They simply put, don't know what the Frack they're talking about. Maybe these were just hypothetical questions, maybe they were just hyperbolic, but I frankly think many of them are just plain embarrassing, and show a stunning non-factual bias that should truly make us fear for the future of the Republic which Justices of this caliber calling the "balls and strikes" in our society.
Via TPM
After oral arguments Tuesday — over the constitutionality of the mandate — and Wednesday morning — over how much of the law should stand if the mandate falls — conservative-leaning justices revealed a persistent lack of knowledge about the health care and health insurance markets, the structure of the law and its myriad provisions that have nothing to do with the mandate.
At a number of junctures Tuesday, justices seemed confused — or willfully obtuse — about the nature of risk pooling, and the health insurance market.
Yeah, you can say that again. Details over the flip.
“If people don’t buy cars, the price that those who do buy cars pay will have to be higher,” said Justice Antonin Scalia. On a basic level, this gets supply and demand backward. But as Brookings Institution economist Henry Aaron noted, even if you give Scalia the benefit of the doubt, he still betrayed ignorance of health-policy basics.
“This response was and is bad economics,” Aaron wrote. “It is true that every commodity is produced along what economists call a ‘cost curve’ — raising output may lower average or marginal unit costs by spreading overhead or achieving economies of scale, but it may also raise costs by forcing up the cost of inputs or incurring diseconomies of scale. None of this occasions concerns about fairness or free-loading or, to use the economist’s term, ‘externalities.’ But the cost shifting that occurs when uninsured patients fail to pay their bills does; it causes one group — the insured — to have to pay part of the cost of services others use.”
Which is a fancy way of pointing at that not everyone has to own and operate a car. People can choose not to buy one, but there really isn't a case where you might have an accident or emergency and you'd
NEED TO HAVE A FREE CAR RIGHT NOW. You could borrow one, or you could rent one, or you use other transportation options, but the need to have A FREE CAR isn't on the table.
But getting a FREE CAR is exactly what our EMT's and Emergency rooms are intended to do as a last ditch option. These Justices don't seem to understand that last ditch healthcare, when you have a chronic and serious condition such as hypertension, glacoma, diabetes, or late stage cancer is often far too little and far too late to truly do any good.
Let's talk about the mandate itself for a moment. Under the ACA all persons are required to meet a "Minimum Insurance Requirement". Ostensibly that requirement exists to prevent the costs of caring for those who under Emergency or Financial conditions are unable to pay for their care who thereby shift that cost onto all of those who do pay for it. But there are exceptions and waivers. Anyone who already has covered through their employer, is in the Military and covered by Tricare or the VA, has Medicare, Medicaid, CHiP or their own individual plan are exempt. Additionally, those who can not afford or find affordable plans are also exempt. from the mandate.
It's quite possible the one of the plaintiffs in this suit, who not long ago filed for bankruptcy with an outstanding $4,500 from a Charity Hospital, is very likely also exempt from the mandate she's suing over. So this is really only about people who actually have the means to pay - BUT REFUSE and instead dump all their health expenses onto the rest of us.
That's not really true about cars.
Or broccoli. Scalia again.
“Could you define the market — everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food,” Scalia said, discussing a hypothetical. “Therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli.”
Everybody has to eat, so could you mandate everyone buy broccolii? Frankly , that's just stupid. Yes, everyone has to eat, everyone has to breathe, everyone has to drink water - that's why we have mandates and regulations on food safety, air quality and drinking water quality. If we're going to try to compare this to healthcare, which is an
insurance system while feeding yourself is not, then you would say if someone want to
Go Without Food Until their absolutely starving and near death - should we let them?
Seems to me we pretty much already do that, although we also supply some of them - if they qualify - with Food Stamps which coincidentally, help increase the demand for food and help bring down the overall prices of food for everyone else.
If you're analogy is that people have God Given "Right" to starve themselves halfway to death, maybe they do - some of us call it "Dieting". But to expect everyone else to pay for their food once they eventually fall off that "diet"? Not happening.
People can't diet their way out of cancer.
“Everybody has to exercise, because there’s no doubt that lack of exercise causes illness, and that causes health care costs to go up,” he said. “So the Federal government says everybody has to join an exercise club.”
Coffee spittake -
What!?
Government mandated Bo-Flex? Is that what's got you up, sleeplessly at night Mr. Justice? Maybe the Ab-roller is more to your liking?
“If we struck down nothing in this legislation but the — what’s it called, the Cornhusker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay?” the justice said. “When we strike that down, it’s clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. And you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the Cornhusker kickback is bad. That can’t be right.”
Scalia was clearly trying to be funny here, but the sad unfunny truth is that the "Cornusker Kickback" isn't in the bill. It was removed during Re-Conciliation in the Senate. It's not even relevant to what they have to decide on which is the
bill in front of them, not previous versions of the bill.
If they were going to do that they might as well debate the merits and Constitutionality of the public option, which also wasn't included in the final bill.
Or for that manner the methods in which those mythical magical "Death Panels" will soothingly euthanize our elderly - and isn't that a violation of our freedom and rights, don't cha know? You betcha!
But then again, actually reading the full and complete bill is apparently beneath the dignity of some Justices. They would even equate it with torture.
Discussing what parts of the bill could be “severed” from the mandate, Scalia said: “Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the 8th Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?” There were laughs in the chamber. “Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”
Yeah, that's a knee slapper. But gee, that happens to be
your job isn't it? Isn't that what the Tea Party was Screaming "Read The Bill"? If the issue is whether the mandate can be severed from the rest of the bill without it crumbling into a house of cards, then actually figuring out
what's in the house and how's it's constructed does seem to be part of the job.
Lord sometimes, the arrogant ignorance just burns... it burns... and after I get some soothing cream I weep for our nation.
Vyan