Healthcare Reform Act Prediction Market 185
An anonymous reader writes "The Wisconsin School of Business is running a prediction market study on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the Healthcare Reform Act. By participating you will not only be helping university students, you will also get to express your opinion and compete with others to show that you have the most accurate prediction."
Sooo... basically, nothing. (Score:2)
By participating you will not only be helping university students, you will also get to express your opinion and compete with others to show that you have the most accurate prediction."
So basically, participating gets me bragging rights. But who would I brag to? In any case, I think this study is a simple 'wisdom of the crowds' experiment and they should just come out and say it. "helping university students" is a poor reason to participate. Most places when they do a "count the number of pennies in the jar" game, offer to give the jar to the person with the closest answer. So... where's the jar?
Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (Score:5, Funny)
Most places when they do a "count the number of pennies in the jar" game, offer to give the jar to the person with the closest answer. So... where's the jar?
Um... the Supreme Court? Guess correctly and you can take home your very own Justice!
Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such thing.
Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course there is: An activist judge is a judge that makes a ruling which creates a precedent I don't like.
It was "Judicial Activism" when the court ruled that the 14th Amendment applied to Teh Gays, and it'll be the same if they rule that the Commerce Clause can't be used to justify literally anything.
Re: (Score:3)
When someone cries judicial activism about the court ruling with the constitution it's whining.
When a judge writes laws from the bench it's judicial activism.
You will usually hear cries of judicial activism when the supCt rules against someones sacred cow. The 14th is a good example. It freed everyone from some state tyranny not just them Negroes and boy does it still burn some.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When someone cries judicial activism about the court ruling with the constitution it's whining.
What I predict is that the SCOTUS will ignore the fact that the question before them is "is mandating that people buy a product constitutional?" and void the entire act, despite the fact that several parts of it have already gone into effect without the mandate and those parts are doing just fine and would continue to do fine with or without the mandate.
Republicans will cheer for this, despite the fact that they l
Re: (Score:2)
Getting rid of haveing ERs have to treat all comers regardless of ability to pay will not help the people to sick to get insurance or people with insurance that get sick and get dropped or the insurance comes up a BS way to get out paying. Also it may even lead to people going to jail just to get to a ER.
Re: (Score:2)
repealing that law that says the ERs have to treat (Score:2)
That is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time; and keep in mind that there's been a Republican primary underway for quite a while.
Re: (Score:3)
What I predict is that the SCOTUS will ignore the fact that the question before them is "is mandating that people buy a product constitutional?" and void the entire act
Huh? You do realize that SCOTUS isn't just ruling on the mandate, but on several issues concerning the whole legislation, right? While the mandate is being considered on it's own, they reason they might toss the whole act is because of something called "severability". In English, Congress wrote the bill explicitly so that it's not severable, i.e. if you void one part you have to void the whole thing. The bills authors did this for a reason; they gambled that if the bill was written this way, future Congress
Re: (Score:2)
In English, Congress wrote the bill explicitly so that it's not severable, i.e. if you void one part you have to void the whole thing.
That's not correct. In fact, the default for a law is that it is not severable. The reasoning is that the Supreme Court won't declare a portion of a law unconstitutional, because the remaining result would be a law that congress never voted for. Imagine, for example, that the social security tax were declared unconstitutional, but that the social security benefits weren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I've gotta say, you may have labelled me as a "foe" here, but holy crap I agree with you 100% here. Speaking as someone who considers himself a "moderate leaning Libertarian" (yeah, I know, it's hard to pin any such things down, it's always case by case) in many areas, I've taken a lot of crap from various associates for agreeing with the kind of position you just outlined. Oh well, I'll keep taking the crap whenever it's offered, and rebutting their arguments that make zero sense on a national scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but look what they have gotten away with thus far. No way they'll ever actually roll back that Commerce Clause interpretation. It's the equivalent of asking them if they want to be political scapegoats for the rest of their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
They rolled back the commerce clause when they nullified the Gun Ban in "school zones" by telling Congress they stretched the definition of commerce too far. They also rolled it back some when they said Congress can not force states to create storage facilities to dispose of nuclear fuel.
If James Madison (author) and the rest of them had intended the Congress to have power to regulate all commerce, then he would have written that in the document. But instead he specifically carved-out an exemption: commer
Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
They rolled back the commerce clause when they nullified the Gun Ban in "school zones" by telling Congress they stretched the definition of commerce too far. They also rolled it back some when they said Congress can not force states to create storage facilities to dispose of nuclear fuel.
And then they went and blew whatever gains they had made by declaring that pot grown in your own backyard for your own personal use is interstate commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
Alas for pot growers everywhere, there has long been precedent for this.
Specifically, Wickard v. Filburn, back in WW2 (when the feds really got into this "we control everything" phase they've been in all our lives), which dealt with a man growing his own wheat to feed his own chickens.
The Feds managed to convince the then Supremes (those were still the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wickard v. Filburn represents the beginning of the "commerce clause means we can do anything" justification. And really, the Filburn justification isn't any more of a convoluted and twisted bit of logic than the Gun Free School Zones Act logic was.
Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course there is: An activist judge is a judge that makes a ruling which creates a precedent I don't like.
Funny, but no. An activist judge is one that makes a ruling which creates a precedent which conflicts with prior rulings regarding the same laws at the same or higher level within the judiciary. In other words, one who rewrites well-established precedents.
Sometimes activism is a good thing; the older precedent may well be flawed. However, it is not something to be undertaken lightly. It creates uncertainty and undermines the accumulated legitimacy of the court, as the conflict implies that at least one of the rulings—and any others based on it—was in error.
Re: (Score:2)
Law is higher than court precedents. Laws are passed by the People through their duly-elected representatives/delegates/senators. If a judge (or group of judges in appeal or supreme courts) thinks the law says ABC, then he should rule ABC, even if former precedents said XYZ. We are a republic where the Law is the ruler above all else.
BTW I think the Supreme Court's questions about what ELSE Congress could mandate, like purchasing solar panels on roofs, or hybrid cars, or Bluray players (to support the mu
Re: (Score:2)
If a judge (or group of judges in appeal or supreme courts) thinks the law says ABC, then he should rule ABC
Nope. If the law should never have been passed in the first place the court should strike it down. Checks and balances, you can look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Law is higher than court precedents. Laws are passed by the People through their duly-elected representatives/delegates/senators. If a judge (or group of judges in appeal or supreme courts) thinks the law says ABC, then he should rule ABC, even if former precedents said XYZ. We are a republic where the Law is the ruler above all else.
I'm not disputing any of that at this point, though the relationship between the civil law and the will of the People is problematical at best. However, people depend on the stability of the law, including its interpretation. The inertia of precedent aids that stability. Reinterpreting the law and overturning precedent amounts to declaring that the prior rulings were flawed, a claim which requires substantial public justification.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm..so, how did people ever survive before the concept of health insurance came into being?
I was under the concept that health insurance was a fairly modern thing.
Actually...best thing to do, is make people more responsible for their own care. Make it easier to set up HSA (Health Savings Accounts) which are not use it or lose it, like FSA's are....and let people sock away money pre-tax, to be used on routine c
Re: (Score:2)
>>>This is more like requiring drivers to have driver's insurance,
Congress has no such power. Never has. That's why the insurance mandate will be struck down.
Re: (Score:2)
An activist judge is one that makes a ruling which creates a precedent which conflicts with prior rulings regarding the same laws at the same or higher level within the judiciary. In other words, one who rewrites well-established precedents.
Sometimes activism is a good thing; the older precedent may well be flawed. However, it is not something to be undertaken lightly. It creates uncertainty and undermines the accumulated legitimacy of the court, as the conflict implies that at least one of the rulings—and any others based on it—was in error.
I wouldn't call that an activist judge as long as the judge is well and truly ruling according to the spirit and letter of the Constitution. I would say that activist judges are those that rule deliberately in spite of the wording of the Constitution. Finding a new new right not mentioned in the Constitution is a good example of this. I wholeheartedly agree that overturning precedent should never be taken lightly, but no matter how many years a precedent has, if it's in opposition to the Constitution, send
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, but no. An activist judge is one that makes a ruling which creates a precedent which conflicts with prior rulings regarding the same laws at the same or higher level within the judiciary. In other words, one who rewrites well-established precedents.
This makes the assumption that a group of justices can never make a mistake or be forced to judge incorrectly because a complaintant poorly articulates his case. It also assumes that new information or circumstances cannot present themselves which alter the perceptions of a law. And it precludes the possibility that manipulative people (whether they be lower judges, politicians, or even law enforcement) could use a law in a way in which it was never intended for illigitimate purposes.
I would argue that a
Re: (Score:2)
wikipedia says you are wrong, (Score:2)
and slashdot says you are a troll. I think right on both counts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism#Origins_of_the_term [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno, Ginsberg shows signs of "Social Conscience" and seems happy projecting it on the populace. Seems to distract her from constitutional matters, that's so important at her advanced age and dementia.
I doubt they're any more activist than their benefactors told them to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. How about an option-> fire 2 Justices, or add 1 of your own.
Should make it entertaining.
Re: (Score:2)
You can fire them, if you can find sufficient cause for impeachment. AFAIK, it's only been tried on a supreme court justice once, and he was acquitted.
Re: (Score:2)
The more likely aspect is to load the court with more members that are pawns; the president has used that threat before.
Which is why an appointee has to be approved by the Senate. And getting pawns appointed is very difficult even when the President's party has a super majority (as we have seen recently). Just adding more justices is not an option, FDR tried that and got slapped down.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US system, judges are guaranteed to write laws from the bench. That's how judicial precedent works. Either go to a common law based system (the French have that, so that means it's a commie-coward approach to writing law), or suck it up.
The French don't use Common Law. (Score:5, Informative)
The French do not use the Common Law system. They use the Civil Law system, which is derived from the Napoleonic Code, which is derived from the Code of Justinian, which actually dates from well before the fall of the Roman Empire.
The United Kingdom uses the Common Law system.
The United States uses both. The federal system uses Common Law, as do most of the states: but Louisiana in particular uses a Civil Law-based system, in keeping with its heavily French heritage.
I don't see that either one is clearly superior. If you take a look at what comes out of Louisiana state courts, you'll see they're just as crazy as any other system. It's just crazy of a slightly different flavor. You might think that flavor tastes better, but I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's debatable whether SCOTUS is a common law court. Everything in the federal court system below SCOTUS is certainly common law, with the wide lattitude and power that those judges have. But SCOTUS is somewhat different. Scalia argues that the court is not really common law in practice [utah.edu], as when a case comes before the US high court, the only standard is "does this contradict our written Constitution?". If it does, even if it has a basis in common law, then the justices are supposed to toss it. SC
Re: (Score:2)
this was clearly not the intent of the founders
The intent of the founders was to have a rainbow and unicorn filled utopia where bunnies hopped gaily through the meadows and nobody would ever so much as think of violating the supreme law of the land, as evidenced by the fact that there is absolutely no mechanism in the consitution to punish or even fix violations of it, and the SCOTUS had to take over that last part on their own.
the majority literally found the right to abortion within another right to priva
Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Market forces won't work if there's no incentive to be right. It's tempting for ideologues to sign up and just vote the way they want it to go, instead of the way they think it will go.
Re: (Score:2)
The way I think it will go is not at all the way I want it to go. I'll be stunned if I'm wrong, but I would place very large bets that I'm not.
Markets aren't any good at prediction (Score:3)
Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.
Thank you for demonstrating the obvious truth that markets don't need a government authority mucking with them to create instability. That roman_mir guy sure needs to open his damn eyes and... wait...
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.
Thank you for demonstrating the obvious truth that markets don't need a government authority mucking with them to create instability. That roman_mir guy sure needs to open his damn eyes and... wait...
Current Slashdot cookie:
Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- "Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
Re: (Score:2)
That happened after the bubble had already formed and then burst, you idiot. The free market did not prevent the bubble from forming, it did not prevent it bursting. People who aren't ideologically blind call that a failure of the free market, yes.
This obviously isn't you. You don't appear to realize that having an ideology does not free you from the constraints of reality. As long as you can't separate the two then you're just crazy and there is no point to anything you say except for some measure of
Re: (Score:2)
"You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based "
yes, you do. In the case of Tulips it was the exchange markets that where the central authority.
Somewhere then need to be a central place for mass trading.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that so? You are saying anybody could grow valuable tulips in the 17th century? How'd they get the seeds and offsets? How'd they control the patterns? How'd they speed up the 10 year growing time?
Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
Tulips are perishable goods, with a very long growing period, and a low rate of reproduction. They were considered valuable precisely because not everybody could grow them at will. That's why your analogy with printing money breaks down.
If the law considers a contract partially or fully unenforceable, then anyone entering into such a contract nevertheless is ignorant and a sucker. Why are we expected to believe that markets of such people are good at predicting things? Are they secret masochists?
Off topic, but quite simple really. In the 17th century, most soldiers were mercenaries, whose motivation was money and pillage. Fighting wars was a career choice, basically, and soldiers frequently switched sides whenever their current employer was defeated, lost interest or didn't pay enough. It's best to think of them as criminal gangs terrorizing large parts of Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
The recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall street are unrelated to markets, they are related to the government's ability and willingness to attempt and control the economy and money supply (inflation). There wouldn't have bee a housing bubble and even Internet bubble before it without artificially low interest rates. There wouldn't be another major collapse in the future (bonds, dollars) without the Fed either. Does it have anything to do with the markets? Not much, not until the signals stop being mingled by the governments.
The first known bubble occurred in 1637 over tulips, when the US federal government was still considered a very remote possibility.
You shouldn't have.
You see, I will explain to you something that hopefully will put this to rest.
Tulips are grown at will, they are nothing more than Federal reserve notes without the Federal reserve. They ARE paper.
You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.
Fed has a monopoly on that (well, that and fractional reserve, but mostly Fed, god knows how many tens of trillions they've been pumping into the world's economy if only in one year that was revealed showed 15 of them).
Read this closely, kiddies: this is your brain on free-market cool-aid.
Re: (Score:2)
The recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall street are unrelated to markets, they are related to the government's ability and willingness to attempt and control the economy and money supply (inflation).
Yes, of course. Nothing ever goes wrong without meddling by the big wicked gummit, especially when money is involved.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the Government was involved in all teh booms and busts that occured in the unregulated banking markets prior to the great depression huh?
Re: (Score:2)
The great depression happened AFTER the creation of the FED. Prior to the FED the American economy was characterized by booms and busts. The thing was they were short and shallow. 2-5 years up than two down. Post FED you have first the GD and lately these 10-20 year cycles that ruin the entire productive period of some citizens lives. Government intervention thru the creation of the FED has been harmful to the generational equality of the nation and that is before you even start to discuss the national
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the Community Reinvestment Act (a.k.a. "nevermind those underwriting standards").
Markets aren't good at prediction, any more than anything else is. What they are excellent at (and in fact the best tool known to man) is identifying a legitimate price between buyers of a particular product at a particular point in time.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget what the CRA actually does: prevent discrimination via redlining [wikipedia.org] where banks would deny you loans based not on how much money you make, but by where you live.
It does not and never has forced banks to 'ignore underwriting standards', which is bullshit Republican propaganda.
Why reinvent the wheel? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The market from TFA (where I don't believe there actually is any real skin in the game) is sitting at about 60% constitutional.
Without skin in the game, that market is going to reflect which political sites link to it and how many zealous readers they have.
Re: (Score:2)
The UWisconsin market has a great record of predicting US elections to greater accuracy than published surveys. I wouldn't discount it.
Ohhh.... Slashdot has been heard.... (Score:2)
When I first went on 20 minutes ago, it was showing that it would be found constitutional....now...there is a huge surge to unconstitutional....
As much as I want to promote my Alma Mater... (Score:2)
The site seems to be a waste of energy when alternative sources exist with a much greater volume of activity. The prime example that comes to my mind is the Iowa Electronic Markets [uiowa.edu]. I understand the Big Ten rivalry, but why reinvent the wheel? Do they honestly expect to get valuable commentary in conjunction with the votes?
Most accurate prediction? (Score:2)
Hence the notion of "most accurate prediction" is rather absurd in this case. You get it right, or you don't. The options essentially boil down to A, B, and C. If you a
There is a better market out there than this one.. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's called Fantasy Scotus:
http://www.fantasyscotus.net/healthcare-case-predictions/ [fantasyscotus.net]
These guys have been doing this for years, and it's meant for lawyers and other legal eagles to participate. They have a very good success rate and have markets for all the cases that are being heard. The participants are people in the know, which makes their predictions more reliable than a typical political prediction site.
Need? (Score:2)
There are 9 Supreme Court Justices, 5 appointed by Republican Presidents. Is there enough doubt that they will vote the law down to justify this prediction effort?
Upside Down (Score:2)
The Healthcare reform law will probably be voted as unconstitutional while the Patriot Act will continue to exist. How upside down is that?
Can State Laws Be Unconstitutional? (Score:2)
To my understanding, the Supreme Court is involved because it may be unconstitutional to require citizens to buy anything.
Yet, I was required to buy auto insurance by every state I lived in.
Do state laws not need to be constitutional ?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
many of the companies that have maybe up to 100 people all of a sudden lose half of their employees so not to go over 50 employee maximum
At most, companies with 60 people might, MIGHT be willing to cut 10 people.
For the most part, I doubt it. It's a severe pain in the ass to do work while understaffed, and if you were already able to do work with less than 50 people, you would've had less than 50 people.
Re: (Score:3)
My prediction is that companies up to 100 people (and some even bigger) will absolutely lose people until they are under 50 limit.
My prediction is that any company which lays off half or more of its employees at one go, for any reason, is not long for the world, and is probably not a place where people want to keep working if they have any reasonable alternative. I also predict that any company which would lay off any significant portion of its employees for the reason you give is and will continue to be a hellish place to work regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.
Re: (Score:2)
I also predict that any company which would lay off any significant portion of its employees for the reason you give is and will continue to be a hellish place to work regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.
Most companies are hellish places to work, without regard to this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can also reduce people to part-time status. Apparently, the 50 limit only applies to full-time workers, so 50 full-time and 60 part-time can replace 100 full-time, and keep you out of that game.
Alternately, if you really don't want to play, there's always pay the penalty. Currently, the penalty is pretty close to the cost of health insurance
Re: (Score:2)
If they can. We're talking about 51-100 employee companies here, not IBM spinning off Lenovo.
And again, any company that would do this to avoid complying with the (very reasonable) requirements of the PPACA is run by idiots or ideologues, which means that (a) it probably won't last very long anyway, and (b) will be a distinctly unpleasant place to work during the time it has left. If you work for such a company, you should start looking for a new job ASAP.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying companies of up to 100 people are currently working in a very inefficient way that wastes a lot more money than they need to?
Re: (Score:3)
if a company can't afford to take this kind of blow, then they are over extending themselves in the first place.
Ever hear of the cure of Home Depot install contracts? a small 5 man operation signs up with HD for install contracts thinking it will make a nice easy income stream... then HD starts sending you more work than you can handle so you grow fast....but your growth is not organic and your costs start going crasy and your QA sucks because you have to sub out so much work that you cannot vet everyone...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yeah, right, I forgot, you are the moral authority on the kind of businesses that people can still run in USA, you are the 'decider', figuring out who has the right and who does not have the right to run a business
You've got the right to run whatever business you want. You also have the right to run it out of business through malfeasance (throwing a temper tantrum and destroying the company so you can "show them"). We have the right to point and laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
That should be curse....not cure
Re: (Score:2)
stop astro-turffing.
Re: (Score:2)
Try posting with an ID and I will believe you are not an astro turfer.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they'll delay it, as that would be a bit too irresponsible. The individual mandate goes into effect in 2014, and the longer businesses are unsure of which way it will go, the worse off we are. Uncertainty is almost never good for encouraging businesses to hire. The court wants to make their decision and give congress and the president as much time as possible to try to pass new laws to save the bill.
I do find it interesting that they could have crafted it to have almost the same effect while h
Re: (Score:2)
never had to stand its grounds on defining what income means for an individual, not for a corporation
They didn't have to. Corporations are people too.
Re: (Score:2)
Scotus will most likely delay the decision, it's election year, and Obama has ways to pressure them
OTOH, some of them will see it as a way to strike a blow against the evil Democratic Administration.
but Republicans will have to show their base they are not signing under the mandate being constitutional (and it's not), so it's most likely to be delayed.
Their base (if by "base" you mean all the non-rich social conservatives that they've suckered into working for them) wouldn't have ever cared a fig about the mandate, if their pwners hadn't told them too.
And those pwners kind of screwed up, because their real base - rich people - *want* the mandate, because it will drive up the net worth of the health insurance industry. They just don't want the consumer pro
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahah, "unintended" side effect.
Single payer is the goal, and severing the individual mandate is part of that. The only question is why severability wasn't expressly part of the law, since the outcome of severing the individual mandate would collapse the insurance industry inside of a year - if they are mandated to cover "pre-existing" conditions, then there is no incentive for anyone to buy insurance before they are diagnosed with one.
Why pay all the premiums when you can just sign up when you're diagno
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahah, "unintended" side effect. [...] By not making the individual mandate severable, they seem to have unnecessarily risked the possibility that the entire law will be stricken, resulting in an opportunity for sanity to prevail.
OK, maybe it was intended... though I'm reluctant to credit the Democrats with that much savvy.
Re: (Score:2)
Why pay all the premiums when you can just sign up when you're diagnosed and get everything paid for.
Why try for a better job when you can't afford to give up the health insurance?
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of "better job" neither offers a health care benefit, nor pays enough more than your current job that you can pay for your insurance individually?
I have of people with good health care benefits (Score:2)
I have of people with good health care benefits have the insurance co trying to find ways to get out of paying out when some one got sick.
and yes it's was a cop or fireman plan.
Re: (Score:2)
I [hear] of people with good health care benefits have the insurance co trying to find ways to get out of paying out when some one got sick.
I've had some medical adventures lately, and my insurance has tried several times to get out of paying as much as they are supposed to. Some auditor half-way across the country will decide that your doctor kept you in the hospital longer than necessary, or they'll send you a "this sounds like an injury" letter, full of questions about who was responsible, did it happen at work, etc. ... even when the problem is something that couldn't possibly be the result of an injury.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of "better job" neither offers a health care benefit
The one where insurance doesn't kick in until three months later (i.e. all of them), and it takes you more than three months to find (in this economy...).
The government currently only forces insurance companies to cover you if you had coverage within the last 6 months. Otherwise, everything is a pre-existing condition.
Re: (Score:2)
Why pay all the premiums when you can just sign up when you're diagnosed and get everything paid for.
Sometimes it costs a lot of money to get diagnosed. Sometimes you get whisked away to the hospital for an injury, and spend all the money before you're patched up enough to apply for insurance.
There may be some point to what you say, but it doesn't seem to be certain.
Re: (Score:2)
Why pay all the premiums when you can just sign up when you're diagnosed and get everything paid for.
That's no different than the current situation when people wait until they need emergency treatment, then don't pay for it. SOMEONE still pays for it.
Of course, the premiums would have to rise to the point that it doesn't make sense to bother buying insurance even then. Then, NO ONE will have insurance, so we'll have to do something, and single payer is something, so we'll have to do that.
Single payer isn't the only way to address the cost of health care, and it has a lot of problems too. A lot of people just don't want the government to have that kind of power. Imagine if instead of giving everybody Social Security checks, the government never sent you money but let you select products and services from a catalog that they controlled. That wou
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you didn't know Obama said that did you? Now what was that about clueless Republicans that blindly follow what their leaders say.
What makes you think I give a shit, or even listen, when Obama says something?
Not everyone in this country has joined a political party and guzzled the cool-aid.
Re:prediction (Score:4)
Scotus will most likely delay the decision, it's election year, and Obama has ways to pressure them
Really? What ways in particular? How is the president able to force the scotus not to act? Are you aware of how the three branches of government work in the US? Do you have any idea what you're talking about in general?
Republicans will have to show their base they are not signing under the mandate
Which they came up with...
being constitutional (and it's not), so it's most likely to be delayed.
Newsflash, dippy. The scotus exists for the very purpose of deciding the constitutionality of laws (as well as some other key functions). Thankfully you are not on the court.
But a more important prediction: if/when this act goes into effect expect many of the companies that have maybe up to 100 people all of a sudden lose half of their employees so not to go over 50 employee maximum after which they have to comply with various provisions.
Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about. You might as well predict an invading herd of chupacabra to lay siege to Washington DC.
Re: (Score:2)
They will not dely decision or do anything else Obama asks.
Did Obama ask them to delay it? I would think it's to his best political advantage if they strike it down and announce that a few months before the election.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on everything I've read and heard, and all the information I currently have at my fingertips, my prediction is I just got a first post. That's right. I'd like to share this one with the big man himself, Jesus. I couldn't have done it without him. First post for Jesus. Shout out to my homies.
Sorry, but Jesus was two minutes late.
Re: (Score:2)
He as busy mowing my lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but Jesus was two minutes late.
He as busy mowing my lawn.
That's what happens why your dad cuts off your allowance.
Though I'm kind of surprised... usually he's just busy rigging the results of a ball game or making sure it doesn't rain on someone's picnic.
Re: (Score:3)
Taxes are taxes, and I doubt the Court is going to challenge that.
They may, however, decided that since the mandate isn't a tax, and it's only justified under the Commerce Clause, that we've been misinterpreting the Commerce Clause for a few decades. THAT would enable them to chuck... well, practically every piece of legislation for the last 50 years, including the Civil Rights Act.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was a tax you would not have this situation.
When it is struck down it will be written up as a "special case" and use other terms that were given as a reason somthing this major takeover should be allowed. If by some reason it is allowed they will also use the same term to place some limit on why the federal government now does not have the abaility to dictate everything you buy
Re: (Score:3)
killing the mandating part may lead stuff out side health care being challenged in the courts. Like maybe like SOME to ALL taxes, homeowners and auto insurance.
City water and sewer fees (why can't I do it on my own and not be forced to pay)
workers comp, unemployment.
and other stuff
No, this is a pretty empty argument. Congress clearly has taxing power, and that power is itself limited clearly in the Constitution (in short... Congress just can't lay taxes for anything they please). Nowhere in the Constitution, however, is there the power for Congress to make you buy goods or services from third parties. To glean this power from the commerce clause would be to make the commerce clause supreme over the rest of the Constitution as a whole . What's funny is that If Congress had simply pass
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere in the Constitution, however, is there the power for Congress to make you buy goods or services from third parties
The 2nd congress and president Washington evidently had a different idea about that, at least regarding firearms and associated equipment.
"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder
Though as far as I can determine, any penalty for not following that directive is not specified in the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)