Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I hate it when you make it clear you haven't read half my posts. We've talked about this one before.

There's this great thing called the veto. If the Republicans are too busy crying to the courts to undo stuff they wouldn't even discuss or negotiate on when it was in Congress, screw them. They don't get a shot at undoing it until Sarah Pallin's in the White House.

By the way, that 1099 thing that Hank was complaining about? The Dems proposed a revision to the Health Care bill that would have eliminated the 1099 requirement as an amendment to the Tax Bill, and the Rs voted it down.

I read that. It'd be one of the rare moments in history where the veto'd be overridden. For obvious reasons, like the fact that such unfunded spending would essentially destroy our ability to borrow on sustainable terms.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

We've had a two tier system for decades. Ever actually spent time in a county hosptial?

Yeah, but we're trending toward a situation where physicians will say, "Fuck it. I'm out of Medicare." And unlike before, where money had other places to seek returns, investors looking for large returns in domestic markets will make more and more enticing offers to bring docs into exclusive provider structures. It isn't hard to buy a doctor.

Obviously, the country's splitting up economically. You can harvest the lower and middle class for margins here and there as banks have been doing for years. But those people are becoming dead wells. You want to get decent returns w/o going abroad, you have to find a way to start culling more money from the upper middle and well off folks. I can't think of a better way to do that than by offering them more forms of concierge-like care. I don't know the specific way it will look, but somebody's going to do it in a big way, and the selling points are going to be lack of waiting time and simplicity of transaction.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There are all kinds of new models out there, but the best health care still comes from charitable hospitals without for-profit investors.

Currently. Buckets of money seeking better returns from a targeted, limited market of purchaser can flip that assessment on its head overnight. As I said, it's not hard to buy a doctor.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I read that. It'd be one of the rare moments in history where the veto'd be overridden. For obvious reasons, like the fact that such unfunded spending would essentially destroy our ability to borrow on sustainable terms.

Contra, pending tax bill.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

It's almost like that Virginia judge had his mind made up before he got to the key legal issues.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Currently. Buckets of money seeking better returns from a targeted, limited market of purchaser can flip that assessment on its head overnight. As I said, it's not hard to buy a doctor.

Partners Healthcare in Boston has revenues of $7 billion per year and over 40,000 employees. And that revenue excludes everything paid to phsyicians who aren't based at the Hospital.

And that's just two of the seventeen medical institutions that make up the Harvard Teaching Hospitals.

Where you going to find a bigger bucket than that?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's almost like that Virginia judge had his mind made up before he got to the key legal issues.

But see: A closer look at Judge Hudson’s opinion, however, shows that he did not conflate the concepts of express and implied powers, nor did he deny the concept of implied federal power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. In fact, Judge Hudson clearly embraced the standard understanding of the Clause. According to Hudson, “[a]lthough the Necessary and Proper Clause vests Congress with broad authority to exercise means, which are not themselves an enumerated power, to implement legislation, it is not without limitation.”

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

But see: A closer look at Judge Hudson’s opinion, however, shows that he did not conflate the concepts of express and implied powers, nor did he deny the concept of implied federal power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. In fact, Judge Hudson clearly embraced the standard understanding of the Clause. According to Hudson, “[a]lthough the Necessary and Proper Clause vests Congress with broad authority to exercise means, which are not themselves an enumerated power, to implement legislation, it is not without limitation.”

(1) Haven't read the decision.

(2) I'm not impressed with the last sentence quoted above as a textual basis for this argument. But perhaps there's more.

(3) In exchanges between Orin Kerr and others at Volokh, he usually comes out looking better, IMHO.

eta:

(4) There are other, older posts at Volokh (e.g., Jonathan Adler this morning) on the subject that are more persuasive to me than the above.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

(1) Haven't read the decision.

(2) I'm not impressed with the last sentence quoted above as a textual basis for this argument. But perhaps there's more.

(3) In exchanges between Orin Kerr and others at Volokh, he usually comes out looking better, IMHO.

I haven't read the whole opinion, and I don't necessarily have a view about who is right, but my point was that it might not be quite as clear as the TPM writer made it out to be.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I haven't read the whole opinion, and I don't necessarily have a view about who is right, but my point was that it might not be quite as clear as the TPM writer made it out to be.

It's crazy how much money you all wasted to pass something unconstituitional on it's face.

[Replaced_Texan]

The Republicans were pretty certain that they could get away with filibustering the 9/11 first responders bill because they knew that none of the major networks would cover it.

Jon Stewart, though, covered it, saying at one point that if the Republicans didn't owe the first responders health care, at the very least, they owed them royalties. Pretty devastatingly.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

The Republicans were pretty certain that they could get away with filibustering the 9/11 first responders bill because they knew that none of the major networks would cover it.

Jon Stewart, though, covered it, saying at one point that if the Republicans didn't owe the first responders health care, at the very least, they owed them royalties. Pretty devastatingly.

is the bill one sentence? or is it possible it might be more complicated, cause like I remember the R's were bad for opposing extending unemployment, but now the Dems are and they're good.

I'm a simple man. Can someone help me understand?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

It's crazy how much money you all wasted to pass something unconstituitional on it's face.

Well, so far the judge count is 2-1, so I'm not sure it is quite as clear as you suggest.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Well, so far the judge count is 2-1, so I'm not sure it is quite as clear as you suggest.

all they need is 1. it's like being pregnant. no such thing as a slightly unconstitutional.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

is the bill one sentence? or is it possible it might be more complicated, cause like I remember the R's were bad for opposing extending unemployment, but now the Dems are and they're good.

I'm a simple man. Can someone help me understand?

The Dems aren't good, but not for that reason.