Photo credit: @julesdwit.
A not-for-profit media organization supported by people like you.
Eric Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General and co-chair of the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, talks about the Supreme Court's review of the Affordable Care Act and his amicus brief.
bob from flushing ~
I hear she likes it from behind.
Until i heard Schneiderman just now, i had not heard in all of Tuesday's arguments this telling rationale for saying the commerce in question already existed, was not created just to regulate it:The law that requires hospitals to treat anyone on their doorstep creates a right that already, now (and from birth) puts us all in commerce. Is there anything wrong with that argument? i wonder why nobody else mentioned it. Is it in briefs?
Diseases are NOT contagious!!! read the following articles:
Advice To Parents About Health
ANTHRAX - GOV COMP - BIOSHIELD - Another Bipartisan Multi-Billion Dollar Medical Boondoggle:
CHICKEN POX: Why Do Children Die?
INTRODUCTION TO VACCINATION ISSUE - - Refusing Vaccination: An Introductory Guide to an Informed Choice
PETER DUESBERG - A series on "Accent on Advocacy", AIDS Virus controversy, etc.
Polio Awareness Day - Medical Myths Die Hard, Parts I and II
ROTAVIR VACCINE - Another Phantom Virus
thatgirl from manhattan
An antibiotic injection would not cost $5000 if there was price and treatment competition. we have a monopoly now. not a consumer driven market.
There is considerable evidence that Uninsured peopletend to delay seeking care (and also have lessuse of primary care and worse in-hospital mortality).
In the event that an uninsured person becomes ill witha contagious disease - since they are more likely toavoid care or delay care - they are also likely toSPREAD the disease - including across State lines.This can clearly have an impact on interstate commerceand is an issue under Federal jurisdiction.
Being uninsured therefore is highly likely to havean impact on interstate commerce.
Sadly, I think the discussion yesterday focused tooexclusively on EMERGENCY CARE - rather than also onprimary and screening care and its FEDERAL SCOPE.
gary from queens - are you kidding? emergency care is inflated beyond belief. i was treated recently for a cut that infected my foot on a weekend holiday when a doctor wouldn't be available for three days. i was treated with an intravenous antibiotic, the wound cleaned and dressed, and hobbled out on a therapeutic canvas shoe. the cost billed to my insurance: $5,500 for 30 minutes of care.
otherwise, emergencies are, most often, traumas--drug overdose, car accidents with contusions and broken bones, burn victims from fires. so this is what you think a bandage covers?
In Israel everyone (including the unemployed and welfare recipients) must, by law, pay a certain percentage of income into one of 4 health insurance funds. I had to bail out this deadbeat "friend" of mine in Israel from prison because he was taken to a hospital but had not paid, and did not have the money to pay the hospital bill! Still owes me money too. In Israel, which goes under British common law, you can go to prison for debt! Deadbeat dads can also go to prison.
So, if we mandate that everyone must pay into health insurance, it is probable that eventually non-payment will become a punishable offense in the US too, and not just by fines and other monetary penalties. Eventually it will become at least a misdemeanor.
Bill - what a state single-payer system envisions is healthcare for NYS residents alone, with all the qualifiers that would imply. but yes--the regional cost differential is real/necessary, just as multi-state private providers now must account. it seems to me that if insurance companies are regulated by the individual states, then each state could negotiate for their populace. otherwise, small business people and independent contractors, of which we have a growing number, will wait for some fair way to join a larger pool, and it's looking like the feds will be fought on every front from implementing one.
mind, it, like all of this, barely fixes where healthcare goes wrong most often, which is hyperinflation of cost, versus inconsistent rationing of care.
The problem I have is being forced to pay into a private system that has repeatedly failed its customers.
Being forced to support a private industry whose inevitable priority is profit not quality care is wrong. If there was a single payer option I would agree with Eric Schneiderman.
Are we all in the healthcare market? What about Christian Scientists and other believers in traditional faith healers? Why should they be forced to buy a product that they will not use?
I am a great supporter of President Obama but this issue is one area where I disagree with him and did during his campaign. I have always used alternative medicine ie: homeopathy, chiropractic, etc. and these are rarely or never covered by insurance companies. I don't want to have to pay for something I will most likely never use barring an accident with broken bones etc.
Can we puhleese get off the food references? You guys sound ridiculous! Now we have to deal with this broccoli BS for how long now?
You ADMIT that Congress CREATED a market (as opposed to is job as only REGULATING markets) when it it enacted law that forced hospitals to treat emergencies.
But emergencies are NOT causing the financial squeeze. Bandages are cheap. It's the heart operations and cancer therapies that are expensive, and if you have no insurance, you DONT get full care for those expensive therapies.
AND, you say that the purpose of Obamacare was to make healthcare affordable???!!!! THEN WHY DOESN'T OBAMACARE RESTRICT ITSELF TO THE UNAFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE-----INSTEAD OF MAKING CONDOMS AND DENTAL CAVITIES FREE???!!!
Let's talk about Clarence Thomas and his wife.
One thing that this kind of coverage of the case has me convinced of is that the supreme court was absolutely right to disallow daily audio or live broadcasting of the sessions. This is the last place in the world that we should be trying to dissect 15 second clips - the supreme court is about broad, complex issues that are particularly unsuited to 24-hour news media "analysis".
So now those that can't afford the astronomical prices of health care are "freeloaders"! Geez. This sounds like a Republican argument.
In titles like "attorney general", general is an adjective modifying the noun attorney. That's why the "s" goes after attorney when you pluralize it. It's also why it's technically incorrect to address an attorney general, solicitor general or surgeon general with the title "General". Unfortunately, that has somehow come into common usage. I would think *actual* military generals would be fighting against such degradation of the title.
I appreciate how Schneiderman cuts through the nonsense to point out that, given our right to get emergency medical care at others' expense, we are "born into" the market. A more "market-y" way to put that, which I haven't heard in the coverage, is that we all have an OPTION to receive free health care, whether or not we ever exercise the option, and are thus in the market. The justices who kept saying - "well, I might never get sick and utilize the system" - are missing this point.
Dear That Girl,Good point; but I worry that people from other states would travel to NYS for the better care single provider might supply.
Also, the cost differential for upstate v. downstate is 100% And then add another 30% for Manhattan. Whatever we get had better be flexible in cost per RCOLA (regional cost of living.)
Can you discuss how the cost breakdown is going to work? I've heard so much debate, and not any true discussion of what the cost will be.
Brian,My goodness! Even you, Brian, have fallen to the great misnomer. "General" in "Attorney General" has nothing to do with some take off on a military post. It's intended to be the equivalent to "General Counsel" for a company or organization in that the attorney will handle "general" matters for the company or organization. It was intended to be the same for goverment, too. That's why the plural is "Attorneys General" and not "Attorney Generals." As far as "Surgeon General" is concerned, that's something different. That is a military post. Indeed, he or she even has a uniform to go with it. Does the "Attorney General" of either the U.S. or a state where a uniform other than a pin-stripe suit?
Robert PlautzNew York City
listening to these two sides plus brian, it really does sound like the issues are very simple and well defined, not sure what there is to talk about.
big business fighting (and not very hard) against universal health care. the left's argument, logical as it might be, sounds whiny and sophomoric compared to the right's maddeningly unbending position.
Two thoughts: Your conservative law professor, erudite though he was, was, as I have observed in ALL conservative commentators, breathless in his attacks on this (or any other Republican v Democrat issue). I thought his spitting out of the term "Obamacare" was beneath his supposed dignity.
2nd, the very fact that you used the plural "attorneys general" proves that the term "general" is, in this case, a modifier, rather than a title. The ignorance of the Justices is surprising.
I live and work in New Rochelle. My old Health Insurer was in Hartford CT. My present Health Insurer is in Thousand Oaks, CA. How is this not interstate commerce?
Anyone who thinks health care they get through their job is free is dreaming. Money the employer pays for health care benefits for his employees as money the employer is not getting in salary and is subsidized by us all in the form of tax breaks for the employer.
please ask AG Schneiderman if this act fails, if could NYS enter into a state single-payer scheme.
Verrilli was pathetic! I listened in at one point where Scalia was giving him that flack about the cell phones, and the poor fool couldn't even say something smart like "911 calls are free of charge" in response? Yes, he certainly did choke. I could hear him repeating himself and gulping and stammering as if he were a kid in trouble at the Dean's office. THIS is who we send in to defend an idea? Where did we get him? Scalia had him by the scruff of his neck, was playing with him like a cat with a moribund mouse. I was truly embarrassed for him.
The correct form of address IS NOT "General"
The title is derived from the Frence. He is the Attorney for general, meaning all, matters, the highest supervising Attorney.''Same for US positions.
This is a stiu[pid sad corruprion of the old fashioned title.I've been waiting long time for someone to wake up ansd ask. Thanks for doins so.
Here's an obvious difference between health care and funerals, exercise, broccolil etc.
None of those other things are provided to millions by their employers. Likewise, tens of millions of Americans are not denied those things simply by virtue of being low income, unemployed or the general sky-high price of insurance.
Email addresses are required but never displayed.
Brian Lehrer leads the conversation about what matters most now in local and national politics, our own communities and our lives.
Subscribe on iTunes
WNYC 93.9 FM and AM 820 are New York's flagship public radio
stations, broadcasting the finest programs from NPR, PRI and American Public Media, as well as a wide range of award-winning local
programming. WNYC is a division of
New York Public Radio.