Health Care Open Thread Smackdown

Talk about health care to your heart’s content, as much as it takes to get it out of your system so the rest of the site can stick to real estate and housing. Note that comments posted here will not clutter up the “recent comments” box on the sidebar.

As of 03/31/2010, health care comments go here and here only.


About The Tim

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market.

507 comments:

  1. 501
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 249:

    RE: pfft @ 248 – Go back and read the opinion again, particularly the part about throwing out the entire law due to no severability clause and the part about why the court did not issue an injunction.

    If the administration does not appeal that case (and time is running out on that), then they lost on the issue in a case involving a final decision, and that will be binding on them nationwide. That’s why Alaska is not doing anything to implement Obamacare at this time. They don’t have to. It currently is not the law of the land.

    yes it is.

    Judge Hudson, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, declined the plaintiff’s request to suspend the act’s implementation pending appeal, meaning there should be no immediate effect on its rollout.

    Judge Voids Key Element of Obama Health Care Law
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html?_r=1

    more judges have ruled constitutional than unconstitutional.

  2. 502
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    RE: pfft @ 1 – Different decision. The one I’m referring to wasn’t even decided in 2010, when that article was written. Also, it’s not like you keep score with the decisions. That doesn’t affect the fact that the government was a party to a lawsuit which threw out the entire act. Until that is stayed, that decision is binding on the government.

  3. 503
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 2:

    RE: pfft @ 1 – Different decision. The one I’m referring to wasn’t even decided in 2010, when that article was written. Also, it’s not like you keep score with the decisions. That doesn’t affect the fact that the government was a party to a lawsuit which threw out the entire act. Until that is stayed, that decision is binding on the government.

    the healthcare law is in effect. that is a fact. prove otherwise. show me how lost their coverage after they had it government mandated.

    you’re wrong.

  4. 504
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    RE: pfft @ 3 – If you don’t understand the law, don’t try to make claims about what the law is.

    But to answer part of your question, an insurance company is very unlikely to change its coverage as a result of the decision that struck down Obamacare. If a stay is granted (likely), they’d have to change back, so all that effort would be for nothing. That also ignores the time it takes them to make changes.

    But for probably the third or fourth time, Alaska is not making the changes required by Obamacare.

    Also, I’d note that apparently the US Government doesn’t agree with you, and have asked the judge to clarify his opinion.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/49060220/Motion-to-Clarify

  5. 505
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 4:

    RE: pfft @ 3 – If you don’t understand the law, don’t try to make claims about what the law is.

    But to answer part of your question, an insurance company is very unlikely to change its coverage as a result of the decision that struck down Obamacare. If a stay is granted (likely), they’d have to change back, so all that effort would be for nothing. That also ignores the time it takes them to make changes.

    But for probably the third or fourth time, Alaska is not making the changes required by Obamacare.

    Also, I’d note that apparently the US Government doesn’t agree with you, and have asked the judge to clarify his opinion.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/49060220/Motion-to-Clarify

    look on the right, it’s still the law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

    so far the latest ruling was to uphold obamacare. the score is 3-2 in favor of it being constitutional.

    “Alaska is not making the changes required by Obamacare.”

    who cares?

  6. 506
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    RE: pfft @ 5 – Again, if you don’t understand the law, don’t try to make claims about what the law is. Go to law school and learn about what the effect is of losing a court decision prior to appealing it and obtaining a stay pending appeal.

    BTW, the judge’s response to the government’s motion for clarification should be interesting. If I were the government lawyer that signed that thing I’d be having a few restless nights.

  7. 507
    Kary L. Krismer says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 6 – I’m going to back off a bit on this issue. I was struck by how little authority was cited by the government in its motion, but there was one Supreme Court case which has language which supports their position. That language is given without any citation of authority, however. Having read a few cases now, I’m not convinced either way. It’s possible a stay pending appeal might not be necessary–but seemingly an appeal would be. And that has not occurred, that I’m aware.

    So, currently I still think the law is out, but it may only take a notice of appeal to change that. In any case, if a notice of appeal is filed, I would think a stay pending appeal would be likely.

Leave a Reply

Use your email address to sign up with Gravatar for a custom avatar.
Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Please read the rules before posting a comment.