Comments on: When the Supreme Court leaks A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: TFF Tue, 03 Jul 2012 11:13:12 +0000 @y2kurtus, that is an excellent point. If you add in the federal subsidy of the health insurers, that figure would rise even higher.

It remains to be seen how the ObamaCare bill plays out, but if the public enrollment grows at the expense of the private enrollment, you eventually reach a point at which the economics are unsustainable. We might already be past that point. Single-payer is the logical next step.

There are only two ways to spend less on health care. Either you limit access or you streamline the system. Whether the final bill is paid by individuals, by employers, or by the federal government, that fundamental equation doesn’t change. A single-payer system OUGHT to be more streamlined (though I do have some qualms about losing the cost-control expertise of the HMO and PBM businesses).

Moreover, having the government fund health care directly eliminates the mess of incentives/disincentives that are currently embedded in the employer-funded system. Presently, every household needs ONE person employed in a job that offers health care benefits. (Typically worth 25% or more of the base salary for a family plan.) But if the second worker also takes such a job, the valuable benefit is wasted. It is a perverse disincentive for a spouse NOT to work.

By: y2kurtus Tue, 03 Jul 2012 02:34:58 +0000 @FifthDecade… “the four opposing Supreme Justices seem to be showing how much partisanship can undermine the foundations of democracy.”

From reading dozens of your comments I feel like we are on the same page of most social issues. On this one thought we are miles apart. Even as a right winger I’d rather see a single payer system than what we just got.

Goverment currently pays 60-65% of the entire U.S. healthcare bill between Medicare, Medicade, Tricare, and health insurance on federal employees. My deep opposition to the supreem court ruling has nothing whatsoever to do with healthcare. If you want single payer (and I think a majority would support it at this point) than do it… but don’t mandate people to buy a product from a private company.

The gang of 4 are right… the relationship of the goverment and the citizen are forever changed… by this ruling.

By: MikeCooper Mon, 02 Jul 2012 20:44:06 +0000 One leak not so much discussed is the decision itself, which seems to have slipped out early Thursday morning to a select few traders. HCA Holdings jumped significantly on release of the decision, but buying volume during the hour before strongly suggests advance knowledge was somehow available. This chart makes it pretty clear: me-court-decision-leaked-to-inside-trade rs/

The politicization is bad enough; that someone was, in effect, selling the news seems even worse.

By: bmz Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:32:20 +0000 In Europe generally, judges are civil servants; they are basically academicians who are selected by merit without political interference. In the United States generally, a judgeship is a political reward; and the higher the court, the greater the reward’s value and political control. Politics have corrupted our judiciary; and the courts have returned the favor by corrupting politics. Every authentic constitutional scholar knows what a travesty Bush v. Gore was (The Court ruled, inter alia, that counting the Florida votes would constitute an irrevocable injury to Bush; but not counting the votes would not constitute a similar injury to Gore). Subsequent to that decision, the “non-activist” Court has been on an orgy of overturning accepted precedent and law, including those restricting corporate funding of elections. As a result, virtually unlimited corporate money has been let loose into our political process. To most politicians, the power which comes with being elected is their most valued possession. And, those in high office who support the interests of the 1%, can now count on virtually unlimited funds to help them obtain/retain that most valued possession. This reciprocal corruption between the courts and politics is really what has brought us to where we are today.

By: InfiniteThought Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:13:26 +0000 The lack of intellectual honesty from GOP has been made possible by near-infinite donations from rich men and an ever slavish media that refuses to ask tough questions to policy makers

When was the last time we saw a media guy ignore “time constrains” and ask any politician – right or left to defend their policy positions. Week after week, i see anchors jumping from one topic to another and not doing justice to any subject that they try and handle

With media like that, and billionaire donors who don’t mind spending millions of dollars, republicans can take any position with such impunity. Don’t blame them for they are most happy to take the advantage handed over the platter.

By: BajaArizona Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:09:07 +0000 Conservative Republicans are playing a zero sum game. All the rules of decency are useful to them only as long as they advance their cause. When perceived as an obstacle, they throw them away without a second’s thought. But watch them wail in anger should the opposition do the same!

By: f.fursty Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:42:29 +0000 It’s been said that justices evolve on the court. There are certainly precedents for that, though I must say not among the 5 conservatives on the court today. It will be interesting to see as time goes on if this decision represents the beginning of an evolution for Roberts or not.

My problem with Roberts from the time of his nomination was not that he was too conservative, though he was that, but rather that he was too young. We had the prospect of a guy serving as Chief Justice for 30+ years. That is too long.

So far there is not much reason to think Roberts will evolve. The best bet is still that he’s playing a long game with this decision, laying the groundwork for a future and sharp restriction of fed govt powers.

But perhaps the 4 conservative justices’ peevish reactions will help move Roberts? He has shown some sensitivity to the court’s and to his own historical reputation. The childishness — I’m taking my toys and going home — as well as the leaks can’t be making Roberts any friendlier to that gang.

Nevertheless, my guess is that by next year he’ll have set this all aside and will be playing nice with the other conservatives as they continue their long-term quest to make this country more economically unequal and less friendly to the rights of the powerless.

By: rb6 Mon, 02 Jul 2012 15:14:45 +0000 I don’t think it took any leaks for Democrats to deduce that Roberts is susceptible to arguments that relate to the Court’s prestige and reputation for non-politically motivated outcomes. He has given several in-depth interviews regarding his goals and judicial philosophy as chief justice.

By: Mar10 Mon, 02 Jul 2012 15:03:10 +0000 What? The relevant leaks were the ones that tipped off Democratic politicians, like Leahy and the President, allowing them to apply selective political pressure. The obvious post-decision conservative leaks are unusual, but minor in comparison and don’t exactly pose a threat to the institution. I think you have to recalibrate your partisanship a bit here.

By: rb6 Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:20:27 +0000 The leaking only occurred after the decision came out, that is, it is no longer immediately consequential.

At least a few court watchers saw in Alito’s reading his dissent from the bench in the juvenile justice case, and the sheer vitriol of Scalia’s dissent in the Arizona “papers please” law signs that the two were exceptionally unhappy, an omen for the result in the ACA.

Not me, I had no idea, except that, when I read the dissent, it did occur to me that Roberts probably changed his mind when it began to dawn on him fully just how radical these four wanted to be. Maybe they wouldn’t compromise enough on severability, for instance, to keep him in the fold. I am assuming to some degree that Breyer’s and Kagan’s willingness to join him in the Medicaid piece of the opinion was perhaps the final price of his willingness to join them in upholding all the other major pieces of the ACA. Just a totally wild guess.