PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Begin on Obamacare



Gerry Clinchy
03-26-2012, 08:11 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/26/supreme-court-signals-health-care-case-wont-be-held-up-over-technicality/

This is already getting interesting

There's an obscure tax law from 1867 that says you can't bring a lawsuit about a tax until someone has actually paid the tax.

So, today the Solcitor General argued that the "penalty" for the individual mandate was NOT a tax. The Justices seem to unanimously agree on that. Justice Ginsburg's logic was that if the law works as desired, no individual will pay the penalty; no revenue would result. That is NOT the anticipated result when a tax is levied. The govt levies a tax in anticipation of collecting revenue. So this penalty cannot be a "tax".

However, this is interesting:





Perhaps the most telling exchange of the day came when Solicitor General Don Verrilli presented the government's case.


He argued that the specific language Congress used -- penalty rather than tax -- prevents an AIA inquiry. But Justice Samuel Alito asked how that position can also square with the government's view that when determining whether the ACA is legal under the Constitution's taxing authority, the exact words Congress used are less significant.


"General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax," Alito asked. "Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act? "


Alito's question suggests that he will further challenge Verrilli on Tuesday.


The tax-versus-penalty issue has been debated and discussed since the ACA passed two years ago. Even Verrilli himself got tripped up in using the nomenclature. In an exchange with Kagan, Verrilli said a person who fails to get insurance and pays the fine wouldn't have to admit to a violation of federal law. Kagan pressed, him asking why that was the case. Twice, he made mention of someone paying a tax.


Breyer jumped in to ask, "Why do you keep saying tax?"


Stepping over the laughter in the courtroom, Verrilli clarified himself to say "tax penalty" and thanked the justice for calling the error to his attention.



What's a "tax penalty" if there is no tax to begin with?

Gerry Clinchy
03-27-2012, 03:56 PM
Atty for the defense, Verilli, seems to be really in over his head, yesterday and today.

Today Ginsburg (we know she thinks our Constitution is antiquated, doesn't contain enough guarantees for human rights and justice), had to literally articulate Verilli's argument for him.

Then Kennedy and Alito both gave Verilli a grilling as well. Not hearing much about Kagan so far.

Wonder who and why Verilli was chosen as the front-man?

Raymond Little
03-27-2012, 04:05 PM
Atty for the defense, Verilli, seems to be really in over his head, yesterday and today.

Today Ginsburg (we know she thinks our Constitution is antiquated, doesn't contain enough guarantees for human rights and justice), had to literally articulate Verilli's argument for him.

Then Kennedy and Alito both gave Verilli a grilling as well. Not hearing much about Kagan so far.

Wonder who and why Verilli was chosen as the front-man?

He drew the "short straw".;)

Gerry Clinchy
03-27-2012, 05:26 PM
Here's some snips:




JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO: Do you think there is a, a market for burial services?
VERRILLI: For burial services?
JUSTICE ALITO: Yes.
VERRILLI: Yes, Justice Alito, I think there is.
JUSTICE ALITO: All right, suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said, "You know what you're doing? You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you're going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don't have burial insurance and you haven't saved money for it, you're going to shift the cost to somebody else."


Isn't that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?

VERRILLI: No, that -
JUSTICE ALITO: And if that's true, why isn't it equally artificial to say that somebody who is doing absolutely nothing about health care is financing health care services?
VERRILLI: It's, I think it's completely different. The -- and the reason is that the, the burial example is not -- the difference is here we are regulating the method by which you are paying for something else -- health care -- and the insurance requirement








JUSTICE ALITO: But isn't that a very small part of what the mandate is doing? You can correct me if these figures are wrong, but it appears to me that the CBO has estimated that the average premium for a single insurance policy in the non-group market would be roughly $5,800 in -- in 2016.
Respondents -- the economists have supported -- the Respondents estimate that a young, healthy individual targeted by the mandate on average consumes about $854 in health services each year. So the mandate is forcing these people to provide a huge subsidy to the insurance companies for other purposes that the act wishes to serve, but isn't -- if those figures are right, isn't it the case that what this mandate is really doing is not requiring the people who are subject to it to pay for the services that they are going to consume? It is requiring them to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else.
VERRILLI: No, I think that -- I do think that's what the Respondents argue. It's just not right. I think it -- it really gets to a fundamental problem with their argument.
JUSTICE RUTH BRADER GINSBURG: If you're going to have insurance, that's how insurance works.




JUSTICE KENNEDY: Could you help -- help me with this. Assume for the moment -- you may disagree. Assume for the moment that this is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?
I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional, but, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think, a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?
VERRILLI: So two things about that, Justice Kennedy. First, we think this is regulation of people's participation in the health care market, and all -- all this minimum coverage provision does is say that, instead of requiring insurance at the point of sale, that Congress has the authority under the commerce power and the necessary proper power to ensure that people have insurance in advance of the point of sale because of the unique nature of this market, because this is a market in which -- in which you -- although most of the population is in the market most of the time -- 83 percent visit a physician every year; 96 percent over a five-year period -- so virtually everybody in society is in this market, and you've got to pay for the health care you get, the predominant way in which it's -- in which it's paid for is insurance, and -- and the Respondents agree that Congress could require that you have insurance in order to get health care or forbid health care from being provided



Whew, that last phrase is a potent one! Could the ultimate "penalty" of this law be that if you don't buy your health insurance, the government could then "mandate" that you be denied health care? Like in an emergency room?

Now THERE is a "penalty" that would make everybody pony up for their insurance mighty quickly. So much for the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take. Suppose a doctor or hospital then disobeys the govt mandate?

Did this guy just put his foot in his mouth and resurrect the term "death panel"?






JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Oh, no, it's not. They all involved commerce. There was no doubt that was what regulated was commerce. And here you're regulating somebody who isn't covered.

By the way, I don't agree with you that the relevant market here is health care. You're not regulating health care. You're regulating insurance. It's the insurance market that you're addressing and you're saying that some people who are not in it must be in it and that's -- that's difference from regulating in any manner commerce that already exists out there.
VERRILLI: Well, to the extent that we are looking at the comprehensive scheme, Justice Scalia, it is regulating commerce that already exists out there. And the means in which that regulation is made effective here, the minimum coverage provision, is a regulation of the way in which people participate, the method of their payment in the health care market. That is what it is.

And I do think, Justice Kennedy, getting back to the question you asked before, what -- what matters here is whether Congress is choosing a tool that's reasonably adapted to the problem that Congress is confronting. And that may mean that the tool is different from a tool that Congress has chosen to use in the past. That's not something that counts against the provision in a Commerce Clause analysis.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait. That's -- that's -it's both "Necessary and Proper." What you just said addresses what's necessary. Yes, has to be reasonably adapted. Necessary does not mean essential, just reasonably adapted. But in addition to being necessary, it has to be proper. And we've held in two cases that something that was reasonably adapted was not proper because it violated the sovereignty of the States, which was implicit in the constitutional structure.

The argument here is that this also is -- may be necessary, but it's not proper because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it's supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that's what all this questioning has been about. What -- what is left? If the government can do this, what, what else can it not do?




------------------------------------------------------------


JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN: And this is especially true, isn't it, General -
VERRILLI: -- because that's the judgment Congress has made.
JUSTICE KAGAN: -- Verrilli, because in this context, the subsidizers eventually become the subsidized?
VERRILLI: Well, that was the point I was trying to make, Justice Kagan, that you're young and healthy one day, but you don't stay that way. And the -- the system works over time. And so I just don't think it's a fair characterization of it. And it does get back to, I think -- a problem I think is important to understand -
JUSTICE SCALIA: We're not stupid. They're going to buy insurance later. They're young and -- and need the money now.
VERRILLI: But that's -
JUSTICE SCALIA: When -- when they think they have a substantial risk of incurring high medical bills, they'll buy insurance, like the rest of us. But -
VERRILLI: That's -- that's -
JUSTICE SCALIA: -- I don't know why you think that they're never going to buy it.

Seems like Kagan was trying to help Verilli out a bit when he stumbled. Another clip I heard on radio, had Ginsburg doing that as well.

Guess it could be obvious that both Ginsburg and Kagan already have an idea about how this law (and individual mandate) ARE Constitutional ... and they articulate the arguments for Verilli when he gets tongue-tied. Kagan, especially, should be well-versed in those arguments since she would have helped structure them for the administration.

Appears, though, that this action by Ginsburg and Kagan could serve to rile Kennedy, who was supposed to be the "swing vote".

Eric Johnson
03-27-2012, 07:53 PM
Two things:

1. The questions asked don't necessarily give a clue as to how a justice will vote. Frequently they'll ask questions in order to frame their own argument when it's time to vote. I seem to recall that one justice (Justice Scalia?) sometimes asks questions that may support another Justice's position simply so that he can kick holes in the reasoning that suports them.

2. The period of time in front of the Supreme Ct is brutal. You have one representative of the argument and 9 justices who can interupt an answer any time they feel inclined. Thus, you can be half-way through a four different answers and then get a new question from the justice you were trying to anwer in the first place. All of this while having to identify and quote relevant prior decisions out of thin air.

Eric

Gerry Clinchy
03-27-2012, 08:48 PM
I'd be really surprised if Ginsburg and Kagan don't support the law ... Ginsburg doesn't like the Constitution very much; and Kagan was part of the admin's discussion of the Constitutionality of the law at the outset.

If this is the best man that the DOJ can offer for this job, it maybe explains a lot about Holder, too.

It will be interesting to watch it unfold.

Eric Johnson
03-27-2012, 10:37 PM
This is a very interesting site .... http://www.scotusblog.com

Eric

Gerry Clinchy
03-28-2012, 12:49 AM
Good site, Eric.

And one argument I'd like to hear is about the "limiting". What is there in the law that will limit the Fed govt from keeping the "penalty" from being confiscatory? If the presently proposed penalty does not get enough people to comply, how high can they raise that penalty? Could the govt mandate (as I suggested above) that anyone without the prescribed insurance will be denied care by their doctor? or a hospital?

If they put people in jail for failing to either get insurance or pay the penalty, that could be self-defeating ... since those people would then be getting their health care at no charge at all.

I find myself asking why there are 40 million people without any health insurance? That number also seems to keep changing ... from 20, to 30, now to 40. If income falls below a certain level (like due to unemployment or underemployment), isn't that where Medicaid comes in? Or programs like those for kids in such homes? The NYS's Chip program comes to mind.

Here in PA there was a program for adults which had a premium of $24/mo. (or some figure like that). The program ran out of money, so it had to be discontinued. If they had taken just $10 more per participant, could they have kept it afloat longer?

Which brings us back to the real hidden tax of inflation. Everybody's dollar is not going as far as it was three years ago. Energy cost has a lot to do with that. Meanwhile, the stock market soared when Bernanke indicated quantitative easing would continue so the economic recovery (such as it may or may not be) would not falter.

BonMallari
03-28-2012, 02:00 AM
as monumental as this case is, I cant believe the American public cant watch the procedings on C span or on line, the news channels are covering it like a sporting event. I watched CNN this morning at work when Toobin was all but claiming the bill would be overturned, and of course watched as many shows as I could stomach tonight to see what I missed...I still think the American public has the right to know, even though they may not be legal scholars

Hew
03-28-2012, 04:55 AM
1. The questions asked don't necessarily give a clue as to how a justice will vote. Frequently they'll ask questions in order to frame their own argument when it's time to vote.
Right. I think, too, that they sometimes ask questions that are not friendly to the position they'll ultimately take in an effort to appear both fair and intellectually curious, and incorporate that into their opinions as some sort of cover: "While the Court has raised many troublesome concerns with the individual mandate, the good outweighs the bad and blah, blah, blah...I'mma still gonna vote for Obamacare."

Obamacare has taken a verbal beating by some of the justices but I'm not counting chickens just yet.

Gerry Clinchy
03-28-2012, 03:56 PM
Interesting link to a Swedish incident (has socialized medicine)
http://www.thelocal.se/39930/20120327/

Young woman did not get an ambulance due to the protocol used before an ambulance is dispatched. Seems like it's a way to save money on dispatching ambulances unnecessarily ... or so it appear.

I happened to notice in one of the sidebars on this page that a man died after TWENTY doctors "missed" his cancer. After reading the article, it's not clear that the man might have survived very long even if the cancer was discovered sooner, but they do mention he had to wait from June to October for a test that might have given an earlier dx. At the end of the article, it says:



At the National Board of Health and Welfare they are highly critical of what has happened and call it “remarkable” that twenty physicians can have missed that the origin of the abdominal pain came from the upper part of the digestive system.

If a gastroscopy had been carried out sooner, the patient may have had a diagnosis months earlier and received better treatment the agency concluded, according to VF.

The agency has now asked the county council to present a plan for how to prevent this from happening again and new guidelines for dealing with patients’ abdominal pain latest by May 20th, according to VF

Some of the Swedes' comments were interesting to read.



Just below that it indicates that a survey of Swedes back Obama for re-election.

Buzz
03-28-2012, 04:56 PM
From what I have been reading, this case could potentially take us back to pre-1937, which would fulfill most of ya'lls wildest dreams to repeal the last century of American History. It could set the stage for eliminating SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, through the courts.

I hope everyone ends up happy with the outcome. Enjoy your conservative judicial activism...

Cody Covey
03-28-2012, 05:14 PM
From what I have been reading, this case could potentially take us back to pre-1937, which would fulfill most of ya'lls wildest dreams to repeal the last century of American History. It could set the stage for eliminating SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, through the courts.

I hope everyone ends up happy with the outcome. Enjoy your conservative judicial activism...

No more hand outs? Say it isn't so....

Buzz
03-28-2012, 05:20 PM
No more hand outs? Say it isn't so....

SS and Medicare are NOT handouts. I am 51 and have been paying into that system since I was 14. I have been paying in for 37 years. So, if I became disabled today, or when I retire at 67 (and have paid in for 53 years), will my benefits be a HANDOUT?

Cody Covey
03-28-2012, 07:07 PM
SS and Medicare are NOT handouts. I am 51 and have been paying into that system since I was 14. I have been paying in for 37 years. So, if I became disabled today, or when I retire at 67 (and have paid in for 53 years), will my benefits be a HANDOUT?

And the folks that have never paid in at all but get social security?

Gerry Clinchy
03-28-2012, 09:49 PM
Heard a clip from today's arguments while driving. Not sure which Justice it was, but he was sure getting testy with Vermilli about severance of the mandate, if the mandate should not survive. He asked Vermilli if he was proposing that the Court read the entire 2700 pages of the bill to see which parts of it should remain & which should not. Vermilli was just tongue-tied. Sure would have been a good idea if somebody read that bill before now.

Clay Rogers
03-28-2012, 10:15 PM
SS and Medicare are NOT handouts. I am 51 and have been paying into that system since I was 14. I have been paying in for 37 years. So, if I became disabled today, or when I retire at 67 (and have paid in for 53 years), will my benefits be a HANDOUT?

No Buzz, you earned yours, just like most of us earned ours. But its the people who have never contributed to this program but somehow live the entire life on it that makes people mad. Thats the handouts he is talking about. Isn't this the same fund that disability comes from? I know a couple hundred people that I see weekly in the ED that I work in on disability and most of them have never worked, or worked less than five years. Had a lady tell me the other night that she has been on disability for 30 years, started at 19 years old, because she had some back pain. Back pain for creeps sake!

Eric Johnson
03-28-2012, 11:10 PM
Heard a clip from today's arguments while driving. Not sure which Justice it was, but he was sure getting testy with Vermilli about severance of the mandate, if the mandate should not survive.

If that was the comment about the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), it was Justice Scalia.

Notice that you don't hear Justice Thomas? He's known for not asking questions. He's got his beliefs, he reads the briefs, and he listens to the others but he never speaks.

Eric

Gerry Clinchy
03-29-2012, 12:17 AM
If that was the comment about the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), it was Justice Scalia.

Notice that you don't hear Justice Thomas? He's known for not asking questions. He's got his beliefs, he reads the briefs, and he listens to the others but he never speaks.

Eric

Yes, that was the clip I heard. Wonder what the visual was ... I could just envision Vermilli sweating.

Wonder how many law clerks it would take to pick apart 2700 pages over a weekend?

It means trying to figure out the "intent" of the Congress in each of those other parts. Since a lot of them aren't around anymore, and lots more won't be around by the time the law goes into effect ...

Gerry Clinchy
03-29-2012, 10:16 AM
From the NY Times, re: Wednesday's arguments


Much of the argument concerned whether the secretary of health and human services could or would threaten states with a loss of all federal money. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. would not take a firm position, and that seemed to trouble several of the more conservative justices.

Based on performance so far, this could occur. So far, not in the law specifically, it has been "amended" to require insurance companies to provide free coverage for birth control for all; and to exempt certain groups (some companies and unions) from certain requirements of the law. Much in the law is left to regulatory decision power to be made by bureaucrats.



He [Chief Justice Roberts] said the court’s decision on the Medicaid expansion should be informed by the reality that the states have “since the New Deal” cheerfully accepted federal money.

“It seems to me that they have compromised their status as independent sovereigns because they are so dependent on what the federal government has done,” the chief justice said.


I highlighted the blue because it jumped out at me ... so the Fed govt has by their action of national programs & states agreeing has abrogated states' rights to not participate in subsequent programs? Could this apply to ALL instances where states have accepted Fed funds? Whew! Sounds like the witch in the woods enticing Hansel and Gretel to her lair with a trail of cookies.

road kill
03-29-2012, 10:37 AM
From the NY Times, re: Wednesday's arguments

Based on performance so far, this could occur. So far, not in the law specifically, it has been "amended" to require insurance companies to provide free coverage for birth control for all; and to exempt certain groups (some companies and unions) from certain requirements of the law. Much in the law is left to regulatory decision power to be made by bureaucrats.



I highlighted the blue because it jumped out at me ... so the Fed govt has by their action of national programs & states agreeing has abrogated states' rights to not participate in subsequent programs? Could this apply to ALL instances where states have accepted Fed funds? Whew! Sounds like the witch in the woods enticing Hansel and Gretel to her lair with a trail of cookies.

Didn't Kagan used to be Solicitor General?
As such, wasn't she an advocate for Obama care?

Hey Buzz.....talk about a "judicial activist," what's your thoughts on her impartiality??:p

Truly a "legal genius!!!":cool:



RK

paul young
03-29-2012, 11:14 AM
And the folks that have never paid in at all but get social security?

I certainly hope you or anyone else on this forum are never disabled. i see them every day, and i am truly blessed not to have to bear their burden.

the next time you see someone who obviously is, try to imagine yourself in their place. i'm sure they would gladly give up that monthly check to have the good health you now enjoy.

in order to pull the benefits of the abusers, who are the few among the many in this group by ending the Social Security program you are willing to screw these poor folks?

i'm not.-Paul

road kill
03-29-2012, 11:28 AM
I certainly hope you or anyone else on this forum are never disabled. i see them every day, and i am truly blessed not to have to bear their burden.

the next time you see someone who obviously is, try to imagine yourself in their place. i'm sure they would gladly give up that monthly check to have the good health you now enjoy.

in order to pull the benefits of the abusers, who are the few among the many in this group by ending the Social Security program you are willing to screw these poor folks?

i'm not.-Paul
I am just guessing here, but I don't think he is talking about those truly in need.

But then, you already know that, it just doesn't serve your purpose.;)



RK

paul young
03-29-2012, 11:30 AM
I am just guessing here, but I don't think he is talking about those truly in need.

But then, you already know that, it just doesn't serve your purpose.;)



RK

the way i read it he wanted to do away with social security. perhaps i'm wrong?-Paul

duckheads
03-29-2012, 11:49 AM
No it's the people that are scamming the system that he is talking about. I see these people all the time, the first when I just starting selling insurance just out of college. Had a lead someone had mailed in to the company. Went to the house and the guy is splitting wood by hand and says " I don't need health insurance. I'm on disabilty".

I was in small claims court the other day and a lady that has a jugdement against her says " I'm on disabilty. I just can't be around people. I can't handle it". She gets disabilty for that.

We have neighbor that has been on disabilty for narcolepsy for most of his life yet has a drivers license, baby sits his three grand kids that are all in diapers, and runs mini marathons. How can this be?

I have no probalem taking care of the truly needy or disabled people and feel they need to be taken care of. What I don't want is people scamming the system because our government likes to give away poeples hard earned money!!!

Matt McKenzie
03-29-2012, 11:50 AM
From what I have been reading, this case could potentially take us back to pre-1937, which would fulfill most of ya'lls wildest dreams to repeal the last century of American History. It could set the stage for eliminating SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, through the courts.

I hope everyone ends up happy with the outcome. Enjoy your conservative judicial activism...

Buzz,
While you and I are pretty far apart on the political spectrum, I hope that this isn't really what you think. I understand that this is what the talking heads on the left want people to believe, just like many of the talking heads on the right want us to believe that all the Democrats want to turn the U.S. into the USSR. Anyone capable of rational thought knows that both of those extreme visions are ridiculous. I'll try to remember that you aren't Maxine Waters if you try to remember that I'm not Michael Savage.

road kill
03-29-2012, 11:55 AM
the way i read it he wanted to do away with social security. perhaps i'm wrong?-Paul
I beleive so.

But it feels soooooo good to make us on the right out as evil haters of the down trodden, doesn't it???:rolleyes:


RK

paul young
03-29-2012, 12:06 PM
I beleive so.

But it feels soooooo good to make us on the right out as evil haters of the down trodden, doesn't it???:rolleyes:


RK

is that really what you think of me?-Paul

Cody Covey
03-29-2012, 02:29 PM
You are both correct. The injured and otherwise unable to work should have an avenue for help. I just don't believe it should be "my lockbox" for retirement. Social Security goes to so many things other than that and to people that can provide for themselves not to mention all of the fraud. Social Security needs to be an opt in program. If it was so great everyone would opt in right? Instead liberals, again, want to force everyone into another government program. I would much rather, for better or worse, invest how I see fit with my own money.

road kill
03-29-2012, 02:36 PM
is that really what you think of me?-Paul
No.

But it is my "general" opinion of secular progressives.:D


stan b

zeus3925
03-29-2012, 07:01 PM
No Buzz, you earned yours, just like most of us earned ours. But its the people who have never contributed to this program but somehow live the entire life on it that makes people mad. Thats the handouts he is talking about. Isn't this the same fund that disability comes from? I know a couple hundred people that I see weekly in the ED that I work in on disability and most of them have never worked, or worked less than five years. Had a lady tell me the other night that she has been on disability for 30 years, started at 19 years old, because she had some back pain. Back pain for creeps sake!

Clay--Those disabled who never worked or did not work the required number of quarters work experience for Social Security Disability actually may be drawing Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a separate program signed into law by Richard Nixon aimed at taking that burden off state governments. A lot of SSI recipients will incorrectly refer to it as Social Security.

ARay11
03-30-2012, 11:58 AM
I certainly hope you or anyone else on this forum are never disabled. i see them every day, and i am truly blessed not to have to bear their burden.

the next time you see someone who obviously is, try to imagine yourself in their place. i'm sure they would gladly give up that monthly check to have the good health you now enjoy.

in order to pull the benefits of the abusers, who are the few among the many in this group by ending the Social Security program you are willing to screw these poor folks?

i'm not.-Paul

Why is ending the abuse not an option?

I see people every day on either Supplemental or full SSI. They are no more disabled than I am. They buy cars in other folk's names in order to hide from the system that they are able to make and spend money. One showed taking care of her "disabled" sister's kids so they could all collect more money. They know every in and every out of how to cheat the system. It's a sickness.

Why is ending the abuse not an option?

paul young
03-30-2012, 12:20 PM
Why is ending the abuse not an option?

I see people every day on either Supplemental or full SSI. They are no more disabled than I am. They buy cars in other folk's names in order to hide from the system that they are able to make and spend money. One showed taking care of her "disabled" sister's kids so they could all collect more money. They know every in and every out of how to cheat the system. It's a sickness.

Why is ending the abuse not an option?

have you turned these abusers that you have personal knowledge in to the authorities?

that's why.

MANY people on this forum relate that they see the various social services abused. if people turned the perps in, there would be a lot less abuse. "if you see something, say something".

instead we get people clamoring to shut the whole thing down. i admit, thats a lot easier than ferreting out the abusers, but it's not fair to the many who are legitimately in need.-Paul

Buzz
03-30-2012, 01:18 PM
have you turned these abusers that you have personal knowledge in to the authorities?

that's why.

MANY people on this forum relate that they see the various social services abused. if people turned the perps in, there would be a lot less abuse. "if you see something, say something".

instead we get people clamoring to shut the whole thing down. i admit, thats a lot easier than ferreting out the abusers, but it's not fair to the many who are legitimately in need.-Paul

That's a mouthful there Paul. I agree 100%.

ARay11
03-30-2012, 03:32 PM
That's a mouthful there Paul. I agree 100%.


Tell me who to call that will give a rats behind. I'll be happy to.
You guys know the system is never wrong...just ask them. You seriously think I can call SS, say "hey, I dont think these folks deserve their benefits" and it will make a difference??? Telling the system that said they DO need it that they DONT??? ROFLMAO

BTW...Last time I tried to contact SS to verify benefits for a customer, I never did get thru...had to send the customer over to the benefits office in OKC to get what she needed. And, BTW... she really did need it.

paul young
03-30-2012, 03:42 PM
well, since it's fraud, i guess i'd start with the Attorney General's office. i think they'd be really interested to know about the car deal you referenced.-Paul

ARay11
03-30-2012, 03:57 PM
well, since it's fraud, i guess i'd start with the Attorney General's office. i think they'd be really interested to know about the car deal you referenced.-Paul


Social Security is federal.
Atty General is state.
They said if it were Medicaid (state funded) fraud, they have a division for that but otherwise referred me back to SS dept.

paul young
03-30-2012, 04:03 PM
Eric Holder (satan himself) is the A.G. of the United States of America. He has many assistants, one of which could investigate this.-Paul

ARay11
03-30-2012, 04:08 PM
Eric Holder (satan himself) is the A.G. of the United States of America. He has many assistants, one of which could investigate this.-Paul

ok, I'm sendin an email...but really?? LOL Wanna take bets if I get any response at all???

paul young
03-30-2012, 06:10 PM
i'm not a betting man, but i'll be interested to hear what happens.

all of our social services could stand to be cleaned up.-Paul

1tulip
03-31-2012, 05:34 PM
I certainly hope you or anyone else on this forum are never disabled. i see them every day, and i am truly blessed not to have to bear their burden.

the next time you see someone who obviously is, try to imagine yourself in their place. i'm sure they would gladly give up that monthly check to have the good health you now enjoy.

in order to pull the benefits of the abusers, who are the few among the many in this group by ending the Social Security program you are willing to screw these poor folks?

i'm not.-Paul

Paul... I understand what you're saying. There are the truly disabled and a humane society does not just let them wither away and die.

On the other hand, if you ever had anything to do with the disability business, it is a scandal. The vast numbers of people who flat lie, or exaggerate their disability, it's awful. My husband is a neurologist who sees back injury patients, and it is his experience that the system has become a racket and souse of lucrative income for a specialty of lawyers.

I'm also prejudiced by the example of my sister who has had relapsing and remitting MS for almost 30 years. Even with more loss of function year after year she stayed at her (desk) job and refuse to ask for anything from anybody. (Except her philandering jerk of a husband, and the judge awarded her the most alimony the law would allow, and garnishes his wages. Except for that... she's not asked for any help.)

Gerry Clinchy
04-02-2012, 08:01 PM
The POTUS felt a need to give the Supreme Court his opinion. Guess he felt his two appointees and Vermilli needed some help?

Then the Pres of Mexico felt compelled to point out to everyone that his govt provides 106,000,000 people up to age 18 with totally free health care. (Didn't quite explain what happens after they turn 18). Geez ... yet Mexicans still find it more inviting to leave such largesse and have their children born in the U.S. Are they nuts?

ARay11
04-03-2012, 10:45 AM
saw these guys hookin on tv last night... thought of this thread ... maybe these type television ads are a place to start? http://www.rbrlawfirm.com/aop/oklahoma-employment/social-security-claims/

M&K's Retrievers
04-03-2012, 11:04 AM
The POTUS felt a need to give the Supreme Court his opinion. Guess he felt his two appointees and Vermilli needed some help?

Then the Pres of Mexico felt compelled to point out to everyone that his govt provides 106,000,000 people up to age 18 with totally free health care. (Didn't quite explain what happens after they turn 18). Geez ... yet Mexicans still find it more inviting to leave such largesse and have their children born in the U.S. Are they nuts?

They come over here so they can continue to get care free.

Gerry Clinchy
04-11-2012, 01:04 PM
The latest spin is that the SC doesn't fully understand Obamacare :-)

The basis for their "misunderstanding" is that younger people ARE allowed to buy a type of catastrophic coverage which has high deductible and low premium.

Doesn't seem to be the issue of constitutionality, IMO. Either it's okay to compel individuals to buy a produce by force; or it is not. Doesn't really matter what the quality of that product may be compared to other products available.

Plus, if the bottom-level plans are too skimpy, how will that help individuals avoid bankruptcy due to medical bills or not end up getting their medical care paid for by govt largesse? Aren't the latter the whole selling point for Obamacare?

Gerry Clinchy
05-06-2012, 12:09 PM
White House Warns the Supreme Court ... isn't that a nice twist?


In papers filed with the Supreme Court, administration lawyers warned of "extraordinary disruption" if Medicare is forced to unwind countless transactions that are based on payment changes required by more than 20 separate sections of the Affordable Care Act

Does this mean: if Congress enacts a law that is unconstitutional, and it makes a mess of things, it will stay law because it's inconvenient to fix the mess the law created?

20!! different sections of the law ... no wonder they had no clue what they were voting for.


Last year, in a lower court filing, Justice Department lawyers said reversing Medicare payment changes "would impose staggering administrative burdens" on the government and "could cause major delays and errors" in claims payment

So, we should just ignore the constitutionality of a law because of this? Scare people into giving up their constitutional rights?

http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2012/05/04/white-house-warns-supreme-court-not-overturn-obamacare