Juror#8

Really Mitt? Seriously, you dodgy pimp? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec I'll even post a far right wing blog on the subject for equal time. It's sad that they're just finding excuses for his 1999 involvement in the Stericycle investment though: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/04/left-wing-blogs-falsely-attack-romney-on-abortion-stericycle/ And yes, this Stericycle (the one pro-life advocates HATE): http://www.stopstericycle.com/ Please don't turn this into a name-calling **** fit. It's obvious that I dislike Romney (this is further evidence that he is a self-absorded pos **** with no backbone, and no personal principle foundation - I can't support someone like that). But that doesn't make the information less germane. It is what it is. Obama hung out with Jeremiah Wright and Mitt's company invested in Stericycle. Let's get that out of the way now and discuss politics. Just discuss your thoughts on the political implications if you have em.

Wickard is good law. If that is news to you, the 70 years of commerce clause jurisprudence should get you caught up. Wickard has been distinguished, but it is still held out as good law. The 50 or so justices who have occupied the highest legal perch in the land - both conservatives and democrats - agree that Wickard is principally solid (at least in concert). Wickard advanced the whole aggregate effect concept. That is not legal fiction nor is it creative legal word-smithing. The cumulative effect of individuals over-producing a crop would upset the price stabilization that Congress is Constitutionally obliged to regulate. So, where does it stop - one person private consumption, two, 50, 500, 5000. If one private farmer and consumer is ok then 5000 would have to be. Congress was stabilizing the price of wheat. Filburn was growing more to enjoy for himself. If 5000 people did the same thing, demand would wane and upset the post-depression price stabilization effort. There is a decided and unchallengeable effect on commerce in that instance. 70+ years later and no SC has disagreed. I think that there is a good reason for that.

I'm wondering at what point you'll realize that you're arguing against a point that I'm not making. When you do, let me know. This is our only point of disagreement. Hopefully you can stop manufacturing contention and we can stick to where there is a difference. My point here is that his editorial is a suggestion about options for national implementation. You're arguing a devolution point that Romney, himself, doesn't make. His discussion of MA heathcare implementation is with respect to a broader application. He even concludes mentioning bipartisan legislative efforts. Maybe because he discusses "abandoning the public option" you think that that is code for "leave it to the states - devolution." He doesn't mention that and you're assuming more than his actual words communicate. You and most every liberal that I know ascribe points of view to Romney that he, himself, doesn't champion. Take off your liberal glasses and see the issue for what it is. Maybe it was the sneaky transitive verb "use" that gave the suggestion that the editorial was discussing things the President should consider (adopted from the MA plan) in a national context. You liberals are so inconsiderate with verb conjugations so who knows? You and every other liberal I know wear Phish shirts and Birkenstocks. Why are you speaking as if you were the sartorialist? You are correct that I don't like Romney though. He is a repugnant fellow. I can't bring myself to vote for him. The Stericycle thing was the last straw.

..."the issue is around the SC's articulation of what the ACA individual mandate amounts to, and what can be described as Romney's tacit endorsement of that..." I think that his editorial (that I linked to in OP) fits that definition.

He has "QB of the future" written all over him. Did you see that 30 yard strike to Josh Reed to set up the field goal? He made me a BILLiever last game. I'll say it again - QB of the FUTURE! Cheers gents.

Understood. I thought that based on that one post you were saying that if something gets pub, it is self-promotional. I was just pointing out that sometimes publicity flows naturally out of the generosity. I don't know which Ocho Cincos is so I'll conclude the thought there.

PIIHB? Oops...nevermind. Forgot this is not the SVT Mustang forum.

OC, even though I enjoy the round-about way that you/I articulated this little exigesis, I think you (and I and we) may have missed the point. That is making this all the more difficult for me to respond to us. The issue is around the SC's articulation of what the ACA individual mandate amounts to, and what can be described as Romney's tacit endorsement of that in previous iterations of his ever-evolving (See: equivocating) thinking on everything and nothing, vis-a-vis his surrogate's quest to hammer the 'mandate as a tax' notion as articulated by the SC. Don't we, I , you get this?

I realize that medicaid is out there - for those who qualify. But I still understand your point. What constitutes "poverty" such that people would qualify for Medicaid is somewhat unrealistic though considering the realities of the current economy (gas, food, and travel costs).

I posted some recent material with respect to medical school enrollment and matriculation being at an all time high and continuing to trend upwards (as it has for almost 15 years in a row). Won't that address the resource shortage that you mention? And promote the entry of MDs and DOs into the healthcare industry marketplace? In your experience, do you find that there are those who sit on an issue until it is so nagging that it demands treatment? In fact, don't many health care providers implore folks to get checked out regularly for relatively manageable issues (detected early) - especially amongst certain ethnic and age groups? Would you agree that those without insurance are going to be less likely to get checked out if there is nothing overtly wrong? Would you agree that the abjectly impoverished, without insurance, are going to be even furthermore less likely to get checked out under similar circumstances? And if your answer to the above questions are "yes," won't the resulting instance of treating overt medical problems be more costly and expensive than addressing a more bourgeoning issue. Assuming that you agree with my points along this Socratic tunnel, what is the cost difference in one person's example? $500, $1000, $2000, $5000, $10,000? Now multiply that by hundreds of thousands of people, maybe even millions of people. Admittedly, my argument here relies on a few points: 1. That people without insurance put off regular treatment and checkups until things become noticeable. 2. That VERY poor people without insurance put off seeing a physician until things rise to the level of being a significant medical issue. 3. These tendencies will change once they have insurance. But I think that these are truisms and play themselves out in every corner of this country. Basically, my view is that MOST people without insurance see a hospital/doctor as a matter of last resort - when the ______ just won't go away. People with insurance are more likely to be proactive and follow a regimen for better overall health. I think the statistics bear this out as does basic common sense. Go to any stop on the metro Red Line after Tenleytown and before Catholic U. Find the people whose permanent home is the less traveled side of the escalator or on the back side of the SmartTrip machines. Then look at the people using the SmartTrip machines. Whose dental bill will cost less? Who will cost less to restore to status quo ante? Why? They'll both go to the hospital. The Smarttrip machine user will go every 8-12 months. That keeps care costs down. The individual who calls the Smarttrip machine home will go when he loses the use of his leg because of some diabetes-related complication. If he would have had insurance, he may have been on some managed care program. Since he didn't, the taxpayer just paid for the ambulance ride and ER visit. Again, multiply this by thousands....cause that is the cost that was just spread to the taxpayer and will continue to be unless we do something. Basically what I'm saying is the taxpayer is taking a hit on this either way. Some people are just too opaque to realize it so they're blindly following the "No No No" crowd as if they're not subsidizing a broken and inefficient system RIGHT NOW. The irony is astounding. As an aside - Is the common denominator in this debate: Proponents of ACA - those who want to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent with respect to healthcare costs. Those who don't want health reform (notice I didn't say 'opponents of the ACA') - those who don't want to know how much of their taxpayer dollars are being spent with respect to re-distributed health care costs cause they're used to it anyway. The above is tongue and cheek cause I know that it is not this simple. But.... I believe that I demonstrated, at least in one instance, how cost savings will find it's way into the system. With regard to the IPAB, do you have any support for the idea that people will be "euthanized" to promote savings objectives? No offense, but that seems very, very conspiratorial.

Wasn't it Warrick Dunn who bought houses for single mothers (over 100 if I remember correctly)? I think that there was even an "Outside the Lines" special and some news paper articles that discussed those purchases in the early 2000s. I think Oprah made a big deal about it too. Anyway... Do you think that those were self-promotional acts?

Your response shows that you haven't the foggiest idea of what the DCC is or does. That's ok, because even most attorneys don't either. So I don't blame you. Understanding the significance of the implicit negative converse on textualized "4 corners" language that is 200 years old is not something that gets you very far in social scenes and the more "gregarious" night life.

You're a !@#$ing jackass! I was reading your post. Out of the blue...I thought "Dormant Commerce Clause problem." I began envisioning the host of scenarios that will develop that cause conflicts with the Dormant Commerce Clause. I haven't thought about or heard the term "Dormant Commerce Clause" mentioned in over a decade....FOR A REASON. And your over-thinking, loquacious ass decided to come up with a hypo that, with a tweek here, and a tweek there, raises all kinds of funky issues with THE negative command. While you're at it, can you explain if Grandma can bequeath Blackacre to her cousin's unborn niece's offspring 40 years from now. Thanks. Seriously though, the lawyer's will be tooling up on that. And even though the scenarios that I envision can be contradicted by the state claiming a lack of protectionist interest, there are still considerable NCC/DCC issues that you can envision coming out of that effort. Let it lay dormant.

This may make more sense in my head than it will once the words are read but I liked KB Vol(s) 1 and 2 more stylistically then I liked the movies themselves. Tarantino is an underrated perfectionist for scene details: the wooden water paddle thing in the standoff scene between Thurman and Liu; the rhythmic dialog between Thurman and the assassin in the pregnancy scene; the different pov angles in the Fox and Thurman school bus interruption scene etc... He is very much like Kubrick in that sense (but not nearly as univeralist in his concepts and message). "Pulp Fiction" was and still is amazing and I agree with you on "Jackie Brown." "Django" looks very appealing stylistically. The mix of James Brown and Johnny Cash is classic Tarantino. I agree with you that Will Smith would have been a better choice but I suspect that DiCaprio and Smith would have been to much star power for one movie and the budget couldn't sustain it. With that said, I'd MUCH rather have DiCaprio if it were an either or proposition. He is the best actor in the world.

1. ....with the current backlash against the Supreme Court's decision by his campaign surrogates (he hasn't spoken directly on point), and the PACs. 2. The editorial is a suggestion about how it could be done nationally - using MA as a model.

HUGE Tarantino Fan here! Been following the development of "Django Unchained" since early 2011. Long development process like KB Vol(s) 1 and 2. It looks like it's gonna be REALLY good:

Mitt Romney, editorial, 2009: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090730/column30_st.art.htm "Massachusetts also proved that you don't need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no "public option." With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn't necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals' dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option. Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did."

I think that a lot of folks here demagogue the !@#$ out of this place. At times, people seem to have their positions and they stand firm on them (including you and me). I will say though that I have been VERY open to different opinions and perspectives - even going as far as being called soft for compromising on certain points. You made a point on the tort reform discussion that made me reevaluate a belief and an argument that I was advancing. I mentioned as much in that thread. I compromised on a Taro T discussion and was basically called soft by NewBills. On some things I'm definitely passionate about. But don't confuse that passion for demagoguery. I've shown, even recently, a capcity to be flexible and amenable to different opinions and perspectives. And I think that we've had a good convo more than once. But I realize that it is a matter of personal opinion and taste. I'll keep that in mind going forward.

I don't think that we're in a racially sensitive society (non-political). Watch an episode of Dave Chappelle or Steven Colbert. If anything, I think we're at the point when racial differences are celebrated and uniquenesses can be toyed with a bit. I don't know if that goes over too well in the 70s and 80s. I was watching a talk show recently and the host (white) made a play on a black celebrity's cultural affinity for collard greens and fried chicken. The host went further to joke about why they shouldn't understand the affinity but somehow they do. Just my two cents...

Please excuse me for abbreviating your post. I'm trying to keep the post on topic with respect to your original point. You and Doc are both making this point: that health care resource utilization won't flatten or go down; in fact, they'll go up when more folks have health insurance. I see this entirely differently and I think that there is where the ripe point for debate is (trying not to be too doctrinal btw). With all due respect, I think that you've way over-simplified the matter to an almost contrived debate point. I think the issue was less that people couldn't get care, as much as it was: 1. People were going to the ER or Urgent Care to get basic health care services 2. Insurers were charging exorbitant rates for insurance-seekers with pre-existing conditions 3. Too many relied on good will entities and caregivers for health care services - these efforts are subsidized by taxpayer donations and pro bono medical support initiatives 4. Many folks who didn't have insurance weren't responsive to small and relatively benign issues that may have been discovered early - however at the point when the issue became impossible to ignore, the individual opted to go to the ER. Then a once easily manageable matter becomes one that becomes significant costly, both from a health and a cost perspective. 5. Many folks relied on taxpayer subsidized programs (planned parenthood, local health clinic) for basic health services. Ergo, a very costly and inefficient process. With that in mind, I think that it is an issue of inefficiency in the process of health management as much as it is anything. I think that it is also an issue of CEOs profiting hansomely off of people's feebleness. Doc, in your effort to dismiss the 'resource flattening' idea, you ignore these points - especially point 4. Everyone having insurance doesn't make more people sick. As discussed above, everyone having health insurance theoretically should mean that the conduit through which people seek health care services is more direct and efficient. Right now, it's not. Right now, people become more sick (and consequently, more costly, and more demanding of resources), because they don't have health insurance preliminarily. As logically incongruent as you may think that it is, I believe that people become more resource and financially costly to everyone else by not having insurance versus when they are insured. For the reasons mentioned above, I don't believe that there will be any added strain on resources. If anything, I think that there will be an alleviation of that strain. There may be a rise in day-to-day services, physicals, diagnostics, etc. but the cost of catastrophic-level care should decrease because there will be a greater percentage of folks who had no belief that they could visit a physician early before, whose issues will be caught before it reaches a more costly (and resource demanding) level of care. That will result in substantially decreased individual service cost and resource utilization over time. With respect to day-to-day over-burdening of resources, medical schools have increased enrollment for 14 years in a row (2009 and 2011 articles): http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20111024/NEWS/310249959# http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-10-20-medical-school_N.htm To be fair, apparently they are still short of their goal but the numbers are still encouraging: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/05/10/med-school-enrollment-in-2015-will-miss-goal/ The reason that enrollment was up - to prepare for the impending baby boomer retirement - is not as a big a deal as once thought. That baby boomer retirement expectation is considerably more phased, progressive and intermittent because of the economic downturn: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/money/late-boomer-bloomers-older-workers-carve-out-new-careers-to-stall-retirement

That's the funny thing that has been lost in this whole schitstorm. Roberts' language portends a very limited notion of federal government power. SHOCKER!!! Wickard allowed the feddy guvs to do damn near anything during the first 3/4 of last century. It ended up impaling segregation in many commercial establishments. It resolved labor disputes. It gave the Congress the authority to enter into scenarios and contexts that were un[der]regulated otherwise. Frankly, I'm a fan of the aggregate affects theory of things and I think that I83 has some emanations allowing it to touch on subject matters that may not have been contemplated by the old smart dudes. So I'll disagree with Rob there. I think Wickard was good law then and should be considered in the context of it's ruling. In 75 years it's been distinguished, but never decided as "bad law." In a tempermental discipline that relies on progeny and stare decisis, that is saying something.

Some people you argue with, some you have spirited debate with. You, Rob (mainly cause we wolvesq have to stick together), Taro, Tom, and a few others I just don't argue with. I'd rather enthusiastically debate and stay cordial. You can't burn all your bridges. I almost went there with Tom but I felt myself losing my footing so I changed course. He just seems like he doesn't give a schit. That sucks cause I get satisfaction from the frustration that I've convinced myself that my words can introduce into someone else's existence. That's why I went back into practicing. I'm just good at winning with words. Have a good weekend bro and a good 4th. Lol. Some say that. We both speak French, in Japanese and we're both slightly wordy.

Typical. What you're really saying is: You're not ready to hang with the wolves. You'll flirt, but you can't go 12 rounds with Ali. You're not intellectually ready at this point to entertain a conversation of this particular moment cogently and with the level of detail and sophistication that it deserves. You're watching and learning, getting your "sea legs." You admire me, but don't know how to say it. You print my posts off and use them to inspire sonnets that you one day hope to publish in some esoteric journal, only distributed in Pacific Northwestern states, enjoyed by a readership of less than 20,000, in a varying-demo market; subject matter: decidedly neo-Freudian. You're afraid of the apes. They make you uneasy. You'll view from a distance. Don't be scared. I'll let you study under my guidance. I conquer.

Question: Will more people on the insurance rolls mean that more resources will be required beyond that which would have been required had not more people been on the insurance rolls?

I've tackled this very question in another thread that delved deeply into resource preservation and exacerbation of existing injury. I had the conversation with Tom and others. In fact, no one was able to answer my contention that early access to health insurance will result in end game resource preservation. Question: Will more people on the insurance rolls mean that more resources will be required beyond that which would have been required had not more people been on the insurance rolls? In order to make the argument that there won't be enough pie left for the hungry, don't we have to assume the bolded point above as "fact."