The SCOTUS Prequel

I have to agree with the commentators that the Supreme Court is clearly screwing with the media. Usually, the Court is more forthcoming about which decisions are going to be handed down each day. But I feel like the judges are getting a kick out of watching the media work itself up into a frenzy each morning (and occasionally accidentally publish pre-written opinion pieces) hoping for an Obamacare decision only to groan as other decisions are handed down.

While we wait, you can amuse yourself with some of the pre-emptive pearl clutching from Left Wingers getting the vapors over the idea of the Court protecting the Commerce Clause. You can prepare yourself for the Summer Olympics gymnastics competition by enjoying the incredible contortions the Left are making to argue that the Right Wing of the Court … and only the Right Wing … are partisan douchebags (as Althouse points out: it’s apparently pure partisan chicanery that Republican Presidents have not appointed a liberal justice since Souter; but it’s sound jurisprudence that Democratic President have not appointed a conservative justice since Sherman Minton.) You can read about what happens when the government healthcare programs attempt to “economize” here.

But there are two pieces that are absolutely critical. The first is from Ezra Klein, who shows that guaranteed issue without a mandate basically destroyed the insurance market in Washington State. If SCOTUS only strikes down the mandate, we are suddenly going to be in a very serious crisis. Insurers will have to issue policies to anyone. This will need immediate action by Congress to either repeal guaranteed issue or pass a mandate that passes Constitutional muster. I don’t see either happening. (You can also read Wonkblog’s analysis of Romney’s reform in Massachusetts. Even they have to admit that it has blown up the State’s budget.)

Second is a new study of Oregon’s Medicaid expansion. It did bring healthcare coverage and better health to many people. But it did not save money the way liberals insisted it would. If we want more healthcare, we’re still going to have to pay for it. “Preventative care” is the Laffer Curve for liberals.

The decision will probably come this week. Hold on to your butts. The political wailing and gnashing of teeth will be the entertaining part. But the really important part is what we do after the decision is handed down.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    As a resident of the Seattle area, I can tell you that “managed competition” = “massively overpriced coverage”

    If you aren’t working for a major company in the state your insurance costs are at least double what I remembered them being in other places.

    Thumb up 3

  2. Seattle Outcast

    The ultimate goal of forcing the insurance companies out of business in Washington state was to have the people “rise up” and embrace socialized medicine once the obvious “flaws” of private insurance companies were exposed There were a lot of surprised and disappointed lefties in the Puget Sound area when the exact opposite took place.

    At least, that’s what I can figure out when I listen to my so-smart-he’s-stupid brother in law (and wannabe doctor) when he starts off on his usual line of BS that starts off with how happy everyone is in Canada with their health care, and those waiting times and obsolete equipment aren’t really an issue….

    Thumb up 4

  3. georgebalella

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  4. Hal_10000 *

    The ultimate goal of forcing the insurance companies out of business in Washington state was to have the people “rise up” and embrace socialized medicine once the obvious “flaws” of private insurance companies were exposed There were a lot of surprised and disappointed lefties in the Puget Sound area when the exact opposite took place.

    A lot of people expect a similar reaction to the fall of Obamacare; I also expect the opposite.

    George, I have mentioned GOP support for the mandate about 58 times. It as NOTHING to do with the Constitutionality of the law. If both sides support something unconstitutional — like say, banning flag burning — it’s still unconstitutional.

    Second, GOP support for the mandate was not universal. It was opposed by many in the GOP, which why it was never proposed when the Republicans controlled Congress. You liberals need to get this through your thick heads: the conservative movement is broad. The Heritage Foundation … or Rush Limbaugh … or Newt Gingrich … or Mitt Romney .. do not speak for everyone.

    Thumb up 6

  5. blameme

    The Health Affordability Act is EXACTLY what the republicans put forward for Health Care reform in 1993 INCLUDING the individual mandate. THIS is how you know they are childish racist jack asses who clearly put party before country. And what follows is them in THEIR OWN WORDS confirming this massive hypocrisy. WAKE THE HELL UP PEOPLE! Facts, logic, pragmatism, reason DO NOT matter to you guys. You’ve chosen a side and you are sticking to it no matter what and that requires demonizing the other side no matter how reasoned their position may be and how aloof your own position may be.

    Let me see if I can translate for georgie pie….
    Dumbassness. More dumbassery. Lots more. Irrelevant AND inaccurate points. Rambling. Pointing fingers. Outrageous narrow mindedness and hypocrisy. Dumbassness. More dumbassery. Lots more. Irrelevant AND inaccurate points. Rambling. Pointing fingers. Outrageous narrow mindedness and hypocrisy. Dumbassness. More dumbassery. Lots more. Irrelevant AND inaccurate points. Rambling. Pointing fingers. Outrageous narrow mindedness and hypocrisy. Dumbassness. More dumbassery. Lots more. Irrelevant AND inaccurate points. Rambling. Pointing fingers. Outrageous narrow mindedness and hypocrisy.

    Thumb up 4

  6. Hal_10000 *

    The more I listen to the commentary, the more I get pissed off. There is a clear plan now: make the Court’s decision illegitimate before it comes out; write the narrative NOW. This isn’t reporting; this is advocacy.

    Thumb up 11

  7. HARLEY

    make the Court’s decision illegitimate before it comes out; write the narrative NOW. This isn’t reporting; this is advocacy.

    did you expect anything different?

    Thumb up 6

  8. Section8

    The Health Affordability Act is EXACTLY what the republicans put forward for Health Care reform in 1993 INCLUDING the individual mandate.

    And it didn’t pass then because the president at the time was white? Where were the Democrats back then to make up for the Republicans who fought their own party on that proposal? It’s so going to be fun to watch you guys implode. I should say implode more than you have. Simple minded logic and cry racist is the best we can get out the party of “intellectuals”. The country is finally calling bullshit on it, and it’s so fun to watch, even more fun to watch that you and your pals still can’t get it. Just too bad that the GOP is all fucked up. It’s like replacing cancer with heart disease, or vice versa but oh well. At least people have realized cancer isn’t any better, and certainly not the perfect world you clowns sold so well last election. I’m even beginning to think they realize clowns on HBO and Comedy Central (the center of broadcast for “intellectualism”) might not exactly fall into the realm of intelligent thought whatsoever. You guys are done come November DEAL WITH IT!

    Thumb up 7

  9. georgebalella

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  10. Section8

    George, I would have thought that the healthcare problem would have been solved with Johnson’s war on poverty (pre Reagan), or the Kennedy/Nixon (pre Reagan) HMO act. None of which Reagan had anything to do with or had any meaningful influence on while he was in office. Kennedy thought HMOs were great so what happened? http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Choice/ThenAndNow.html? Now was Kennedy a racist when he liked the HMO act or when he didn’t? Now clearly at one point he was a shitbag racist I’m just not sure if we would consider it to be when he was all for expanding government in healthcare, or bitching about the end result of it and blaming others for it. Just trying to learn a few things here.

    Also, not liking this current bill does not mean Republicans want people to die. There are different ways of solving things. One would be take the chains of competitiveness. That includes lifting limits on where to get drugs, or where you want to seek help in order to bring costs down (not that the Republicans would hop on board given the opportunity since they don’t have the balls as a whole). Having it all under one umbrella is sure to invite the very crony corporatism you say you despise. In fact it grew in the healthcare arena because of the very HMO act that Father Healthcare was touting as such a great idea before he realized it was just another government f’ up which of course means the companies were to blame since government takes responsibility for nothing.

    As far as the GOP not fixing the problem though. You are probably right. Contrary to popular belief, they don’t really have the balls to make a concerted effort to have free market anything. They may talk about it from time to time, but it just doesn’t happen. They like your side’s ideas, they just want it done more slowly. Democrat lite is how most of us refer to them around here.

    Thumb up 5

  11. blameme

    Also I can’t wait until the health care bill is overturned and I meet my first republican hence who has lost everything they own after being rescinded from their health care plan for acne they had as a teenager so I can tell them to go eat shit and die painfully at home… make that homeless in the streets you damn stupid POS! Yeah I look forward to that.

    So much for the Hippocratic Oath you drooling piece of shit.

    So, cronyism – the left is full of this – Unions have been able to opt out of the plan (thanks to buds in the WH), major Democratic party donors have opted out (due to connections)….so, have you railed against that you hypocritical dumbass?

    Nope – YOU ARE THE ONE THAT SEES ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER…others of us here do not care which party does stupid shit. If R’s do it – we call them on it. If D’s do it…we call them on it. BOTH SIDES ARE FULL OF CRONYISM. BOTH SIDES DO DEALS UNDER THE TABLE.

    To think otherwise makes you an idiot, or apparently a MD in California.

    Thumb up 5

  12. Seattle Outcast

    MooGoo II appears to not have an understanding of the word “libertarian”, or that most of the people that post here aren’t “Republicans” or “Conservatives” as is commonly perceived in the libtard “mind”….

    Thumb up 2

  13. InsipiD

    MooGoo II appears to not have an understanding of the word “libertarian”

    He’s probably wondering why so many people here are obsessed with libraries.

    Thumb up 1

  14. georgebalella

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  15. InsipiD

    I understand what libertarianism is I just don’t know how anybody could be so simple minded so as to think it would be a great way to order a society of men.

    Because you’ve proven your own complex-mindedness as well as understanding of society so well. The greater good is so much more important than personal freedom anyway. What’s the point in personal freedom anyway? It’s such a waste to allow scummy, self-centered misanthropes to make decisions for themselves. They might eat too much meat or use air conditioning. They might decide to use a car or defend themselves with a gun! From each according to his ability, to each according to his need…and no more.

    Thumb up 2

  16. Section8

    . If it was so fricking good you’d think it would exist in more than just 3 countires (Haiti, Somalia, and Antarctica)

    Looks like someone hates black people.

    George, if you feel you have an understanding of what the libertarian philosophy really is then good for you, but you’ve demonstrated nothing as of yet that shows that you do.

    The greater good is so much more important than personal freedom anyway.

    It’s not so much the greater good. It’s that greater people than you and I know what’s best for us, but we’re just too damn dumb to understand. George, along with much of the left, believe better men such as they should be thanked for deciding what is best. In no way should we perceive such thoughts as arrogance or elitism. As for what is too much or too little, that’s not for us to decide, and while having a second home to spend your vacations would be excess wealth for someone else, it’s perfectly acceptable for someone like George to have one. After all if one points out what is excess wealth (basically anyone making one cent more than they do), it inherently makes one immune for some other person to point out their excess wealth. Kinda like if you call everyone a racist, you are now immune from being racist yourself. According to leftist logic anyhow.

    Thumb up 5

  17. georgebalella

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  18. InsipiD

    In one post, you just confirmed every single thing that everyone uses to advocate a libertarian attitude. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Thumb up 1

  19. Dick Fitzwell

    I understand what libertarianism is I just don’t know how anybody could be so simple minded so as to think it would be a great way to order a society of men.

    Your strange wording here indicates that you are completely ignorant of what libertarianism is.

    Thumb up 1

  20. CM

    Your strange wording here indicates that you are completely ignorant of what libertarianism is.

    Exactly. The results are irrelevant. The principle is all that counts.

    Thumb up 0

  21. hist_ed

    I don’t know why, but I must respond. School’s out, so I have the time.

    George, buddy, you got a few problems up there:

    although I try to avoid meat from the monopolistic horrific factory farms

    See the first problem is one little letter. The last “S” above. If the farm was monopolistic, then, like the highlander, there could be only one. Because of that darn “S”, it means you acknowlege that there are at least two, which means it ain’t a monopoly, right? Of course the fact that you can buy meat that doesn’t come from those “monopolistic horrific factory farms” means that by definintion, they are not monopolies.

    I will soon have an electric powered car and a biodesiel powerd car

    You do realize that the energy cost of building a car is a huge part of its carbon liability, right? So owning two cars (particularly an electric. read up on the crap companies have to get through to get all the metals and such that go into those huge batteries) to save the planet kinda defeats the purpose. If you are just trying to save money, the same principal applies, spening $35k to save $500/year on gas is not exactly a great investment.

    Oh and that “biodesiel ” (gotta work on that spell check, George)-without the subsidies it’s way more expensive that regular gas. It also is worse for the planet. And hey, did you know that in Europe you can buy a reasonbly prices diesel sedan or wagon that gets over 70 miles per gallon? There’s a VW Passat, Ford makes a sedan in that range and others have them too. Wanna guess why we don’t get ‘em here? Because of a simple stupid regulation by the EPA. The EPA standard for particulate emission is per gallon burned. The EU standard is per mile driven. Stupid government.

    I use air conditioning and will some break free from the monopoly that powers my house when I install solar panels and charge THEM for my energy

    Tsk tsk, air conditioners? I don’t have one in my house. I guess I am a better enviroweenie than you (though I do sometime charge my cell hpone by plugging it into the dash of my car and idling in the driveway-don’t know why that makes me happy, but it does-particularly when I explained it to my neighbor-the look on her face you’d think I had just made chile out of mountain lion and racoon-hey I did that too once). Oh and those monopoloy powers from the utility-they are government mandated monopolies. See, libertarians don’t like the government to interfere, so they are generally against such things. Oh and your solar panels? They will never pay for themselves without a big heapin’ helpin’ of subsidy.

    As I see it most of my loss of liberty comes from market monopolies like powerc ompanies, the fossil fuel induistry and the mega banks (who I pay 3-4 % tax to on everything I buy because of the way their credit cards result in such a mark up even if I don’t use them.)

    So we already discussed that power companies are not “market monopolies” they are “government monopolies” right? Maybe you can take a minute to think about the difference (please pause for 20 or 30 seconds, whatever it takes). If you need more help with this concept let me know. I also want to point something else out. Your whole problem with the plural thing. Again like the word “libertarian” you seem to not understand the word “monopoly” See the “mono” means one. There’s more than one gasoline company and there’s more than one mega bank so, by definition, they are not “monopolies” Hey, you want an history lesson? Tough shit, I’ll give you one. There really have only been a few “market monopolies in US history. A purist would say they weren’t, but I’ll grant you their existence for this little diatribe. There were a few companies in the late 19th century that controlled most of their market and one in the late 20th century. You know how they used this abusive horrible power? They singificantly lowered prices for the consumer. Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel and the rest got to be so powerful by providing products cheaper than their competition. And Microsoft, you remember them? The biggest complain that the Justice Department had against them was that they were giving a product away for free that other companies wanted to charge for. How’d that work out? Would you like to pay for an internet browser? And of course, Microsoft totally destroyed any company that makes browsers, right?

    You do know you pay a bank tax right?

    A charge levied by companies to provide a service is not a tax. I know that I pay more for banking because of the income taxes that banks pay. Maybe that’s what you are talking about.

    The libertarian pardigm is just propaganda to get government power out of the hands of the people and hand it over to corporations

    The libertarian “pardigm” is to get power out of the hands of the government and give it to no one.

    unlike how it looked in the 40′s to the 80′s

    Little pet peeve of mine: That should be 40s to the 80s. Avoid using apostrophes to make plurals (the only exception is when you need it to make it clear you are not making a different word, like “I got 4 A’s on my report card).

    Wow, that was fun. I kinda miss taking the occasional whack at Murgey. Thanks George.

    Thumb up 4

  22. CM

    Farms owned by a monopolistic company? That’s what I assumed he meant.

    hist, ain’t we a good looking couple of gurlz?!

    Thumb up 0

  23. Poosh

    The greater good is so much more important than personal freedom anyway.

    First off, why? On what grounds? Please provide an argument that doesn’t rest on emotions, consensus, or any religious/metaphysical principles.

    Second, you’ll find that ensuring personal freedom always leads to the “greater good” anyway.

    Thumb up 0

  24. hist_ed

    Farms owned by a monopolistic company? That’s what I assumed he meant.

    Ummm does that mean that all the farms in the US are owned by one company? That’ll be news to my uncle and cousins-better let ‘em know that the land that has been in my family for a century or so needs to be turned over to ADM stat.

    hist, ain’t we a good looking couple of gurlz?!

    Yeah sister, I’ve been on a new diet plan and I think the stairmaster has paid off.

    Thumb up 0