where it had.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Speculation isn't exactly evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. Not even strong speculation. Him not wanting to sleep on the couch isn't going to meet the burden of proof needed.

Kagan on the other hand, clearly worked the case. There is no denying that at all. That is the difference and it is a huge one.

While Thomas' conflicts of interest are pure speculation, for the sake of the Court, it would have been best for him to recuse himself along with Kagan.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The solicitor general, Verrilli was awful. It was like listening to a court-appointed public defender. He seemed to have no answers to any of the questions posed. The guy challenging the law (Colvin?) did a far superior job. And I say this as a supporter of the law. I will also say this though, pundits are making too big of a deal of the opening arguments. This thing needs time to shake out and there could be surprises. That said I'm not overly optimistic. The Obama administration deserves criticism for being arrogant and feckless when they let this bumbling amateur argue his signature legislation in an election year. If they lose the case, they probably will have deserved it.

I agree, the biggest problem IMO is not whether or not the mandate is constitutional or not, but more along the lines that the government has been doing a mediocre at best job at defending the mandate within both the public and legal arenas.

 

[dnno1]

Obama's mistake was not pushing for single payer. If Clinton were in office (or basically anyone with stones who could've really beaten the blue dogs into line), we'd probably have a single payer system right now (and while people may oppose single payer, it would be very hard to overturn in SCOTUS).

Now, you know that would have never gone anywhere. Remember the opposition was billing this whole thing as a government take over of health care, and single payer would have definitely been far more closer to that. Furthermore it would put the existing insurance companies out of business, which would effect commerce and the economy drastically. I think the respondents in the health care case before the Supreme Court was proposing that there should have been tax incentives to get people to purchase health insurance as a solution, but I don't know how effective that would have been in raising enough revenue to help subsidies the people who couldn't afford health insurance. That's the fact that these guys are missing here. A lot of the people who are uninsured are that way because they can't afford it. It's not like they don't want it.

 

[hippie_hunter]

SCOTUS Blog is stating that Chief Justice Roberts is leaning towards going against the mandate and that Justice Kennedy is the one to convince now.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Now, you know that would have never gone anywhere. Remember the opposition was billing this whole thing as a government take over of health care, and single payer would have definitely been far more closer to that. Furthermore it would put the existing insurance companies out of business, which would effect commerce and the economy drastically. I think the respondents in the health care case before the Supreme Court was proposing that there should have been tax incentives to get people to purchase health insurance as a solution, but I don't know how effective that would have been in raising enough revenue to help subsidies the people who couldn't afford health insurance. That's the fact that these guys are missing here. A lot of the people who are uninsured are that way because they can't afford it. It's not like they don't want it.

But a single payer system would have not been found unconstitutional in the Supreme Court.

 

[Paradoxium]

Dear Obamacare supporters of Hype,

Can you kindly post the stock symbol of your insurance company? So for an example, UnitedHealth Group which provides for Georgetown University students (which is a totally random example) is UNH.

Thank you vary much misters and missus t:

 

[Paradoxium]

Dear Obamacare supporters of Hype,

Can you kindly post the stock symbol of your insurance company? So for an example, UnitedHealth Group which provides for Georgetown University students (which is a totally random example) is UNH.

Thank you vary much misters and missus t:

 

[hippie_hunter]

Ummmmm.....why?

 

[Paradoxium]

Ummmmm.....why?

Investment opportunities

 

[dnno1]

There is a huge difference between presiding over a case you have actively worked on and your wife being a lobbyist against a bill. If Thomas actively worked as a lobbyist against Obamacare, your point would be valid. But he didn't. Kagan laid the groundwork for the legal defense that she is now ruling on. HUGE conflict of interest. Mind you, I am not defending Thomas....but there is a pretty big difference.

It's really not. A judge can conceivably be unbiased despite his wife working a job. Kagan on the other hand has actively worked on the case that she is now hearing. Thomas has not. It is a HUGE difference.



It's not a double standard. Thomas has not worked for his wife's lobby. He has not spoken or done anything that calls his impartiality into question. Do he and his wife talk about cases? Probably. Is Thomas going to oppose it, most likely. But again, he is not his wife. He has not actively worked on the case. Kagan has. That is a gigantic conflict of interest.

Both of these are examples of conflict of interest, which in general is regulated by federal law. Chief Justice Roberts left it up to the two to determine if they should recuse themselves from this case. As it turned out, neither did recuse themselves (although Justice Thomas has been very quiet during oral arguments over the last two days).

He and his wife are both considered individuals. His wife's actions do not reflect his own at least not legally. Kagan's actions cannot be separated from her. Thomas' wife's actions can LEGALLY be seperated from him.

It all depends on how they file their taxes and disclosures. In January of 2011, the Los Angeles Times reported that the political advocacy group, Common Cause found that Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation over a five year period, but justice Thomas did not include it on financial disclosure forms (he consistently checked no spousal income). When the news came out, Thomas amended 13 years’ worth of disclosure reports to include details of his wife's income, Politico reports, claiming it was a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” If he and his wife are considered individuals, why was he asked to disclose his spouse's income? Furthermore, once could make the accusation that he was reluctant to discloses this because of conflict of interest issues (his wife worked for organizations that either opposed or promoted federal legislation).

 

[Matt]

Now, you know that would have never gone anywhere. Remember the opposition was billing this whole thing as a government take over of health care, and single payer would have definitely been far more closer to that. Furthermore it would put the existing insurance companies out of business, which would effect commerce and the economy drastically. I think the respondents in the health care case before the Supreme Court was proposing that there should have been tax incentives to get people to purchase health insurance as a solution, but I don't know how effective that would have been in raising enough revenue to help subsidies the people who couldn't afford health insurance. That's the fact that these guys are missing here. A lot of the people who are uninsured are that way because they can't afford it. It's not like they don't want it.

You're arguing against single payer? Seriously? And you call yourself a liberal?

I firmly believe had Clinton won the White House we'd have a single payer right. Obama's problem with the healthcare debate was his obsession with reaching out to the Republicans. Hell that is his problem with his whole presidency. He is obsessed with being liked, even at the cost of being effective. Because of that, he too often tries to rationalize with irrational people.

Clinton on the other hand is a natural fighter. Rather than reaching across the aisle she would've spent those initial months whipping her own party into line and making sure not a single Democrat would've gone against her. She would've had the votes.

 

[Paradoxium]

Whether they recuse themselves or not, what difference does that make. Only one swing vote and he took a steaming piss today.

 

[dnno1]

But a single payer system would have not been found unconstitutional in the Supreme Court.

It would have never got through Congress. There are more ways to solve a matter than to nationalize it. In any case, there still may be an alternative (that does not need any additional legislation) to address this matter.

 

[Paradoxium]

You're arguing against single payer? Seriously? And you call yourself a liberal?

I firmly believe had Clinton won the White House we'd have a single payer right. Obama's problem with the healthcare debate was his obsession with reaching out to the Republicans. Hell that is his problem with his whole presidency. He is obsessed with being liked, even at the cost of being effective. Because of that, he too often tries to rationalize with irrational people.

Clinton on the other hand is a natural fighter. Rather than reaching across the aisle she would've spent those initial months whipping her own party into line and making sure not a single Democrat would've gone against her. She would've had the votes.

He has more gravitas than Obama.