I was wondering if we could have a thread dedicated to updates regarding the SCOTUS arguments over ObamaCare coming up this week. This is just a reflection of the fact that I'm very interested in this as a topic and I bet there are some here who are interested in the outcome as well. So, if you have links to articles or video of the arguments being made in front of the SCOTUS, it'd be cool if you would post them here as well as any insights or points you'd like to make regarding the legislation.
My understanding is that today was a 90 minute discussion on the Tax Anti Injunction Act. This act states, as far as I can tell, that no new tax may be struck down until it is first laid and someone negatively affected by the tax files suit; in essence, today's argument was, "is the individual mandate a 'penalty' or a 'tax'?" Tomorrow, oral argument is 2 hours long and focuses primarily on the individual mandate and whether this is constitutional.
Wednesday, the issue of severability is argued over the course of 90 minutes (for instance, how much of the rest of the legislation, if any, is repealed as a result of the potential repeal of the individual mandate).
Later on Wednesday afternoon, the medicaid requirments imposed on the states by the PPACA is argued for one hour.
That's 6 hours of oral argument spread over three days- which is the longest time allotted for an issue for in the past 47 years (the prize, for who can tell me what the issue was that elicited longer argument,is my thanks!). Here are some videos I've found regarding the matter:
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
I don't understand Ginzburg's argument. Shouldn't someone deciding NOT to buy a product drive the prices for the product down, not up?
(Sean Hannity today: "If I decide to stay home and not buy a Ferrari, I bet it will drive the prices for Ferraris up. Or maybe it will drive them down, I don't know; I am not an economist. My point is...".)
If the argument is that when the people buy insurance only when they are sick, they drive the expenses of insurance companies up, 1) shouldn't the price someone charging for a product depend strictly on supply and demand, not on the expenses incurred in production of the product? 2) why can't insurance companies charge a higher premium for that person?
(I know, the problem with the argument is that they they are forced to pay for someone's pre-existing condition.)
Can't they just follow in the great and noble tradition of nullification?
proxyamenra: Can't they just follow in the great and noble tradition of nullification?
"NEO-CONFEDERATE!"
Exactly what I was referencing. Both Bob and Tom have a good sense of humor.
Day 3
1) The expenses incurred from the production of the good in question affects the supply of that good. As a determinant of supply, the costs of producing a good affects the supply of that good and affects the price of the good in that manner. Explains Shostak:
How prices are determined Contrary to the mainstream view, prices are not just given; they are set by somebody. This somebody is a producer. Whenever a producer sets a price for his product, it is in his interest to secure a price where the quantity that is produced can be sold at a profit. In setting this price, the producer/entrepreneur will have to consider how much money consumers are likely to spend on the product, the prices of various competitive products, and the cost of production. Producers set the price, but consumers, by buying or abstaining from buying, are the final decision-makers as to whether the price set will lead to a profit. Producers in this regard are at the total mercy of consumers. If, at a set price, a producer cannot make a positive return on his investment because not enough people are willing to buy his product, the producer will be forced to lower the price to boost turnover. Obviously, by adjusting the price of the good, the entrepreneur must also adjust his costs in order to make a profit. Consequently, a producer will secure a profit when, at the set price of a good, consumer buying will generate revenue that will exceed the cost plus interest. Profit is an indication that both producers and consumers have improved their well-being. In short, by investing a given amount of money, producers have secured a greater amount of money. This, in turn, enables them to secure a greater amount of goods and services, which in turn promotes their lives and well-being. Likewise, consumers, by exchanging their money for goods that are on their highest-priority lists, have raised their living standards. In actual fact, price-setting is never mechanistic and automatic. It is up to the producer/entrepreneur to assess whether it is a good or a bad idea to raise prices; after all, what matters for him is making a profit. When a good makes a profit at a particular price, then it is a signal to entrepreneurs that consumers are willing to support the product at the set price. Prices, therefore, are an important factor in establishing how producers/entrepreneurs employ their resources. Observe, then, that what determines the amount of goods supplied is not some hypothetical demand schedule, but a producer's appraisal as to whether, at a given place and a given time, consumers will approve of the goods supplied. Also, no producer is engaged in hypothetical ideas regarding the amount he will supply at varying prices. He has to be as accurate as possible in setting the right price that will enable him to sell his supply at a profit.
Contrary to the mainstream view, prices are not just given; they are set by somebody. This somebody is a producer. Whenever a producer sets a price for his product, it is in his interest to secure a price where the quantity that is produced can be sold at a profit. In setting this price, the producer/entrepreneur will have to consider how much money consumers are likely to spend on the product, the prices of various competitive products, and the cost of production.
Producers set the price, but consumers, by buying or abstaining from buying, are the final decision-makers as to whether the price set will lead to a profit. Producers in this regard are at the total mercy of consumers. If, at a set price, a producer cannot make a positive return on his investment because not enough people are willing to buy his product, the producer will be forced to lower the price to boost turnover. Obviously, by adjusting the price of the good, the entrepreneur must also adjust his costs in order to make a profit.
Consequently, a producer will secure a profit when, at the set price of a good, consumer buying will generate revenue that will exceed the cost plus interest. Profit is an indication that both producers and consumers have improved their well-being.
In short, by investing a given amount of money, producers have secured a greater amount of money. This, in turn, enables them to secure a greater amount of goods and services, which in turn promotes their lives and well-being. Likewise, consumers, by exchanging their money for goods that are on their highest-priority lists, have raised their living standards.
In actual fact, price-setting is never mechanistic and automatic. It is up to the producer/entrepreneur to assess whether it is a good or a bad idea to raise prices; after all, what matters for him is making a profit. When a good makes a profit at a particular price, then it is a signal to entrepreneurs that consumers are willing to support the product at the set price. Prices, therefore, are an important factor in establishing how producers/entrepreneurs employ their resources.
Observe, then, that what determines the amount of goods supplied is not some hypothetical demand schedule, but a producer's appraisal as to whether, at a given place and a given time, consumers will approve of the goods supplied.
Also, no producer is engaged in hypothetical ideas regarding the amount he will supply at varying prices. He has to be as accurate as possible in setting the right price that will enable him to sell his supply at a profit.
"2) why can't insurance companies charge a higher premium for that [sick, as a preexisting condition] person?" But... but ... immoral capitalism ... A lot of problems regarding coverage are related to government interventions that reduce the supply of medical care and increase demand for it. As the prices for certain goods go up, insurance companies are forced to reduce prices somehow and this often manifests in reducing coverage for certain ailments. Ironically, the provision of the PPACA that provides a penalty (Not enough Americans have health care? We'll make it illegal not to have it! Fixed.) for refusing to buy a government approved healthcare plan is low enough so that it pays to not be covered, and pay the penalty, and then be covered once one becomes ill- imagine the effect this will have on premiums and prices. Tom Woods goes into great detail on Obamacare and government intervention in the health insurance market in this book, if you are still curious:
What does any of that have to do with "updates regarding the SCOTUS arguments over ObamaCare"?
Meh, it's related to Obamacare. But yeah, it's not relevent to SCOTUS arguments on it. Mea culpa. Edit: By the way, John James, who's the one who posted the video of Interview with a Zombie? ;)
ThatOldGuy:Edit: By the way, John James, who's the one who posted the video of Interview with a Zombie? ;)
I did. (Technically it was the blooper tape of Interview with a Zombie)....Posted in response to your reference (which you admitted was precisely the interview I linked to.)
So if you really want to play this "you started it" game, you might ultimately blame proxyamenra for that that one. (And then yourself, for responding with a joke reply, of course.)
Nancy: 'We knew what we were doing ...' Congressional members and Senators openly admit to not having read the bill before having voted for it. In other news today:
Obama agenda: SCOTUS holds initial vote today
Hehehe....
Obama basically says the court shouldn't overturn a law if it was enacted by a majority of Congress.
Starts at about 4:15
I think the only thing that this guy [Obama] knows how to do well is obfuscate the truth. The appeal to ignorance is his only weapon.
President Barack Obama claimed confidence that his landmark health care law would be upheld by the Supreme Court despite the widely held consensus from legal experts that last week’s oral arguments before the court did not go well for the administration. Obama also implied that ruling the law unconstitutional would be "unprecedented" and could be viewed as “judicial activism.” “We are confident that this will be over – that this will be upheld,” Obama said on Monday from the White House. “I’m confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. Again, that’s not just my opinion. That’s the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors, academics and judges.” Obama also said it would be “unprecedented” if the court took the “extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
President Barack Obama claimed confidence that his landmark health care law would be upheld by the Supreme Court despite the widely held consensus from legal experts that last week’s oral arguments before the court did not go well for the administration. Obama also implied that ruling the law unconstitutional would be "unprecedented" and could be viewed as “judicial activism.”
“We are confident that this will be over – that this will be upheld,” Obama said on Monday from the White House. “I’m confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. Again, that’s not just my opinion. That’s the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors, academics and judges.”
Obama also said it would be “unprecedented” if the court took the “extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
Sounds like someone is concerned for their signature legislation.
I was totally about to make this video. Glad I found someone else did before I got around to it:
Peter Schiff Rips Obama's Ignorance of Supreme Court History & Precedent 04-03-12
This article was posted yesterday:
Update: No Health Care Decision From Supreme Court Today
The court just finished issuing its opinions and other orders for the day. Neither the health care nor campaign finance cases were among them. So we'll repeat this process on Thursday.
The court just finished issuing its opinions and other orders for the day. Neither the health care nor campaign finance cases were among them.
So we'll repeat this process on Thursday.
This delay almost leads one to believe that something is going on behind the scenes at the White House.
And teh Judge:
"This delay almost leads one to believe that something is going on behind the scenes at the White House."
Does anyone feel the possibility of something similar to the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 a la FDR? There are, after all, 4 justices over the age of 70 and 6 months.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.