Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 Why not call it treatment rationing law? It's more accurate as care and government are an oxymoron.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-03-28 12:50||
#2 Nursy Mae and Doctor Mac.
It's as economically unsustainable as Land Subsidies.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-03-28 12:52||
#3 Troubling this morning is the Justices discussing the merits of the law, as opposed to the constitutionality. I was shocked and delighted to hear Judge Sotomayor comment that [paraphrasing here] why don't we let the Congress sort it out.
I suspect virtually anything could happen at this point.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-03-28 13:17||
#4 Striking down the law is good for America. Sadly, it's also good for Obama.
Posted by Iblis 2012-03-28 13:28||
#5 I'm still not sure it's good for Obama or not. His signature legislation that stalled the recovery and was unconstitutional. Pretty easy stuff to campaign against. The only fear is tha turnout among anti-Obama folks might drop if this is already gone before Nov but I don't think that will happen.
Posted by Rjschwarz 2012-03-28 13:42||
#6 I feel confident that this president will not be reelected, and the democrates will loose control of both the house and the senate. Of course, that is easy to feel out here in fly over country that gave W 86% of the vote.
Posted by bman 2012-03-28 14:21||
#7 Why not call it treatment rationing law? It's more accurate as care and government are an oxymoron. Medicare is no different than Obamacare in this respect, however Medicare has been completely off limits in the current public & judicial discussion.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-03-28 15:12||
#8 If it is declared unconstitutional, it would be good for Romney who could say, 'it is a State issue; let each state come up with a way to deal with it and then states will learn which provisions work best and amend their own method'.
If it is not declared unconstitutional, Romney will make the same argument but the press will say, 'why oppose nationally what you agreed to at the state level' and Romney's answer will be lost.
Posted by Lord Garth 2012-03-28 18:05||
#9 I don't get why people refer to Medicare as an entitlement. You pay into it your entire life. After retirement you pay Medicare monthly premiums. Additionally, you pay monthly premiums for a supplemental policy to cover what Medicare doesn't cover. The premiums for both increase each year. You pay co-pays for medical services which increase each year. You pay taxes on Medicare benefits. If you are self-employed after retirement you pay up to 13-1/2 percent of income for a self-employment tax which covers Medicare in addition to the fore-mentioned. ObamaCare will cost the taxpayers a great deal. ObamaCare will cause the national debt to skyrocket. ObamaCare was all about Progressive power, government overreach and very little about health care.
Posted by JohnQC 2012-03-28 18:08||
#10 Romney's answer will be lost. Only for those too simple-minded to realize there is a difference between how States function & how the United States (is supposed to) function. Romney can simply repeat, "It's an issue for individual states." Etc.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-03-28 18:22||
#11 "Only for those too simple-minded to realize there is a difference between how States function & how the United States (is supposed to) function."
That would be all of the Left and half of the rest of the people. :-(
Posted by Barbara 2012-03-28 18:33||
#12 I don't get why people refer to Medicare as an entitlement.
Medicare taxes don't cover program expenses. Matter of fact, last year (2011) Medicare costs were greater than Social Security costs and growing much faster.
Medicare costs (including both HI and SMI expenditures) are projected to grow substantially from approximately 3.6 percent of GDP in 2010 to 5.5 percent of GDP by 2035, and to increase gradually thereafter to about 6.2 percent of GDP by 2085. A SUMMARY OF THE 2011 ANNUAL REPORTS
Read the link. Both Medicare and SS will have to funded by general revenues (which we don't have).
Posted by Shimble Guelph5793 2012-03-28 20:23||
#13 Found it extremely interesting on my drive home today ( 5 pm PDT/ 8 PM on the east coast) the local ABC ( KOMO 1000) station at 5:30 and 6:00 had not one word about today's Supreme Court festivities. there was a brief 'political analysis about 3 minutes to the top of the hour that had some syrup to pour over the airwaves for the Seattle libs that needed their hands held; all 'this rejection will be great for Obama' kind of crap. seattle newspaper is also scarce on this.
think the libs are scared?
Posted by USN, Ret. 2012-03-28 22:42||
#14 IIUC, the original hospitalization Medicare, now referred to as "part A", was the only one enacted with its own properly passed tax. The rest of the B-Z alphabet soup is smoke and mirrors, with a mishmash of premium payments and general revenues.
Posted by Winky Wittlesbach4082 2012-03-28 23:13||