• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Inside the Supreme Court on a Historic Morning | Main | In Historic Vote, House Finds AG Holder in Contempt of Congress »

June 28, 2012



Larry: Since I am so dumb, could either you or Mata epalxin to me what she meant by “administering health care,” if she is not talking about health care administration? Administer as in to bring into use or operation, to minister remedially, to furnish the benefit of, or to make application of. I used it in the sentence as a verb, not an adjective (as in administration department), Larry.The cost of administering, or providing, health care as a hospital, clinic, doctor etal encompass all that comprises their base line overhead cost of supplies, equipment, professionals, insurance, facilities, utilities, bureaucracy/accounting, etc. Some of the ways to reduce the costs have been addressed in O'healthcare, tho I find it offensive that companies need to be mandated by the federal government to go to digital records by an x date. I also find it even more offensive that, within that same mandate, is included their rights for sundry agencies to access to that privacy database. But that's another story altogether When you bring down the cost of goods/service, you can bring down realistic premium prices, or the cost of paying for those goods/services, without it being detrimental to the quality of that service down line. Simple concept, really. Don't care about the popularity of RomneyCare. I care about Congress overstepping their Constitutional boundaries using the Commerce Clause, and their cheap bandaid over a problem that masks a cut well, but does nothing for disinfecting the wound. Price fixing premiums and simply making lower payouts for government adminstered/controlled healthcare while the costs of providing/administering that service continue to skyrocket does nothing to solve the problem. I've used the same analogy before to you, and evidently will have to again. If it costs me $20K to manufacture a car, and the government tells me I can only sell that car for $21K when they are paying for it out of taxpayer collected funds, I will not continue in business for long. Not unless I either cut out the government business clientele, or charge others (i.e. cost shifting) others more to make up the difference.If I can lower my costs of production to $17K, than I may be able to subsist on that mandated high price I'm allowed to charge.Conversely, if my costs to manufacture that car go up to $25K the next year, and the government tells me I can't raise the price to accommodate for my increased overhead and, instead, cuts the payment to me, I'll be out of business almost instantly. Or I will cease to have the government as a client in business self defense.It's the same fiscal reason that you decided not to offer your services to those on Medicare . as have other doctors. Price fixing is illegal except, I guess, when the government engages in that practice. But there is no instance I can think of where government should be able to mandate prices on services or goods provided by the private sector. Which is the prime reason they are trying to do a slow changeover to making it a public sector perk.Reply

a public servant

I agree with Trapper's view that the Chief Justice is very shrewd about the moves further down the road in the political chess game, but do not share his delight.

Also, in this civilized forum do we REALLY need to resort to derisive names for people with whom we disagree?


Since today's Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare I've been thinking and wondering about Chief Justice Robert's "Swing to the Left".

Everybody is beating up on Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts for siding with the four Liberal judges on ObamaCare. Personally, I think it was a very shrewd move. It quashes the furor that would have occurred had the five Conservative judges voted against the four Liberal judges, as in Bush Vs Gore. Also, as a tax law it eliminates the need for a "Super Majority" in the Senate to repeal and just needs a simple majority of fifty one . He made it easier for Congress!!! BRILLIANT!!!! They also put a curb on Congressional attempts to extend their power through the "Commerce Clause". He used Obummers "Bait and Switch" against him!!!

Good job Supremes!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad