SCOTUS to hear case on Obamacare

[Liagala]

Fixed that for you, again.
Actually, Congress can mandate that even NH residents get auto insurance. They don't, but it is within their authority.

[Androidpk]

Actually, Congress can mandate that even NH residents get auto insurance. They don't, but it is within their authority.

Until they they do that means absolutely nothing to me.

[Liagala]

Until they they do that means absolutely nothing to me.
Fair enough, but correcting TheE wasn't necessary in this case. He was right in what he said.

[Wrathbringer]

Well, it's a political statement no doubt, but I know people voted the similarly with Bush (who put two justices on the court, and sneaking Sam Alito on was one of the biggest mistakes the Dems ever allowed). Politicians will always defend their own laws, the hope is that the judges overturning them aren't being political.

As for why the Commerce clause was added, it started out as a check on states competing with each other, not only for trade between themselves, but imports/exports. It helped poor states to not be allowed to be manipulated by rich states. But as early as 1824 (less than 40 years after adoption of the Constitution), it was being expanded and extrapolated on.

Only the biggest fools in our country believe that the Constitution is a freeze frame taken in 1790 and forever immutable, and impervious to interpretation.

The irony of this case is that proponents of the law want to suggest that "people are free to not participate in the market", but the very nature of our market economy forces people to participate in it if they want vital services, services that most of the international community call a human right. If you decide that a person is unable to freely choose to not be a part of the market in re: to health care, then (I think) it logically follows that Congress is allowed to regulate how you participate in this market.

Also, please, please make an argument that you can choose to never visit a doctor. Then, I can point out that no reasonable person would ever choose that, and Commerce Clause questions are predicated on a rational basis review, which defers to the results of legislative process by duly elected officials as long as there are rational facts and reasons that could support the Congressional decision to pass this law, even if the justices don't agree (with either the facts or the decision based on those facts).

So anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable or an outright fool. Got it.

[TheEschaton]

No, only if they say or do foolish or unreasonable things. Yanno, like insist you can choose, successfully, to completely divorce yourself from the health care system in this country, or that the Constitution is a freeze frame of how to legislate in this country and thus the only way to expand or restrict power is to pass a Constitutional Amendment which requires 33 states to ratify.

Also, Android, your libertarian views on this point are childishly stubborn. Have you avoided the health care system so far in your adult life?

Is it possible?

I made a simple conjecture: 1) If it's not possible, then 2) congress has a right to regulate how you interact with that system.

You contend that it IS possible to completely divorce yourself from the health care system, that the reasonable person can choose to do so, but offer no proof.

And people accuse liberals of sticking their heads in the sand. Grow up.

[Androidpk]

Also, Android, your libertarian views on this point are childishly stubborn. Have you avoided the health care system so far in your adult life?

Is it possible?

I made a simple conjecture: 1) If it's not possible, then 2) congress has a right to regulate how you interact with that system.

You contend that it IS possible to completely divorce yourself from the health care system, that the reasonable person can choose to do so, but offer no proof.

And people accuse liberals of sticking their heads in the sand. Grow up.

It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs in the health care system, you made a rather obtuse statement and I threw in my 2 cents.

I will never be OK with a government mandated health care system, especially considering how frigging inept the government is to begin with.

[Tgo01]

Yanno, like insist you can choose, successfully, to completely divorce yourself from the health care system in this country

Don't Christian Scientists do this?

[4a6c1]

Scientologists.

[TheEschaton]

They say they do, but when a Christian Scientist gets in an accident, the ambulance driver doesn't ask their unconscious body their religion's view on going to a hospital before they load them up.

Also, the government being inept, I think, is a large misconception. I think federal agencies do decently well for the large areas they're tasked to cover. Agency directors and associate directors are smart as hell people. Obviously there's waste and all that, but I think it's proportional to their size.

[Androidpk]

Also, the government being inept, I think, is a large misconception. I think federal agencies do decently well for the large areas they're tasked to cover. Agency directors and associate directors are smart as hell people. Obviously there's waste and all that, but I think it's proportional to their size.

There are some great federal agencies I'll give you that. Congress however.. I don't think there is any misconception there. I think there is a reason why they had an 11% approval rating at the end of 2011.

[Wrathbringer]

They say they do, but when a Christian Scientist gets in an accident, the ambulance driver doesn't ask their unconscious body their religion's view on going to a hospital before they load them up.

Also, the government being inept, I think, is a large misconception. I think federal agencies do decently well for the large areas they're tasked to cover. Agency directors and associate directors are smart as hell people. Obviously there's waste and all that, but I think it's proportional to their size.

I wonder, when the SC rules the mandate unconstitutional, will you admit you're wrong? Also, you've obviously never worked for the government.

[Latrinsorm]

There are some great federal agencies I'll give you that. Congress however.. I don't think there is any misconception there. I think there is a reason why they had an 11% approval rating at the end of 2011.Racism.

[Androidpk]

Racism.

Too many white people?

[Parkbandit]

Also, the government being inept, I think, is a large misconception. I think federal agencies do decently well for the large areas they're tasked to cover. Agency directors and associate directors are smart as hell people. Obviously there's waste and all that, but I think it's proportional to their size.

Just in time for Easter:

http://10cities10years.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/are-you-kidding-me-bunny-small.jpg

[Parkbandit]

I wonder, when the SC rules the mandate unconstitutional, will you admit you're wrong? Also, you've obviously never worked for the government.

Or worked with the Government.

Or worked with an agency that works with the Government.

[Jarvan]

Also, the argument is over whether people can choose to not participate in the health care system. There exists overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of people, from birth, will in some way be a part of that system whether by choice or necessity. If that is the case, Congress can regulate that the person has to pay for insurance to mitigate the costs later, over paying out of pocket later.

There is no rational argument that people can forego the health care system if they choose to.

I am sorry, but the Food argument can be used in the same way. Everyone has to eat, etc etc..

Same can be said with housing. Everyone needs a place to live. blah blah blah..

Both of those arguments are just as valid since each of those systems are unique as well. You could use the argument to some extent for anything that is vital for human survival. Tho with Healthcare it becomes worse, cause food can tie into it, Along with things like gym memberships. Not getting enough exercise, IRS can fine you, since you could be needing to much healthcare and be a burden on the system.

I am sure you and many others may laugh at that statement, but seriously.. you can't say it would Never happen. Frankly, it's likely to happen sooner rather then later. Then, it's just one easy step from eat right and exercise, to outlawing being fat.


As for the President's statement, it's all politics.. but also a lie.. the Supreme court has overturned MANY laws. Those couldn't all political activism could they? If so, then guess Roe vs Wade was a political activist decision..

[TheEschaton]

I wonder, when the SC rules the mandate unconstitutional, will you admit you're wrong? Also, you've obviously never worked for the government.

I have worked for the government, though only at the state level.

Also, I think there's a good chance it'll be ruled unconstitutional. But I wouldn't agree with it, and I would think it's somewhat political in nature.

[TheEschaton]

I am sorry, but the Food argument can be used in the same way. Everyone has to eat, etc etc..

Same can be said with housing. Everyone needs a place to live. blah blah blah..

Both of those arguments are just as valid since each of those systems are unique as well. You could use the argument to some extent for anything that is vital for human survival. Tho with Healthcare it becomes worse, cause food can tie into it, Along with things like gym memberships. Not getting enough exercise, IRS can fine you, since you could be needing to much healthcare and be a burden on the system.

I am sure you and many others may laugh at that statement, but seriously.. you can't say it would Never happen. Frankly, it's likely to happen sooner rather then later. Then, it's just one easy step from eat right and exercise, to outlawing being fat.


As for the President's statement, it's all politics.. but also a lie.. the Supreme court has overturned MANY laws. Those couldn't all political activism could they? If so, then guess Roe vs Wade was a political activist decision..

I'm sorry, are you an idiot? The government has checks in place to provide food and shelter, and the people who have both food and shelter pay taxes to subsidize it.

Also, slippery slope arguments are kind of ridiculous, AND EXACTLY WHAT THE RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW is used to weed out.

[Jarvan]

They say they do, but when a Christian Scientist gets in an accident, the ambulance driver doesn't ask their unconscious body their religion's view on going to a hospital before they load them up.

Also, the government being inept, I think, is a large misconception. I think federal agencies do decently well for the large areas they're tasked to cover. Agency directors and associate directors are smart as hell people. Obviously there's waste and all that, but I think it's proportional to their size.

As far as smart as hell people in charge of agencies. You got to remember, these are Political Appointments, Doesn't mean they are not smart, but it also doesn't mean, for example, you put a theoretical physicist in charge of the department of energy.

Just cause the guy may know how and where energy comes from, does NOT mean he knows how to run anything. Sorry, but I would not have wanted Einstein running a government agency as well.

[TheEschaton]

Your idiocy continues to astound me, which is, I guess, silly on my part.

[Jarvan]

Well, your idiocy doesn't surprise me really. I kind of expect it now.

If you think Chu got the job cause he was the best man for it, you are not in Idiot, you are well beyond that. I am not sure there is even a word for it.

[Parkbandit]

Please stop using "your"... since you rarely use the correct one. Use "you are".

[Atlanteax]

Wonder what Ryvicke thinks of the WSJ mocking Obama for his USSC comments:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577321844137787970.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

[Parkbandit]

It really is amazing he used to TEACH Constitutional Law.

[Atlanteax]

It really is amazing he used to TEACH Constitutional Law.

Maybe he had TAs that did it for him.

[Warriorbird]

It's amazing when non lawyers don't get the whole bit about court cases having multiple sides.

It's also amazing when Republicans attack Democrats for Republican ideals.

[Parkbandit]

It's amazing when non lawyers don't get the whole bit about court cases having multiple sides.

It's also amazing when Republicans attack Democrats for Republican ideals.

It's amazing when self proclaimed "lawyers" on the Internet don't understand one of the main reasons for the Supreme Court.

It's also amazing when Democrats will defend a Democrat President, no matter what he says.

[Warriorbird]

It's amazing when self proclaimed "lawyers" on the Internet don't understand one of the main reasons for the Supreme Court.

It's also amazing when Democrats will defend a Democrat President, no matter what he says.

Oh dumbass. You're missing the point.

Judicial activism and judicial restraint are both perfectly reasonable philosophies. There's reasons for and against the bill. The law is about duality. Two sides. Something that's very difficult for you to get, I understand.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/04/why-republicans-and-democrats-cant-feel-each-others-pain/

There's no reason why a President can't bash the Court. Democrats and Republicans have, back since the beginning of the court's legitimacy.

And

A. The Heritage Foundation makes the individual mandate. Obama uses it. Republican raaage!

B. Republicans bash judicial activism. Obama bashes judicial activism. Republican raaage!

are still hilarious

[Keller]

It's amazing when self proclaimed "lawyers" on the Internet don't understand one of the main reasons for the Supreme Court.

This is a Backlashian insult if I've ever seen one.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

[TheEschaton]

I'm pretty sure I quite clearly said that I didn't understand the President's use of the word "unprecedented." I'm pretty sure I was also against our actions in Syria.

In fact, the only Democrat on these boards who blindly supports the President is Back, a non-lawyer and general retard.

[Parkbandit]

Oh dumbass. You're missing the point.

No, dipshit, you missed the point.



Judicial activism and judicial restraint are both perfectly reasonable philosophies. There's reasons for and against the bill. The law is about duality. Two sides. Something that's very difficult for you to get, I understand.

Again, it's obvious that you missed it. When the President stated this:


“Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

He is factually wrong.

That is the only thing we were discussing, Simpleton.

[Parkbandit]

This is a Backlashian insult if I've ever seen one.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

It's way above your pay grade. Don't get yourself all upset again.

[Keller]

It's way above your pay grade. Don't get yourself all upset again.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/516980/2009_medium.gif

[Warriorbird]

That is the only thing we were discussing.

Funny. I thought we were discussing the article and Jay/Ryvicke's created response to it by you and Atlanteax. I was referring to the line about Obama lecturing the court with a case pending. Nice frame attempt though. This is a bad area for you so you should get back to insults.


Obama seems to have been trying to make the accurate observation that since the '30s the court has not struck down a federal law that applies to economic activity on the ground that it exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause authority.

It's pretty silly that the Journal admits that, but then turns around and says that Obama shouldn't do what he was doing in general (When Republican and Democratic Presidents have done that all the damn time). But what do you expect from a Murdoch publication? Or you.

Talking point world.

[~Rocktar~]

Maybe he had TAs . . .

FTFU

[Parkbandit]

Funny. I thought we were discussing the article and Jay/Ryvicke's created response to it by you and Atlanteax. I was referring to the line about Obama lecturing the court with a case pending. Nice frame attempt though. This is a bad area for you so you should get back to insults.

It's pretty silly that the Journal admits that, but then turns around and says that Obama shouldn't do what he was doing in general (When Republican and Democratic Presidents have done that all the damn time). But what do you expect from a Murdoch publication? Or you.

Talking point world.

So when Obama made this statement:


“Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

You agree that it was a very stupid statement, not based upon actual facts... right? Especially, if the person who said it was a Constitutional Law Professor.. right?

[Atlanteax]

So when Obama made this statement:


Originally Posted by Obama
“Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

You agree that it was a very stupid statement, not based upon actual facts... right? Especially, if the person who said it was a Constitutional Law Professor.. right?

This is a lost cause ... Warriorbird has a doctorate in being obtuse.

[Warriorbird]

I figured that neither of you actually read the article.

[Parkbandit]

I figured that neither of you actually read the article.

I actually did not. My apologies.

So.. back to the quote I posted from Obama... and the question I posed:

You agree that it was a very stupid statement, not based upon actual facts... right? Especially, if the person who said it was a Constitutional Law Professor.. right?

[TheEschaton]

He's saying it is based on facts, based on the very specific context Obama was speaking about, which was quoted in the WSJ article.

Try again.

[Keller]

Try again.

Or, better yet, just stop for once.

[Ryvicke]

Wonder what Ryvicke thinks of the WSJ mocking Obama for his USSC comments:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577321844137787970.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Sigh, the whole point of my earlier WSJ post was trying to get you and PB to spend your time reading actual journalism and to come to your own opinions instead of consistently coming into these threads to parrot whatever you just heard on talk radio. It's nice that you actually were able to find WSJ's website on the internets, but you probably were unable to find their journalism, instead just sticking to what's seen as one of the shittier op-ed pages in newspapers to fill your dumbfuck brain with more of what it wants: idiot opinion pieces that go down easy.

I'm guessing that had you used your stillborn brain to read some news and think about it for a bit--you'd come to the conclusion that Warriorbird already laid out for you: Obama made the same argument that Republicans have been making for decades and criticized "judicial activism."

Now here's where PB is playing the classic PB card and pretending not to understand basic shit. It's not about what's constitutional or whether Barack Obama understands the powers of the court--the court isn't the only watchdog of the constitution--the ACA's relationship to the commerce clause and whether it's constitutional is entirely subjective and everyone knows it. Representatives and Senators also weigh constitutionality when they vote for laws. President Obama is saying, "the representatives and senators of the US have passed this law and found it to be constitutional, there is no need for 9 more people to review it."

So PB, respectfully, you're a fucking idiot. Transparently pretending to not understand every obvious fucking thing in the entire world doesn't ever magically make the shit you say sound intelligent. To willfully sit here and post "HAHAHA HOW DOES HE NOT UNDERSTAND THE POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT" over and fucking over when you obviously understand exactly what he was saying just reinforces that you are really not a smart person or a person that has ever been concerned with having rational discussions on this message board. Obvious troll is obvious, etc.

Do I think he needed to say that? Not really. That the supreme court or justice Kennedy is going to be swayed by his words? No. But setting himself up for a conflict with a conservative activist court is a genius way to organize a base that needs stimulation in an election year.

[TheEschaton]

"Transparently pretending" seems to give PB too much credit. I prefer "willfully ignorant" because it has that nice ad hominem ring to it that PB can understand and relate to. It also indicates he has no actual knowledge, instead of saying he's pretending to not have any knowledge.

[Wrathbringer]

Representatives and Senators also weigh constitutionality when they vote for laws. President Obama is saying, "the representatives and senators of the US have passed this law and found it to be constitutional, there is no need for 9 more people to review it."

Do I think he needed to say that? Not really. That the supreme court or justice Kennedy is going to be swayed by his words? No. But setting himself up for a conflict with a conservative activist court is a genius way to organize a base that needs stimulation in an election year.

If that's what Obama is saying, he's obviously wrong because they are reviewing it so apparently there's a need. Did he need to say that? Absolutely. He'd be a fool not to have a plan B for when the SC pwns his pet project and it makes him & 219 Democrats look like dumbasses. It's a pretty lame plan B, imo, essentially taking the position that the USSC doesn't know what they're talking about. Oooookay. Riiiiight. What do they know? They're only the USSC... I see no "genius" in such a position.

[Tgo01]

President Obama is saying, "the representatives and senators of the US have passed this law and found it to be constitutional, there is no need for 9 more people to review it."

Is that what Obama is saying? Wow that's even more stupid than what I thought he was saying before.

[TheEschaton]

Except Obama was speaking from a constitutional law standpoint, where laws such as these are not overturned, in deference to the legislators who passed it, unless it fails to meet a rational basis review. It is not strict scrutiny (which I think many people tend to think most cases are decided on).

Also, they're reviewing it because the Appeals Courts have been split on the constitutionality of the statute. Them reviewing a law does not de facto make it unconstitutional, it just means no law is above reproach.

[Parkbandit]

Sigh,

Are you roleplaying? "Sigh"? Seriously, WTF?



the whole point of my earlier WSJ post was trying to get you and PB to spend your time reading actual journalism and to come to your own opinions instead of consistently coming into these threads to parrot whatever you just heard on talk radio.

I read WSJ far more than you... and for someone who simply comes here and regurgitates moveon.org / mediamatters.org "news", you should probably be less of a raging hypocrite.


It's nice that you actually were able to find WSJ's website on the internets, but you probably were unable to find their journalism, instead just sticking to what's seen as one of the shittier op-ed pages in newspapers to fill your dumbfuck brain with more of what it wants: idiot opinion pieces that go down easy.

I heard they can dumb it down for you on huffingtonpost.com



I'm guessing that had you used your stillborn brain to read some news and think about it for a bit--you'd come to the conclusion that Warriorbird already laid out for you: Obama made the same argument that Republicans have been making for decades and criticized "judicial activism."

Now here's where PB is playing the classic PB card and pretending not to understand basic shit. It's not about what's constitutional or whether Barack Obama understands the powers of the court--the court isn't the only watchdog of the constitution--the ACA's relationship to the commerce clause and whether it's constitutional is entirely subjective and everyone knows it. Representatives and Senators also weigh constitutionality when they vote for laws. President Obama is saying, "the representatives and senators of the US have passed this law and found it to be constitutional, there is no need for 9 more people to review it."

:rofl:

Really? So the SCOTUS has never had to review laws passed by the US Congress to ensure they are Constitutional? Seriously, take a fucking BASIC politics course.. like 4th grade level.

Let me clue you in: He's wrong. Plain and simple. It was a stupid thing to say and he even attempted to backtrack from it the next day.. while still fucking it up. If Bush had said anything remotely like this, we would still be calling it his "potatoe" moment.. or his "57 states" moment. It was beyond ridiculous.. ESPECIALLY for a Constitutional Law professor.

He should stick to things printed on the Teleprompter In Chief and not go off script.



So PB, respectfully, you're a fucking idiot.

Irony. Squared.



Transparently pretending to not understand every obvious fucking thing in the entire world doesn't ever magically make the shit you say sound intelligent. To willfully sit here and post "HAHAHA HOW DOES HE NOT UNDERSTAND THE POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT" over and fucking over when you obviously understand exactly what he was saying just reinforces that you are really not a smart person or a person that has ever been concerned with having rational discussions on this message board. Obvious troll is obvious, etc.

It hurts you so much when Obama says something stupid, doesn't it? Oh wait.. you aren't smart enough to even understand how stupid it was. Nevermind.



Do I think he needed to say that? Not really. That the supreme court or justice Kennedy is going to be swayed by his words? No. But setting himself up for a conflict with a conservative activist court is a genius way to organize a base that needs stimulation in an election year.

He plays to the Lowest Common Denominator in the party.. the really, really ignorant branch of the far left wing... otherwise known as the Ryvickes.

[TheEschaton]

Do you have an answer to WB's post, PB? Specifically the one where he quotes the WSJ where it says Obama was right in that since whatever time the Court hasn't struck down a case on these grounds since expanding it to what it currently is?

Or do you want to go with the statement that the President, a Harvard law grad and a Constitutional Law professor, was making the statement that SCOTUS has NEVER overturned a law?

[Atlanteax]

I've subscribed to WSJ for years, and read it regularly.

Ryvicke, if you have actually taken any time to read stuff, and form an independent opinion than what Moveon.org tells you, you would be aware that Obama is clearly just attempting to prop up the Obamacare bill, which is essentially his Presidential legacy. Should 'Obamacare' be struck down, Obama's political credibility in being able to influence domestic policy would be severely impaired, along with the detrimental impact on his re-election campaign.

Basically Obama pulled a Biden, when speaking about the USSC and Obamacare.

[Tgo01]

Do you have an answer to WB's post, PB? Specifically the one where he quotes the WSJ where it says Obama was right in that since whatever time the Court hasn't struck down a case on these grounds since expanding it to what it currently is?


Obama seems to have been trying to make the accurate observation that since the '30s the court has not struck down a federal law that applies to economic activity on the ground that it exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause authority.

Right before this bit in the very same paragraph the article states:


It is true that in subsequent New Deal cases, the court vastly expanded Congress's power to regulate "interstate commerce," although it has never done what the administration asks it to do now, namely authorize Congress to force individuals to engage in commerce.

Then two paragraphs later the article states:


Lochner, which was effectively reversed in a series of post-New Deal decisions, did not involve a federal law--contrary to the president's claim--and thus had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause, which concerns only the powers of Congress.

So if we're totally ignoring what Obama said originally, which was that the Supreme Court never overturned a law passed by Congress before (which I think we can all agree is false), he then cites Lochner, a case which dealt with a state law, to defend his accusation that the court have never overturned a federal law. Not only that but Obama fails to mention that this is new territory, namely that the court has never authorized Congress to 100% force people to engage in commerce.

[TheEschaton]

The court has never forbidden it either. Plus, that's just the characterization of the opposing side, that it forces people to engage in commerce - the side arguing it says they're already participating, and Congress is trying to regulate it.

You can't just adopt one side of the argument and accept it as truth without debating the other side.

[TheEschaton]

Not to mention, Lochner being a state case is irrelevant. Not only was it decided in 1905, it was later ended by West Coast Hotel.

For Christ's sake, Lochner said legislatures couldn't regulate maximum work hours as it didn't have a compelling interest in protecting workers' rights.

So, I have to ask, have you read Lochner? Or are you just quoting what the WSJ is attempting to do the run around on?

Edited to be more clear: Lochner was a state case which said NY didn't have the right to regulate worker hours. It was effectively ended by West Coast Hotel in 1937, another state case. The issues in both were whether laws had the right to regulate the freedom of contract between people and companies - West Coast Hotel, which is still good law, says that it does. The Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law which also set a minimum wage and certain work conditions, was passed the next year, and has never had a successful challenge brought against it.

The main Commerce Clause case in question is Gibbons v. Ogden, which DID address Congressional authority in interstate commerce. The only cases where Congressional law has been struck down before involved Dormant commerce clause decisions, and those were very narrow in defining what, specifically, was outside of Congress's authority to regulate, while reserving a rather broad spectrum of things Congress COULD regulate. In Jones & Laughlin (1937), Congress's commerce clause powers were pretty well expounded, and since then, no federal case dealing with direct commerce clause questions, has been overturned.

[Tgo01]

Plus, that's just the characterization of the opposing side, that it forces people to engage in commerce - the side arguing it says they're already participating, and Congress is trying to regulate it.

Wait, I don't have healthcare at the moment and haven't been to the hospital/doctor in well over a decade, when Obamacare is in full motion I'll be forced to buy healthcare insurance. How is that not forcing me to engage in commerce for a service I don't currently use?


So, I have to ask, have you read Lochner?

Honestly I haven't. Everyone just kept saying "Read the WSJ article! Read the WSJ article!" so I read it. No one said "The WSJ article is misleading!" Then why was everyone telling me to read it?

[TheEschaton]

Wait, I don't have healthcare at the moment and haven't been to the hospital/doctor in well over a decade, when Obamacare is in full motion I'll be forced to buy healthcare insurance. How is that not forcing me to engage in commerce for a service I don't currently use?



Honestly I haven't. Everyone just kept saying "Read the WSJ article! Read the WSJ article!" so I read it. No one said "The WSJ article is misleading!" Then why was everyone telling me to read it?

Because commerce isn't defined by "services I currently use". Congress has the power to regulate commerce based on the measurable and noticeable effects commerce has as a whole, not just on whether John Doe is involved in it. Congress can look at cases like you, look at the data, which, to them, shows an appreciable amount of uninsured people needing medical care at some point in their lives, and thus affects commerce. And then they can regulate it. Even if you, a specific uninsured person, never have to visit a doctor or hospital ever til you die in your bed.

Also, Ryvicke said read the WSJ, he didn't say "read this op-ed from the WSJ". The news section of the WSJ is far different from the op-ed page.

[Tgo01]

Because commerce isn't defined by "services I currently use". Congress has the power to regulate commerce based on the measurable and noticeable effects commerce has as a whole, not just on whether John Doe is involved in it. Congress can look at cases like you, look at the data, which, to them, shows an appreciable amount of uninsured people needing medical care at some point in their lives, and thus affects commerce. And then they can regulate it. Even if you, a specific uninsured person, never have to visit a doctor or hospital ever til you die in your bed.

Okay, I'll just assume you're right about everything here. When has Congress ever done this before? When have they deemed it necessary to regulate commerce to the point where they make a law to force everyone to buy a specific product? Moreover has the Supreme Court ever ruled on such a case before?

[TheEschaton]

This is an expansion of that idea, yes. But what proponents of the bill are saying is that it's a logical extension of an already existing legal principle.

And no, I don't recall a case addressed by SCOTUS that dealt with these specific issues. The big point, imo, is whether certain areas of commerce can be considered nonvoluntary, and, thus, being nonvoluntary, are allowed to be regulated de facto by Congress as long as it shows facts showing an affect on commerce. That's why the case is kind of a big deal.

For example, in Lopez (1995), you had SCOTUS knocking down a statute against guns in school zones which was justified under the commerce clause. Congress said the connection between carrying a gun with violent crime was significant, and violent crime substantially affected commerce. 5-4 the Court threw it out saying that there simply weren't enough facts to support the law and Congress couldn't rationally assume those facts.

Importantly, though, the Act was re-written, with the facts and data showing the impact of carrying guns on interstate commerce, and then re-passed. It has not been overturned since, despite several further challenges, because Congress went out of its way to show the connection.

[Lulfas]

Okay, I'll just assume you're right about everything here. When has Congress ever done this before? When have they deemed it necessary to regulate commerce to the point where they make a law to force everyone to buy a specific product? Moreover has the Supreme Court ever ruled on such a case before?

1790 was the first time it was done. LoC (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=257)

1792 it was done again (Militia act of 1792). Also, the first time the federal government forced someone to buy health insurance was 1798. (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=728)

[Tgo01]

1790 was the first time it was done. LoC (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=257)

1792 it was done again (Militia act of 1792). Also, the first time the federal government forced someone to buy health insurance was 1798. (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=728)

Your links aren't working but I looked up the act you mentioned and it was the one I figured it was.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792):


The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

So "able-bodied white male citizens" between the ages of 18 and 45 and some professions were exempt from this act altogether. Not really comparable to requiring everyone to purchase healthcare.

Also nowhere in the act does it say men must buy their equipment from a private company. They could have received the items as gifts, they could have won a musket from someone in a card game. They could have stole them.

[Latrinsorm]

Your links aren't working but I looked up the act you mentioned and it was the one I figured it was.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792):



So "able-bodied white male citizens" between the ages of 18 and 45 and some professions were exempt from this act altogether. Not really comparable to requiring everyone to purchase healthcare.

Also nowhere in the act does it say men must buy their equipment from a private company. They could have received the items as gifts, they could have won a musket from someone in a card game. They could have stole them.False premise, like Rainbow 6 before you. If someone has a gun you cannot commit a crime against them, ergo it is literally impossible to steal a musket from another person vis a vis not being shot in the face.

[Parkbandit]

Call it President Obama’s Committee for the Re-Election of the President — a political slush fund at the Health and Human Services Department.
Only this isn’t some little fund from shadowy private sources; this is taxpayer money, redirected to help Obama win another term. A massive amount of it, too — $8.3 billion. Yes, that’s billion, with a B.

Here is how it works.

The most oppressive aspects of the ObamaCare law don’t kick in until after the 2012 election, when the president will no longer be answerable to voters. More “flexibility,” he recently explained to the Russians.

But certain voters would surely notice one highly painful part of the law before then — namely, the way it guts the popular Medicare Advantage program.

For years, 12 million seniors have relied on these policies, a more market-oriented alternative to traditional Medicare, without the aggravating gaps in coverage.

But as part of its hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts, the Obama one-size-fits-all plan slashes reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage starting next year — herding many seniors back into the government-run program.
Under federal “open-enrollment” guidelines, seniors must pick their Medicare coverage program for next year by the end of this year — which means they should be finding out before Election Day.

Nothing is more politically volatile than monkeying with the health insurance of seniors, who aren’t too keen on confusing upheavals in their health care and are the most diligent voters in the land. This could make the Tea Party look like a tea party.

Making matters even more politically dangerous for Obama is that open enrollment begins Oct. 15, less than three weeks before voters go to the polls.

It’s hard to imagine a bigger electoral disaster for a president than seniors in crucial states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio discovering that he’s taken away their beloved Medicare Advantage just weeks before an election.
This political ticking time bomb could become the biggest “October Surprise” in US political history.

But the administration’s devised a way to postpone the pain one more year, getting Obama past his last election; it plans to spend $8 billion to temporarily restore Medicare Advantage funds so that seniors in key markets don’t lose their trusted insurance program in the middle of Obama’s re-election bid.
The money is to come from funds that Health and Human Services is allowed to use for “demonstration projects.” But to make it legal, HHS has to pretend that it’s doing an “experiment” to study the effect of this money on the insurance market.

That is, to “study” what happens when the government doesn’t change anything but merely continues a program that’s been going on for years.
Obama can temporarily prop up Medicare Advantage long enough to get re-elected by exploiting an obscure bit of federal law. Under a 1967 statute, the HHS secretary can spend money without specific approval by Congress on “experiments” directly aimed at “increasing the efficiency and economy of health services.”

Past demonstration projects have studied new medical techniques or strategies aimed at improving care or reducing costs. The point is to find ways to lower the costs of Medicare by allowing medical technocrats to make efficient decisions without interference from vested interests.
Now Obama means to turn it on its head — diverting the money to a blatantly nonexperimental purpose to serve his political needs.

A Government Accounting Office report released this morning shows, quite starkly, that there simply is no experiment being conducted, just money being spent. Understandably, the GAO recommends that HHS cancel the project.
Congress should immediately launch an investigation into this unprecedented misuse of taxpayer money and violation of the public trust, which certainly presses the boundaries of legality and very well may breach them.

If he’s not stopped, Obama will spend $8 billion in taxpayer funds for a scheme to mask the debilitating effects on seniors of his signature piece of legislation just long enough to get himself re-elected.

Now that is some serious audacity.

Benjamin E. Sasse, a former US assistant secretary of health, is president of Midland University. Charles Hurt covers politics in DC.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/an_billion_trick_ImTBFfz7MeuZLJY7JzXEIJ#ixzz1srotw CpQ

[Parkbandit]

In before the typical "ZOMG THAT'S RUPERT MURDOCH, HE OWNS FAUX N3WS AND THAT'S NOT REAL N3WS!"

WASHINGTON — Medicare is wasting more than $8 billion on an experimental program that rewards providers of mediocre health care and is unlikely to produce useful results, federal investigators say in a new report.

The report, to be issued Monday by the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, urges the Obama administration to cancel the program, which pays bonuses to health insurance companies caring for millions of Medicare beneficiaries.

Administration officials, however, defended the project and said they would not cancel it because it could improve the quality of care for older Americans.

In the 2010 health care law, Congress cut Medicare payments to managed care plans, known as Medicare Advantage, and authorized bonus payments to those that provide high-quality care. Investigators found that most of the money paid under the demonstration program went to “average-performing plans” rated lower than the benchmarks set by Congress.

The report said the project would cost $8.3 billion over 10 years, with 80 percent of the cost occurring in the first three years.

Federal investigators are trying to determine whether Medicare officials had the legal authority to make the changes.

Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, and Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said the report suggested that Medicare officials had abused their authority.

In a statement, Mr. Hatch and Mr. Camp said they were concerned that the government might be “using taxpayer dollars for political purposes, to mask the impact on beneficiaries of cuts in the Medicare Advantage program.” Administration officials denied that.

A separate federal panel, the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, also criticized the project, saying it increases “spending at a time when Medicare already faces serious problems with cost control and long-term financing.”

The panel denounced Medicare’s “overly broad use of demonstration authority” and said “limited Medicare dollars should go to truly high-performing plans.” It said “the extension of quality bonuses to the vast majority of plans is likely to result in far greater program costs than the reward system enacted” by Congress, and that by spreading the rewards so broadly, “the demonstration lessens the incentive to achieve the highest level of performance.”

The G.A.O. said the project “dwarfs all other Medicare demonstrations” in its impact on the budget, but is so poorly designed that researchers could not tell whether the bonus payments led to improved care. As a result, it said, it is unlikely to “produce meaningful results.” Insurers can use the bonuses to offer extra benefits, like vision and dental care, or to lower premiums.

More than 12 million people are in Medicare Advantage plans. About one-third of them are in plans that would receive bonuses under the 2010 law. By contrast, under the demonstration program, 90 percent are in plans eligible for bonuses, the report said.

The administration said that by offering bigger bonuses to more health plans, it hoped to encourage larger, more rapid improvements in care. “All Medicare Advantage plans will be part of the demonstration,” a federal health official told James C. Cosgrove, the accountability office’s director of health care studies.

The Medicare commission said “demonstration authority is intended for smaller-scale projects” that test innovations in the way health care is financed and delivered.

The health care law cut payments to private Medicare Advantage plans after many studies found that they were being overpaid. President Obama said the private plans were getting “unwarranted subsidies” that “pad their profits but don’t improve the care of seniors.”

The commission said payments to private plans, including the bonuses, were still about 7 percent higher than what the government would pay for similar beneficiaries in the traditional Medicare program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/health/policy/gao-says-medicare-test-project-is-wasting-8-billion.html?_r=2&ref=us

[Atlanteax]

"ObamaCare" was rotten the day it showed up in Congress for 'debate'.

[Ryvicke]

Whoa PB, you posted something interesting! Comparing reporting to opinion on this was pretty neat.

Of course--why does this all matter? The Supreme Court is obviously going to repeal this unconstitutional filth way before October, right?

[Atlanteax]

Whoa PB, you posted something interesting! Comparing reporting to opinion on this was pretty neat.

Of course--why does this all matter? The Supreme Court is obviously going to repeal this unconstitutional filth way before October, right?

Inertia in Government practically ensures this will be a problem/issue come Oct/Nov regardless.

[Back]

If that experimental program within Medicare is in fact wasting 8 billion dollars then scrap it. I don't see the big issue.

[TheEschaton]

Fuck DB errors, I had a whoie long response to this which I lost. In summation:

1) Seriously PB, can you not see the difference between these articles? One says the experiment failed, the other said there is no experiment and it's all a political slush fund fueled by taxpayer dollars to illegally prop up the President's re-election.

2) Part C (allowing benefits through private insurers) Medicare was implemented in 1997 under Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress, the last President to run a surplus in the budget. It cut 112b dollars from the Medicare budget.

3) the Medicare Modernization Act, signed by Bush, passed by a Republican Congress (216-215 in the House to show you how close it was), renamed Part C to Medicare Advantage, raised payments and the kinds of services MA could bill the government for, and essentially propped up the private insurers who lobbied hard for those changes. It also passed Part D, a prescription plan, ONLY available through private insurers and HMOs, that was voluntary and subsidized expanded prescription coverage, largely seen as another subsidy to big pharmaceuticals.

4) ACA (or "Obamacare" if you can't think of it neutrally), is trimming back on this private boondoggle. Despite passing in 2010, most of it doesn't take affect til 2012-2014 to provide what the Post derided so casually, the flexibility to allow a massive industry to get up to code.

5) In that transition period (a lot of provisions are kicking in in January of 2012), HHS seems to have been trying to use a demonstration to pursue better services by incentivizing it. It is, by most measures, overly broad, not meeting the benchmarks it is setting, and thus failing, leading to the GAO's recommendation to squash it. This doesn't mean there wasn't an experiment, it just means the experiment failed. The only arguable thing here is that the HHS is taking a different tack here, saying that by spreading the money over the whole industry, they're hoping to encourage rapid changes, system-wide. This is a point which can be argued against, and I'd love to have that debate here (as I don't know where I stand on that anyways).

6) The gap HHS is trying to fill was created by the very flexibility of ACA, in the race to the bottom of coverage and services between 2010 and 2012 by private insurers and HMOs, when they'll be forbidden from certain changes.

7) TL;DR: HHS is trying to prop up a failed Bush policy during a transition period where private insurers are trying to ensure their bottom line by slashing services and coverages before they are legally forbidden from doing so further. Transition is usually painful, but I find it hilarious you (and the NY Post) are trying to politicize what was a political farce by your side, to begin with. We don't even need to go into the shenanigans that Hastert (who sponsored the 2003 MMA) went through to pass the bill, including refusing to close voting on the bill when the count stood against it.

And yes, my lost post was longer than this.

[Atlanteax]

What did you not comprehend TheE?

The extra $8 billion allocated is for political purposes.

[Latrinsorm]

Fuck DB errors, I had a whoie long response to this which I lost. In summation:

1) Seriously PB, can you not see the difference between these articles? One says the experiment failed, the other said there is no experiment and it's all a political slush fund fueled by taxpayer dollars to illegally prop up the President's re-election.

2) Part C (allowing benefits through private insurers) Medicare was implemented in 1997 under Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress, the last President to run a surplus in the budget. It cut 112b dollars from the Medicare budget.

3) the Medicare Modernization Act, signed by Bush, passed by a Republican Congress (216-215 in the House to show you how close it was), renamed Part C to Medicare Advantage, raised payments and the kinds of services MA could bill the government for, and essentially propped up the private insurers who lobbied hard for those changes. It also passed Part D, a prescription plan, ONLY available through private insurers and HMOs, that was voluntary and subsidized expanded prescription coverage, largely seen as another subsidy to big pharmaceuticals.

4) ACA (or "Obamacare" if you can't think of it neutrally), is trimming back on this private boondoggle. Despite passing in 2010, most of it doesn't take affect til 2012-2014 to provide what the Post derided so casually, the flexibility to allow a massive industry to get up to code.

5) In that transition period (a lot of provisions are kicking in in January of 2012), HHS seems to have been trying to use a demonstration to pursue better services by incentivizing it. It is, by most measures, overly broad, not meeting the benchmarks it is setting, and thus failing, leading to the GAO's recommendation to squash it. This doesn't mean there wasn't an experiment, it just means the experiment failed. The only arguable thing here is that the HHS is taking a different tack here, saying that by spreading the money over the whole industry, they're hoping to encourage rapid changes, system-wide. This is a point which can be argued against, and I'd love to have that debate here (as I don't know where I stand on that anyways).

6) The gap HHS is trying to fill was created by the very flexibility of ACA, in the race to the bottom of coverage and services between 2010 and 2012 by private insurers and HMOs, when they'll be forbidden from certain changes.

7) TL;DR: HHS is trying to prop up a failed Bush policy during a transition period where private insurers are trying to ensure their bottom line by slashing services and coverages before they are legally forbidden from doing so further. Transition is usually painful, but I find it hilarious you (and the NY Post) are trying to politicize what was a political farce by your side, to begin with. We don't even need to go into the shenanigans that Hastert (who sponsored the 2003 MMA) went through to pass the bill, including refusing to close voting on the bill when the count stood against it.

And yes, my lost post was longer than this.Are you allowed to include a TL;DR in an enumerated list?

Boom, lawyered?

Congressional parliamentaries, how do they work?

[Kembal]

Wasn't the cut to Medicare Advantage on the order of $135+ billion over 10 years?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/13/opinion-the-health-laws-massive-medicare-advantage-cuts/

That link says $145 billion. I don't see anything spells out the schedule of cuts over the 10 years, outside of the fact that no cuts happened in 2011. (payment structure was just frozen) It's called a gradual cut over time.

This is $8.3 billion over 10 years, with 80 percent of the cost over the first three years. That's 6.64 billion over three years. I don't see this amount of bonus money replacing the entire cut for 2012, though it certainly reduces the effects. It'd be nice if we had that info to look at, and I have to presume this is the journalist's fault for not doing that legwork.

What I also don't see is an explanation as to what specific health care outcomes Medicare officials expected to approve with the bonus payments. I don't know whether to blame the journalist or the Medicare officials for this missing detail. (i.e. the detail doesn't exist or the journalist didn't do their job in reporting it.)

Another link worth reading, from last year:

http://blogs.courant.com/connecticut_insurance/2011/04/obama-administration-spares-fu.html

Apparently it's been kicking around for a year.

[Tgo01]

Speaking of cuts to Medicare didn't Obama claim to have magical abilities to cut fraud and waste from Medicare thus he wasn't really proposing to cut Medicare, he was just going to cut the waste and fraud and use that money to help fund Obamacare?

How did that turn out by the way? Seems everyone "forgot" that bit after the law was passed.

[Kembal]

Speaking of cuts to Medicare didn't Obama claim to have magical abilities to cut fraud and waste from Medicare thus he wasn't really proposing to cut Medicare, he was just going to cut the waste and fraud and use that money to help fund Obamacare?

How did that turn out by the way? Seems everyone "forgot" that bit after the law was passed.

They're working on it. (albeit, slowly)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/07/health-care-reform-returns-surprising-1-5-billion-medicare-savings.html

Also, the administration had the guy in there who could probably fix it in a straightforward manner, but the Republican Party is vociferously opposed to him running Medicare and refused to allow him a permanent appointment. He had to step down at the end of 2011.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/health/policy/parting-shot-at-waste-by-key-obama-health-official.html?_r=2

[Tgo01]

They're working on it. (albeit, slowly)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/07/health-care-reform-returns-surprising-1-5-billion-medicare-savings.html


Under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, better known as his health-care-reform package, which has been vocally opposed by Republicans, drug makers were required to offer all drugs in the doughnut hole—any that fell within the $2,800-to-$4,550 range—to be sold at a 50 percent discount, which has led to the savings.

In other words so far Obamacare has not saved Medicare a dime in fraud and waste like he promised? Shocker.

[Rinualdo]

In other words so far Obamacare has not saved Medicare a dime in fraud and waste like he promised? Shocker.

Not a dime.


WASHINGTON — The government plans to announce today that the 2010 health care law will save Medicare beneficiaries $208 billion through 2020, and save Medicare itself $200 billion through 2016, based on a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services actuary report.

"We have achieved significant tangible savings that have been passed on to beneficiaries," said Jonathan Blum, director of the Center for Medicare. "There's a tremendous opportunity for even greater savings."



The new numbers are based on savings so far: 32.5 million people used preventive services last year with no costs to themselves, senior citizens saved $3.2 billion for prescription drugs that fall in the "doughnut hole" in 2010 and 2011, and the government recovered $4.1 billion in 2011 in anti-fraud efforts.

In March, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the insurance provisions of the law will now cost $50 billion less than originally estimated in March 2011.

http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2012-04-23-Medicare-report_ST_U.htm

[Parkbandit]

They're working on it. (albeit, slowly)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/07/health-care-reform-returns-surprising-1-5-billion-medicare-savings.html

Also, the administration had the guy in there who could probably fix it in a straightforward manner, but the Republican Party is vociferously opposed to him running Medicare and refused to allow him a permanent appointment. He had to step down at the end of 2011.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/health/policy/parting-shot-at-waste-by-key-obama-health-official.html?_r=2

:rofl:

[Tgo01]

and the government recovered $4.1 billion in 2011 in anti-fraud efforts.

So 4.1 billion dollars so far? I'll admit I AM shocked. However that's a far cry from the 50 billion dollars a year Obama promised to save.

Let's see if the 4.1 billion figure goes up or down this year.

[Tgo01]

I googled "anti-fraud Medicare" to see if I could find any contradicting numbers to what Rinualdo posted there but I decided to stop after the first link I checked out gave me this (http://www.govexec.com/technology/2012/02/medicare-anti-fraud-software-disappoints-senators/41306/):


Software designed to help Medicare managers zero in on fraudulent claims is showing disappointing results, according to three senators who evaluated a program that the Health and Human Services Department praises as an effective new anti-fraud tool.

The Fraud Prevention system, a $77 million predictive analytics software program that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has been using since summer 2011, scans multiple Medicare claim invoices and kicks out suspicious patterns, such as high-volume wheelchair purchases in one location.

...

But recently summarized results reported only $7,591 in suspended payments, among other indicators, a total called “disappointing” by Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Federal Financial Management Subcommittee. Carper has been monitoring Obama administration efforts to reduce improper payments from government.

Only in America would we spend 77 million dollars to save 7,591 dollars.

[Ryvicke]

I googled "anti-fraud Medicare" to see if I could find any contradicting numbers to what Rinualdo posted there but I decided to stop after the first link I checked out gave me this (http://www.govexec.com/technology/2012/02/medicare-anti-fraud-software-disappoints-senators/41306/):

Only in America would we spend 77 million dollars to save 7,591 dollars.

Might want to keep reading your own links, buddy:


Leads from the program had resulted in nine overpayment determinations, valued at $2,196,369, and had prompted 437 new investigations and aided 351 existing investigations with real-time information, Budetti added. He said CMS also has revoked Medicare billing privileges and has initiated 26 revocation actions against providers and suppliers based on leads generated by the system, affecting providers who were paid $7,366,974.

And that's in half a year since they've been tweaking the metric of the software.

Same guy overseeing the further development of that software seems generally pretty happy with the work that CMS is doing:


Earlier this month Carper praised CMS’ Medicare Recovery Audit Contractors program for recouping $797 million in 2011 and for being “on track to double the amount of recovered overpayments this year compared to last year.”

Cool article though, it's nice to know that electeds are overseeing things like that and pushing for progress.

[Tgo01]

Leads from the program had resulted in nine overpayment determinations, valued at $2,196,369, and had prompted 437 new investigations and aided 351 existing investigations with real-time information, Budetti added.

I'm probably just being cynical again but that sounds like some guy trying to defend his job and pet project. I'm sure this system also serves coffee in the morning and does the nation's taxes too.


He said CMS also has revoked Medicare billing privileges and has initiated 26 revocation actions against providers and suppliers based on leads generated by the system, affecting providers who were paid $7,366,974

That doesn't say how much the system supposedly saved them.

Even going by the 2 million dollar figure and the fact that it's been running for only 6 months, that means it will only take 18 years to recoup the initial cost of the program.

[Rinualdo]

Did you miss this from the article, dated today, that I linked?



and the government recovered $4.1 billion in 2011 in anti-fraud efforts.

or do you dispute those findings?

[Tgo01]

Did you miss this from the article, dated today, that I linked?



or do you dispute those findings?

I quoted those exact same words and commented on them already.

[Ryvicke]

I think he used the same argument they loved in the Buffett thread: oh it only saves the country $XXXX Billion?? FUCK IT THEN NOT WORTH IT.

[Tgo01]

Libtards be trollin' me!

[Jarvan]

Want to hear something funny..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ap-newsbreak-competitive-bidding-found-to-reduce-medicare-waste-and-fraud-on-medical-devices/2012/04/18/gIQAJk7gQT_story.html

Interesting article on what seems like a new study to save money in Medicare...

BUT

Surprise..

It was also done back when Bush was in Office.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6331

That's the bill that was voted on to NOT allow competitive bidding on medical devices. You can do your own google searches on some of the original study's findings, but one example was.. A walker purchased by the government cost 110 Dollars, the person could buy the same walker at walmart for 59.92.

And yet when it came time to move the study from 10 cities in 10 states to 200 cities, and eventually nationwide.. what did Almost all The elected officials do? Tabled it for 18 months due to pressure from the Medical device industry.

Yes Repubs voted for the bill to table it. The current speaker even pushed for the inclusion of the line that did it too. I WOULD like to point out that every House dem Dem voted either for the veto of the bill, or didn't vote.
Same thing in the Senate.. only repubs didn't vote to veto it. with 2 dems and 2 repubs not voting.

Of course Mr Obama soon to be President didn't vote. Not sure at the time he knew HOW to vote to be honest. Also he was never in DC really in 2008. He had a new job to win.

So Basically.. for 4 Years AT LEAST we as a country have known how to eliminate a decent chunk of fraud and abuse from Medicare. Lower prices for Seniors, and save money.

What did we do?

Pay for another study.

Yeah.. we are doing a GREAT job.

[TheEschaton]

So, no answer to what I posted from the right?

(Except for Atlanteax's nonsensical answer which clearly shows his slipping grasp on reality?)

[Atlanteax]

So, no answer to what I posted from the right?

You did not post anything of relevance to the discussion about it being wasteful spending.