Quantcast

Mortgage Grapevine

Well...

The healthcare mandate is toast...and a failure like that is going to have a very negative impact on Obama's chances for reelection.

by Thoughtforfood March 27, 2012 8:30 PM


We're already used to 38 months of Obama's failures. What's one more? The guy is nothing short of a one man wrecking ball.

Below is a detailed list of his accomplishments:











1. ____________________________________.


by Steven701 March 27, 2012 8:53 PM


What makes you think it is toast. Everything I have read says the supreme court is very split on this and it could easily go either way.
by Vinnie The Leg Breaker March 27, 2012 8:57 PM


If Roberts is your only hope, you have very little hope.

by Thoughtforfood March 27, 2012 10:03 PM


TFF,

You think that because of your own analysis, or because he was catching shit from everyone but Kagan?

I mean, I would think he's got 4 votes in the bag even if he stripped naked, shoved a gavel up his ass, and started spitting handfuls of Skittles at everyone on the bench.

In short, are you saying that you think he has to convince more than one person?



by TheGoblinKing March 27, 2012 10:11 PM


started spitting handfuls of Skittles at everyone on the bench.
by TheGoblinKing March 27, 2012 10:11 PM

Are you a skittles racist?

It look like the swing voter, Kennedy, is leaning against.

Shame that the Supreme Court is jaded so much and not just going by the law.





by UnFreakingBelieveable March 27, 2012 10:14 PM


New mot-de-jour: Benchslap

Click Here

That was rough. Didn't these folks know they'd get asked this stuff?

Or is there just not a good answer?

by TheGoblinKing March 27, 2012 10:15 PM


TFF: The mandate will got shot down because of politics not because of precedent.

But it could be fun and theoretically easily solved. As soon as it is shot down D's just need to replace the mandate with Paul Ryan's tax credit for buying insurance. I can't wait to watch conservatives spin that one away.

Some of us socialists tried telling the Dems this was trouble. They have nobody to blame but themselves.

by That's funny! March 27, 2012 10:18 PM


UFB,

Oh lord, I forgot about that...too bad, I actually liked Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea.

And respectfully, the Constitution is what they're concerned with 'going by' in the SCOTUS, not 'the law'. If that's what you meant to say, apologies. Not trying to split hairs, but that fact gets lost in a lot of analysis.

by TheGoblinKing March 27, 2012 10:20 PM


Ancho,

How would that work?

I mean, how could a tax credit do someone any good when half the country doesn't pay income tax in the first place? Can't get back more than what you pay in.


by TheGoblinKing March 27, 2012 10:24 PM


Ancho,

And besides, there's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about approaching this at the State level...why not just do it there?
by TheGoblinKing March 27, 2012 10:26 PM


Ask Paul Ryan. He wants to give everyone a 2300 tax credit purchase insurance.

It's genius. In true Republican fashion it solves nothing and let's tax payers continue to pay for those too irresponsible to pay for their own health care. Ayn Rand would be proud.
by That's funny! March 27, 2012 10:27 PM


Here ya go TFF:

Click Here

"Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court."
by That's funny! March 27, 2012 10:29 PM


For Ancho...never mind the Romney part, it's the 10th Amendment that I wanted to point out:

Click Here

by TheGoblinKing March 27, 2012 10:32 PM


Ancho,

Yeah, but he STILL has 4 votes. Unless I'm totally not reading it right, he is still only one vote away, no matter how shitty he did.

You think otherwise?

I may not have followed it as closely as you or TFF today, I could be wrong.

by TheGoblinKing March 27, 2012 10:34 PM


It would be tremendously unwise to draw conclusions from the oral arguments. We all think we've got these ladies and gentlemen figured out, but they are still human beings who have the capacity to surprise. No party hats being broken out here until the opinion is released.

by MichiganTed March 27, 2012 10:41 PM


He might easily end up with 6 votes. But from what I read the SG did a horseshit job answering questions from the judges. Obviously they have 3 months to deliberate so who really knows?

I'm not too worried though. Unlike TFF I think this could be good for Dems. Once again they can say they tried to get something done and it got shot down. Republicans will be forced to explain why it's not a good idea to cover preexisting conditions, preventative care and have open markets for insurance etc. They will need to explain how they plan insure 30 million people. They can't because they've got nothing.
An ignorant public will finally realize that now they, as consumers, got nothing as well.

Basically, it's one step closer to "Medicare for All"
by That's funny! March 27, 2012 10:55 PM


Here ya go TFF:

Click Here

"Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court."
by That's funny! March 27, 2012 10:29 PM

Yea, I saw that earlier today. Damn glad I am not Verrilli because getting state fright in front of SCOTUS is worse than getting stage fright at a urinal at a NASCAR race.


TGK,

He has 4, but he almost certainly doesn't have any more. Roberts could go with the conservative appeals court judges who have recognized the danger in relation to their ruling in other cases involving the commerce clause, but I have a feeling they will narrowly rule. I find to be complete bullshit because of the other ways they have used the commerce clause in the past, but the one thing that becomes unavoidably CLEAR when you begin to study the rulings of SCOTUS: They make shit up all the time. In reality, they have to because the constitution is not a linear document contrary to popular opinion.

by Thoughtforfood March 27, 2012 11:11 PM


Ancho,

"""I'm not too worried though. Unlike TFF I think this could be good for Dems. Once again they can say they tried to get something done and it got shot down."""

Well, at least it'd be something to try to get people out to the polls, given the right way to market the setback.

"""Republicans will be forced to explain why it's not a good idea to cover preexisting conditions, preventative care and have open markets for insurance etc. They will need to explain how they plan insure 30 million people. They can't because they've got nothing."""

If the person doing the 'splaining is Romney, then "they've got nothing" turns into "they've got something": at that point he'd be the only guy in the room who DID make reform work.

Kinda cedes the whole issue.

by TheGoblinKing March 27, 2012 11:12 PM


Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas (who per usual barely talked) seemed to make it clear they were not too receptive to the Obama administration's argument to be kind. Roberts was a bit less confrontational, but that could be because he just seems like the nicer guy, though you don't want to piss him off. Earlier this year, some attorney went at Scalia in a snide manner, and Roberts treated him like he was a first year law student who hadn't read his cases. Just slayed the guy for awhile.

I like Roberts. I don't agree with his opinions about some things, but I think he is a very good chief justice. I don't think he is going to side with the liberals on this one though, and Kennedy certainly seemed to not be buying the administration's argument.

by Thoughtforfood March 27, 2012 11:21 PM


TFF,

OK, 4 but no more...

Did you listen to the 'Benchslap' link? Scalia goes over the distinction between past rulings on the Commerce Clause and this mess, I actually learned something about the whole 'Necessary and Proper' deal as it relates to the 10th Amendment.

It really is amazing to listen to how these guys can just cut to the quick and get right down to the fundamentals on this stuff.

by TheGoblinKing March 27, 2012 11:21 PM


TFF,

I actually wanted to hear more from the other side, but the only one I came across was Kagan not-so-subtly trying to load the SG's lips for him and carry him along.

I actually would like to hear their reasoning in supporting it, only because I can't imagine what it would be.

by TheGoblinKing March 27, 2012 11:26 PM


(That came out snarky, didn't mean it to be)
by TheGoblinKing March 27, 2012 11:27 PM


It's quite simple: Health insurance is a unique market. Unlike the stupid conservative analogy of "gov't forcing you to buy broccoli" nonsense nearly every human alive will require medical care. Therefore. nearly every human alive will be "actively" participating in the market.

As an aside, I've still never heard a conservative explain to me why, when it comes to health care, they feel it's ok to abdicate their "personal responsibility" and not pay for medical care.

Romney understood this. (he still does but obviously can't say so) He knows that the only way to get folks insured and to reduce costs in a private market is to use some kind of mandate that individuals be required to own insurance.
by That's funny! March 28, 2012 12:23 AM


No matter what they do or do not do, no matter what they decide or do not decide, no matter if you are for or you are against;




YOU'RE GOING TO COMPLY and you're going to make a living.

What's the concern? They haven't singled you out to make an example of you, it is an equal benefit/burden for everyone within your socio-economic group. Unless you value yourself/group aqbove that of all other groups, just sit back and enjoy the ride.


Personally, I do value my group more than others. I will still comply, I will still not worry about things that will not affect me in a greater way than they affect others.

It's also why I don't bitch about gas prices.


Carry on.
by turdly March 28, 2012 12:32 AM


Ancho,

"""Health insurance is a unique market. Unlike the stupid conservative analogy of "gov't forcing you to buy broccoli" nonsense nearly every human alive will require medical care. Therefore. nearly every human alive will be "actively" participating in the market."""

Nearly every human alive will also at some point require legal services at some point as well, why not socialize law firms?

See, just like they said in the court, where is the limiting principle? Where is the boundary?

If the health insurance market is deemed 'special' because the government says so, what'll stop them from deeming another market as 'special' like I did above?

Because you can say the exact same thing about people's access to legal care as you can about healthcare. And it'd be just as wrong to go forward with that as it would with healthcare.

So what's the boundary? What's the limit then on Congressional power? What 'makes sense'?

There is no 'just trust us' Clause in the Constitution.

And the 'Broccoli' argument isn't stupid. If the Feds can make you buy health insurance, why CAN'T they make you exercise and eat healthy?

What limits them?
by TheGoblinKing March 28, 2012 12:54 AM


Wouldn't mandatory exercise and healthy eating be a natural extension of this per the Necessary and Proper Clause?

Why not Ancho?

by TheGoblinKing March 28, 2012 12:55 AM


It's not deemed special because the gov;t says so.

Other than public defenders, can someone retain an attorney without paying for it? Are my legal costs shifted to the tax payer when I can't pay my legal bills?

And why do you keep using "socialized?" How is buying insurance from private companies socializing anything? When the exchanges are set up I'll still have to purchase insurance from Blue Cross or XYZ. How is that a "socialist" scheme?

I know you aren't stupid so why do you keep throwing out that out there?

The gov't can regulate an industry. That's really all the health care law does. You guys come up with all this nonsense that is supposed to spook people. Either out of sheer stupidity or because you truly are spooked by change. And unfortunately it does spook the ignorant. It's these ignorant, un-insureds that should be denied treatment when they hit the emergency rooms or need some life saving treatment for their kids.
by That's funny! March 28, 2012 8:36 AM


"Wouldn't mandatory exercise and healthy eating be a natural extension of this per the Necessary and Proper Clause"

What you are wondering about are "limiting principles"
There is already precedent establishing the limits of what the gov't can do.

That's why, to some degree, I'm amused by all the hand wringing by liberals over the arguments the last few days.

If I was a justice I'd fuck with the attorneys just for sheer amusement. I'd make them squirm while trying to justify their argument. These justices already know everything they need to know about limiting principles etc.

This isn't about case law or precedent. It about politics. Other than Thomas, those opposed to upholding the mandate will twist themselves in knots trying to justify their positions.
by That's funny! March 28, 2012 8:51 AM


"""Health insurance is a unique market. Unlike the stupid conservative analogy of "gov't forcing you to buy broccoli" nonsense nearly every human alive will require medical care. Therefore. nearly every human alive will be "actively" participating in the market."""

Everyone will also require life insurance to offset the costs of burials. In regards to health insurance logic, eating healthier foods obviously would result in healthier individuals, therefore ultimately keeping health care costs down. Hence, the broccoli analogy.

"Romney understood this."

Romney understood it was a State issue not a Federal one.

I believe they will strike the mandate down as well. What interests me is how they handle the separability issue.

One thing I haven't seen addressed is this issue as it pertains to contract law.

My understanding is a contract between private entities, a person and an insurance company, must be signed by willing participants without coercion to
be valid.

If there is a penalty associated with not entering a contract, ie. not taking out
health insurance with a private insurer,
would that contract not then be valid?

Or is the penalty not considered onerous enough to cause duress?

TF's arguments are as usual, silly. Like many on the left, the assumption is there are no other solutions to the problem other than the one and only that they endorse.

No denies health reform is needed, most sane people know this law is not the way to do it.
by Capitalist Pig March 28, 2012 9:04 AM


Everyone will also require life insurance to offset the costs of burials. In regards to health insurance logic, eating healthier foods obviously would result in healthier individuals, therefore ultimately keeping health care costs down. Hence, the broccoli analogy.


Click Here

"The answer is that health care insurance is different because if the healthy people fail to get themselves coverage, it becomes extremely difficult -- under some conditions, impossible -- for the insurance market to operate. That is, as the healthiest people leave the pool, the market for health insurance starts to unravel, as people who would buy it at a price where the insurance companies would be willing to provide it will be unable to do so.
In other words, when it comes to the strange and unusual case of health insurance, inaction causes the whole market to break down. By not buying health insurance, the healthiest person is depriving everyone of a public good. By sitting on their hands -- and acting rationally -- people who do not purchase insurance are unintentionally causing the market to fail.The limiting principle that Kennedy was seeking is therefore readily at hand. The government can penalize inaction only when that inaction deprives everyone else of a public good."
by That's funny! March 28, 2012 9:17 AM


Amcho,

"""There is already precedent establishing the limits of what the gov't can do."""

Yeah, sure thing.

That's why the SG couldn't say what that limit would be...repeatedly.

Try again homey.


by TheGoblinKing March 28, 2012 9:26 AM


So apparently the author nor ancho knows what the definition of a Public Good is.

pub∑lic good
Noun:
A commodity or service provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or a private individual or organization.

Note: Without Profit.

Health insurance as administered by insurance companies is a for profit business.

You analogy doesn't apply. Again, you are wrong.




by Capitalist Pig March 28, 2012 9:34 AM


TheGoblinKing: We've already established that the SG did a horseshit job.

CP: Keep swinging. You'll hit one sooner or later.
by That's funny! March 28, 2012 10:42 AM


"TF's arguments are as usual, silly. Like many on the left, the assumption is there are no other solutions to the problem other than the one and only that they endorse."

Idiocy on display.

The topic of the thread was Obamacare/mandate.

Ask around. See how many liberals thought this plan was a good idea. Why do you think it hasn't gained traction? Why do you think it polls poorly? Get your head out of your ass. Geezus.

Why go out of your way to be such a jackass? Or maybe it just come naturally to you.
by That's funny! March 28, 2012 10:56 AM


TheGOblinKing: Listen to this. You'll discover exactly why none of your concerns were addressed.

This is horrifying.

Click Here
by That's funny! March 28, 2012 11:02 AM


I do agree, TF, you constantly provide that "Idiocy on display".

I point out the fallacy of your previous post and you, so typically, divert the point
back to the beginning of the thread instead of addressing the inaneness of your anti-broccoli post.
by Capitalist Pig March 28, 2012 11:36 AM


What? Burial insurance?

hahahahahahahaha! That's your rebuttal?

Please.

If you can't see how burial "market" is different from health care "market" you are beyond hopeless.

What wingnut rag did you drag that one from?

It's pathetic, but funny: it's tailor made for the idiots that read that stupid shit.

Please. Think before you post that kind of nonsense around here. Or better yet, just stay over at the circle jerks that are Free Republic/Hot Air etc.
by That's funny! March 28, 2012 12:00 PM


Hey Pig: Send a note to Alito and ask him when burial insurance became an epic social issue. OK?
Ask him how the market price of burials is affected by someone not having burial insurance.

Let me know what he says.
by That's funny! March 28, 2012 12:06 PM


TheGoblinKing: Here is your "limiting principle" very well articulated. You won't agree but that isn't the real point is it? DO you think the Supremes don't already understand this? Of course they do.

Click Here

"So hereís a limiting principle: Under the mandate, Congress still does not have the power to regulate activity or inactivity that doesnít have a substantial impact on interstate commerce.

This comes by way of Charles Fried, the former Solicitor General to Ronald Reagan, a supporter of the law. In an inteview with me, he responded to the various lines of questioning advanced by the conservative bloc of justices yesterday.

ďThere is a limiting principle,Ē Fried said. ďCongress canít regulate something that isnít interstate commerce.Ē

by That's funny! March 28, 2012 12:27 PM


Click Here

"EK: On that, thereís been a real change from early on, when almost all Supreme Court observers thought this case was a joke, to now, when it seems truly up in the air. Did people underestimate the seriousness of the constitutional questions here, or did they underestimate the politicization of the judiciary?

CF: Politics, politics, politics. You look at the wonderful decision by Jeff Sutton, who is as much of a 24-karat gold conservative as anyone could be. He is a godfather to the Federalist Society. Look at his opinion. Or look at Larry Silbermanís opinion. I donít understand whatís gotten into people. Well, I do Iím afraid, but itís politics, not anything else."
by That's funny! March 28, 2012 2:41 PM


Thanks for the typical nonsensical reply, TF.

I didn't draw burial insurance from a rag, it was in a question posed to the lawyer by SCOTUS.

When people die and do not have adequate life insurance, who is footing the bill?

Everyone will be required to have a burial of some sort.

Isn't the argument now that taxpayers are footing the bill for uninsured health care?

The bill is attempting to shift that to mandatory coverage funded by mandatory participation to offset costs.

Or do you again not know what your are talking about?

Oh, I forgot, you take your points, mindlessly from your daily blog injections and simply reiterate them.

Hence your assumption I got my point from a 'rag'.

I keep swinging, seems everytime I do, it ends right upside your posts.
by Capitalist Pig March 28, 2012 3:12 PM


At least you didn't try to get into the
contract issue, that was smart of you.
by Capitalist Pig March 28, 2012 3:13 PM


Tell us Pig: How is burial insurance related to interstate commerce? In other words, what effect does not having burial insurance have on our economy?

Health care is 17% of GDP.

Show me the dysfunctional market of burial insurance. Can you give me any examples of adverse selection?

Yeah. Typical nonsense.
by That's funny! March 28, 2012 5:14 PM


If they dont have insurance, cremate them and pour them in a bottle.

Cheap and done.


by Unfair and Imbalanced March 28, 2012 5:46 PM


As usual, TF, you completely miss the point.

No matter, as you noted, the bill is a goner.

But you'll hang everything on one minor example intended to make a point.

Not that it invalidates anything, but it's the only thing you can attack.

Agreed, however, it doesn't affect interstate commerce as states and communities have to absorb those burial costs.

Unlike health care which is purchased across state lines.

Oops, oh wait, it's not.


by Capitalist Pig March 28, 2012 6:16 PM


Ancho,

"""So hereís a limiting principle: Under the mandate, Congress still does not have the power to regulate activity or inactivity that doesnít have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. """

I don't know if you noticed, but you just said that Congress is limited to being able to regulate everything.

Care to think about that one?

If the Commerce Clause 'limits' you to regulating all interstate/intrastate commercial activity/nonactivity, then exactly what can't you do?

C'mon dude, we're BOTH smarter than that.

by TheGoblinKing March 28, 2012 10:09 PM


Reply

Username:
Password:
(No password? Register here)
Message:
(Don't be a nuisance.  Please avoid offensive language.  Advertisements are not allowed.)


Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.