text:
Politics Counts
Foreign Policy
It still bothers me (quite a bit) that everyone 'knows' how the liberal justices will rule... while a few of the conservatives are a mystery.
We live in a bad place when Justices on the bench actually testify in favor of ObamaCare as opposed to doing their job- questioning it.
If ObamaCare is ruled 9-0 as unconstitutional, we live in very scary times. 50 years from now, if found constitutional, someone will be in court on behalf of the government citing this precedent in how government can coerce people to spend their money on whatever government sees fit...
Meant "If ObamaCare ISN'T ruled 9-0 as unconstitutional'....
For having this live blog... the best thing I have seen to keep up to date real time without actually being there... keep up the great work!
The Supreme Court is interested only in ideology and politics, not what is best for the country. No one in this entire discussion over "Obamacare" has questioned what happens to the millions of people that only have insurance because of this law, or the 50 million Americans that still lack any health insurance. Are they just supposed to be euthanized, as the crowds at last year's Republicans debates cheered for? they cannot simply go away. they have a right to health care, a right all of us share. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
It's funny to me how the the answer for this constitutional health care insurance question is a simple as calling it what it is...A tax. A tax which all of us should pay. Everyone.... Everyone in, Nobody out. Regardless of ability to pay. If this gets struck down as unconstitutional, the only solution will be what we really need. Single payer universal health care for all Americans. What's that? Call it socialism? Hey you seniors...Is your Medicare socialism?
At some point these bright people will make the right decision, to strike down the mandate. Most if not all the act should be dissassembled and sent back to the states to decide how each one wants to deal with it. That is how insurance works anyway. Medicaid helps pay for coverage in each STATE and the state makes up the difference. States that are business friendly will have more money to help the indigent and uncovered, AND those states will have more tax revenue from being business friendly so those states will be successful in helping our most needy.
The folks who shoved this act through want to run my life, and ruin it.
Some day, (and I agree) if you dont take care of yourself (smoking, drinking etc) you SHOULD have to pay more for your health care including MEDICAID. While we are free to live, your poor decisions need to cost you alone like driving poorly or failing to get to work on time!!!
first replace obama and put a end to his failed presidency then repeal his ridiculous healthcare plan no one wanted in the first place!
We do not have a RIGHT to health care at the level that some think we do including Viagara, Birth Control, and the extreme measures we have available today. We do have a right to Basic health care. To me, this is where the real issue is. The Liberals will want to include all manner of extreme measures as an entitlement or right. The Milwaukee WI Teachers Union sued to keep Vagara in their health plan.
Not only do I have a right to free healthcare paid for by other Americans, but I have a right to their money as well. I am an American and I have a right to live well.
my roomate's mother-in-law makes $76 an hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $19704 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Here's the site to read more..http://smlk.es/IcmKHj
To leave Conservatives out of mention for wanting Viagara in their prescription list is unfair to them. After all, they have a right to access the drug too! after all, even Conservatives take Union jobs.
Basic care? Where does that end?
No kidding.... all these made up 'rights' that the left imagines. I wish they'd get a clue about the real world, and what 'rights' really are...
Like being able to worship the way I see fit; to pursue happiness without government intrusion; to be FREE!
Viagara? makes it hard to find jobs, hard to stay focused, hard to get promoted, it is hard on our society. Kind of like marijuana. Now if the mandate included medical use of pot, do you think it would have had more support? Oh wait, all the ones who smoke it voted for the mandate-they missed that one
Either way, however they choose, someone is going to be unhappy somewhere. I have health insurance already that I am happy with. Why should I be mandated to do something otherwise? Next thing you know, Government Motors will be trying to sell me a Volt and selling me National Federal Socialist full coverage.
Obama/Biden 2012. Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's get rid of Obamacare now, and then Obamaism/Hillaryism in November.
There is a first time for everything.
If the SCOTUS upholds this socialist train wreck called Obamacare, Government Motors will not be "trying to sell" you a Volt.....they will require you to purchase one....or perhaps two depending on your income and family size. The second Volt will be given to someone "less fortunate." The old USSR will have NOTHING on the coming USSA.
Only Supreme Court can save this nation now from big government take over our lives. And if it happens, it sure won't be due to the Obama appointed left activist judges.
Does the transcript stop showing up for anyone else after pg 6 or so?
...from yesterday (tuesday) that is
Do you think pregnancy is a disease? Erectile Dysfunction is a disease and viagra is the answer.
Putting 'Justice' in front of her name is really awkward....
The argument is being made that if everyone wasn't required to buy health insurance, insurers won't have all the new customers they need to cover the sick they will no longer be able to exclude. There is a another way to deal with the sick who are essentially uninsurable. The government can create an assigned risk pool for anyone who has been rejected due to a pre-existing condition. That pool would be funded partially by premiums and partially by a tax that everyone pays regardless of income. Insurer definitions of pre-existing conditions that can be excluded would be limited to things liike cancer, diabetes and kidney disease and they would no longer be able to exclude someone for other pre-existing conditions such as migraines, high blood pressure or arthritis. People that choose to remain uninsured should have a waiting period before they could re-enter the market. This is somewhat like federal flood insurance where you can't buy it when the flood is at your door. The individual is then 100% responsible for any health care costs they incur while uninsured and the law should make it so wages and government benefits are garnished, assets have liens placed against them and bankruptcy is no way out. Allow insurance premiums to be deducted from your taxes 100%. In other words, a strong incentive to buy insurance but not a mandate.
"Why shouldn't we let Congress" decide what to do, she asked him. "What's wrong with leaving it in the hands of people" who should be taking this decision, "not us?" she continued.
... Last time I checked, this was a ruling on the Constitutionality of the matter, not whether the people want it or not. Apples and Oranges, Justice Sotomayer - get your ducks in a row.
What is the reason we have to wearing clothes? There is no real mandate for it but you're going to be arrested for covering up your body properly either constitutionally or not.
What is the reason we have to have sex behind close door? There is no constitutional mandate for it but you're going to be arrested for having sex in the public either constitutionally or not.
What is the reason we have to use Banker printed US$? There is no historical mandate for it but you're going to be arrested for printing your own US$ either constitutionally or not.
This is the first battle for the future of this country. We HAVE TO DEFEAT this legislation. What our elected Representatives did not have the balls to do, is now left up to the courts. That's why the the "people" couldnt make a decision Sonya!!!!
For all who want the mandate struck down, let's look at it another way. I who have insurance am paying higher premiums and medical costs to help offset the cost of the uninsured. In addition, each of us pays more in taxes for federal dollars that are sent to medical providers to help cover the cost of the uninsured. This is through our area FQHC (Federally Qualified Health Care Centers) that receive higher Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement as well as DSH (Disappropriate Share funds that go to hospitals that treat a lot of uninsured). In addition you choosing to not be insured also allows you to file bankruptcy for medical bills you won't pay (witness Mary Brown one of the plaintiffs in Florida). So my question is how does my right to ensure reasonable costs balance against your freedom which is directly impacting many of my expenses? If this is struck down the only solution I see is change the 1986 EMTALA law and let hospitals and providers turn away the uninsured unless they can produce cash to pay for their care. Also then let's change bankruptcy laws to exclude health care just like they exclude education loans.
As a young doctor I just want to see a proper bill that reduces the cost of education to shrinking pool young adults going into medicine, remove the gimmicks and games that are played between doctors, insurance and the gov't (medicaid/medicare) with regards to treating patients and expand tort reform making it more likely that malpractice cases are legitimate and concentrate on the patients and not on lawyers.
"Why shouldn't we let Congress" decide what to do, she asked him. "What's wrong with leaving it in the hands of people" who should be taking this decision, "not us?" she continued.
So I and another party have a contract with no severability clause, courts will simply ask us to go back and decide together instead of ruling as per the written contract or law? Sotomayor is demonstrating how she belongs in the "Vote Present" company of Obama.
Omni2012 -
Spina bifida, zellweger syndrome, downs syndrome, severe combined Imunodeficiency, are all diseases. Please keep your small government hands out of my wife and daughters uterus'.
It doesn't make sense that 'we' would allow a judge who's rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court to be a judge on that court. It's no surprise to me when she votes against repealing her own work.
I would rather wreck the Health Care Law and salvage the Constitution than the other way around.
There is no severability clause, if the mandate falls, so too does the entire law. P.S> the more liberal thing to do is try to 'salvage' the law.
When does Ginsburg retire?
well said Voting Present, well said
Ginsburg Wreck - She'll retire before Obama loses the election so he can attempt to ram another ideologue activist loser through before he is taken out of the White House kicking and screaming
Supreme court cannot decide on what congress was thinking. They should stick to making an assessment
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has sought to argue that the most legally conservative position is to uphold the law. If the justices have to choose between "a wrecking operation and a salvage job, a more conservative approach would be a salvage job," she said.
Why would Ginsburg be talking like a congressional member? Apply the law and constitution and leave the "what to do if" questions to the people. When you wear the robe your role is not as activist.
These conservative justices sound like they are over-reaching if they strike down the entire bill. Not very conservative!
There is no right to health care. Overturn Obamacare in its entirety, and put health care stamps in the envelope with the food stamps.
I can make my decisions and my health care on my own. Don't tread on me!
I could live with the individual mandate being struck down and other pieces of the law staying; I think health insurance does need to be reformed.
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said we first needed to pass the law in order to find what was in it, that told everyone the cliff we were headed over
Ironic how the discussions now taking place are the ones that SHOULD have occurred before it was passed in spite of the public outcry. Thanks WSJ for the info access.
The big problem is if you can force someone buy insurance - it is more than just a product like broccoli - the product carries with it a price tag that can me jacked up because the seller knows you have to buy it and can make the excuse that he has to cover others and specific conditions that you can never have, the product carries with it a set of rules and mandates that can further limit your freedoms and liberty.
The vote will be 4-3-1-1 against the law with Justice Sotomayor ruling against individual mandate but deciding to keep the rest of the law intact and three other liberal justices upholding the entire law. The majority opinion will be written by Chief Justice Roberts to nullify the law with Justice Thomas writing a separate supporting opinion that goes beyond the current law.
i SEE SCOTUS is considering the intent of Congress. INTENT appears to be that entire initiative is inseparable from it's components, because of the LACK of severability.
I DOUBT Congress simply forgot about Severability. They parsed their 'in out' decision carefully.
How is it that Sotamayor is even part of this case? What is the purpose of a judge's recusal if it doesn't apply here?
Why should I have to pay for someone else's health care? Keep the mandate so my costs can go down. That is not a liberal position, by the way. It is the one conservatives have been screaming about for a long time but then did an about face when it passed Congress. The irony is not lost on me.
Justice Kagan has indicated that she believes the case law to date supports the idea that the court should apply a light-touch to what it does, and that if the choice is between leaving half-a-loaf and no loaf, half-a-loaf wins.
Uh sorry Kagan, the question is whether you should leave half a poison pill or rid us altogether of the poison pill.
The entire law is garbage, strike it all. The libs will try to force the issue again if any of this thing survives.
Todd, I agree reform is needed, but this behemoth is already driving up costs (I'm in health care). Start over, open discussions up to the public and this time include reform to address some of the ridiculous lawsuits that also drive up costs- obvious omission here.
Justice Breyer, a liberal, seems to be very insensitive about Native Americans. Where is the left's scream of racism here?
To those who say purchasing insurance is like buying brocoli, the answer is no. If you choose not to buy brocoli it does not affect my cost of purchasing brocoli nor does it affect my taxes. Your choice not to buy healthcare does raise my costs and also increases my taxes.
I do not want this law but let's be serious about our choices.
When I pay my Federal Taxes do I have a choice if I want the war in Afghanistan to continue? NO
Do I get a choice if I want my money going to the UAW or Solyndra via bailouts? NO
If this gets struck down the next thing that will be done when the Dems gain control of the Congress again will to simply put this back in play as a small payroll deduction tax like the little Medicare and SS Tax most people don't even pay attention to in their paychecks. This is how Liberals operate.. they lay in the weeds for an election cycle or two and when the economy is humming and no one is watching they implement these unsustainable entitlements which are impossible to repeal. Look at SS and Medicare for proof of their genius.
Kagan must recuse. Massive confilict of interest. She was the previos Solicitor Gen..for Obama. Her presence is unacceptable, immoral, just plain WRONG!
The purpose of the supreme court is to determine the constitutionality of acts of congress regardless of what the overall impact will be. All this talk about loaves of bread and wrecking vs salvage is moot.
Health care costs continue to rise at a rapid pace in spite of this law. Nothing was included to go at the bigger issue of malpractice lawsuits and ridiculous malpractice insurance costs that hamper good medicine from being practiced. We can assume that was the 'lawyers' in government protecting their own interests. Every medical professional's opinion whom I respect says this is a 'bad law' for them and for American's future health care as a whole.
It is my inherent right to have cradle to grave healthcare. It is also my right to have a 4000 square foot house, a new ipad and a new German luxury automobile. It is your responsibility to pay for everything for me. By the way, don't expect any appreciation either. Give me more free stuff! I demand it.
First of all, this entire bill should be thrown out because it was passed/rammed down our throats irresponsibly BEFORE anyone even read it. Second of all, we need to scrap all existing government healthcare programs, like Medicare and Medi-caid, and start ALL over again to make it simpler for govt agencies to administer it and for recipients to understand what they're getting. And a re-tooled Medicare program should ensure that Social Security funds are not touched! In fact, I would love to see taxpayers have personal choices and options on their own S.S. account. And thirdly, who stands to gain from this individual mandate anyway...the very entities that liberals tend to demonize, the private insurance companies!! And IRS will gain from the millions who will not have purchased health insurance because they can't afford it. If you don't file a tax return, the govt comes after you. And if this mandate goes through, citizens are going to lose their right to choose their own healthcare. They will be told what they can get and what they can't get. ANYTHING that is mandated by government is only going to create another BIG bureaucracy.
And Justice Breyer argued yesterday that the IRS penalty would not be a tax, and I say it is. It doesn't matter if they call it a penalty, fee, surcharge, whatever, it is another TAX on individuals, especially who can barely afford to put food on the table! The liberal judges have a right to their opinions, but they do not have a right to trample on our Constitution.
Your costs go up when you fund others to have free healthcare... your costs go up when those with pre-existing conditions get to pay the same price for insurance as you do. As a matter of fact, costs have grown exponentially since Obamacare became law..
Are you that daft to think this law makes healthcare cheaper?
On top of this, if the mandate is allowed to stand, government can (and will) pass laws to require you to buy whatever they see fit. This is truly a struggle about a government with limited powers and one with unlimited powers.
How convenient.
Strike it ALL down. Having part of the bill is like having a little part of cancer, it's still there to do its damage.
K 11:23 - Even if everyone had health insurance, you are still paying for someone else. This is because insurance pols risk and spreads the costs. Many people carry health insurance for years and other than an occasional physical, have no need to use it. Other people spend their lives at the doctor's. Sometimes that is because of a true medical need, other times because they run to the doctor for every little sniffle or ache that could just as easily be handled with an other the counter remedy. The fact that our premiums are higher than necessary due to the uninsured also applies to over-users (and in som cases abusers) of the system. The system needs to be reformed so people are responsible for at least some of their costs so they have some skin in the game. Also, just as car insurance doesn't cover routine maintenance like oil changes, new tires or even a full tank of gas, why should health insurance cover annual check ups?
Remember right after Obama was elected he commissioned his departments to come up with a few hundred million in savings? One of the ideas was to print on both sides of the paper saving the government tens of millions by their estimates. Do you think anyone is actually enforcing this?
I wonder why nobody brings up the absence of a severability clause?
What if I get hit by a truck when I am 28 and never went to a doctor? Does my family get a refund?
Imagine living in a society where the health and well being of our people is valued – where the lines between the "have's" and "have-not's" is blurred. Bringing affordable health care home to millions of Americans is a blessing, and anyone who values the sanctity of human life should support Healthcare Reform. We all stand to benefit by pooling our resources for the greater good. Why should heart transplants be limited to the Dick Cheney's of the world?
None of us chooses our genetic composition or is able to predict when or if we'll need medical attention, but wouldn't it be nice to know it's there if we need it. I fasten my seat belt each time I get into my car – not only because it's the law, but because I never know when or if I'll be in an accident. If we can build bombs to wipe out the planet many times over, why can't we do something to help preserve and improve the quality of human life.
Any JUSTICE that was involved in the creatiln of OBAMACARE should not be allowed to rule on it's validity
Alito's still in a snit over the State of the Union- Citizens United comments by the President.
exactly....keep ur hands off the laws
illinifan 11:43 - You said "Your choice not to buy healthcare does raise my costs and also increases my taxes". That may be true sometimes, but if a person is healthy and has no need to use the system, how does that raise your costs? By the way, healthcare costs go up for many reasons. The uninsured who use the system and don't pay their own bills is only one reason. What about people that would rather go to the doctor and get a prescription for something they can treat other the counter because their out of pocket costs are less? What about people that engage in activities that puts them at increased risk for injury (e.g. contact sports) or illness (obesity)? Since the purpose of insurance is to pool and spread the risk, it s inevitable that some pay more than they should based on their use of the system while others pay less than they should (or none at all). Also, if I choose not to buy health insurance and can pay all of my cots out of pocket, how does that impact you? Actually the fact that yoou have insurance impacts me in that case because most insurance companies don't pay doctors the full cost of their services so the out of pocket payers end up paying more than the service is worth.
Sonny....a.k.a John Lennon
While utopia is great; let me throw this one at ya; Imagine living in the real world.
It is so dumb to think that mandating health insurance will make the costs go down! It will go up even more and it already has the past two years! Why is tort reform not in this bill? Frivolous law suits against doctors and hospitals are a big reason why our healthcare costs are going up. Why is no one talking about thousands of unnecessary regulations that imposed on healthcare providers which also drive up costs? And why is no one talking about all the free grant programs and healthcare programs that are already out there to take care of our indigents that are driving up our costs as well? What about all the illegals who go to our public hospitals for free healthcare? Are doctors and hospitals going to be held to this mandate too if they provide healthcare to a sick person who shows up at their door with no job,no money and no insurance?
Obamacare is not the answer to fixing our healthcare! And we must vote out all those Congressmen who voted for this dang bill, starting with Nancy "Pass it BEFORE reading it" Pelosi!
Pat--Why should health insurance cover annual check ups? Because it lowers health care costs by catching problems before they become serious(and expensive)
Sure, I think both sides can agree that everybody having access to free healthcare would be "best" for the American people. But the government cannot and should not be the one to decide what is "best" for the American people. Our Framers set up this government to be *limited*: the federal government was supposed to have only those powers specifically granted to it, and Congress was allowed only to pass laws that enabled them to enact those powers. The government cannot decide it is "best" for the American people to exercise daily, or buy healthy food, or drink 8 glasses of water per day, and then force the public to comply. Government is not intended to patronize its citizens. It should do what is best only insofar as the Constitution allows. As much as I'd like people to exercise more, I cannot vote in favor of a mandate forcing them to do so because that is in violation of the American principle. I will neither ask nor allow the Government to enact a law, even if I agree with it, that oversteps the stated powers it has been given.
and Justice Kagan has no business ruling on the case...
You quoted Justice Sotomayor as saying "Why shouldn't we let Congress" decide what to do." Whether the court strikes down or upholds the law is not my issue with Sotomayor.
This lady does not belong on the Supreme court if that is her attitude. Does she even know what the court is all about. One of the major, if not the major, aspects of the constitution is the three branches of government were creted to check and balance each other.
Her ridiculous comment tells me she is not worthy of the Supreme court
Richard Brawer
The Supreme court should suggest to Congress that all members of the House of representatives and the Senate FULLY read a bill , and then take a proctored exam of at least 50 questions BEFORE they are allowed to vote on the contents of the bill .........If they don't pass the exam .CAN'T VOTE ON THE BILL
NO ONE READ 2900 pages of OBAMACARE BEFORE voting in it ..which is itself an abomination
Justice Kagan suggests the court has no business trying to guess whether Congress would or wouldn't have voted for other provisions in the law, absent the insurance mandate. To engage in that exercise would be a "revolution" in the court's jurisprudence, she says.
Chief Justice Roberts suggests that Mr. Kneedler, the government lawyer, has effectively made the case that if the insurance mandate falls, the guarantee that insurers accept all customers must go, too. But, the chief says, that doesn't tell the court what to do with all the many other provisions of the law.
Kagan looking like a child with her logic... yet there she sits... on the highest court in the United States.
10's of millions can't afford it, 10's of millions are rejected, and soon, in less than 40 years, we will become Mexico: massive poverty and rampant crime.
This is what the radical Reich is aiming for; total slavery of masses. How is the free market health care working out for you? Costs are going through the roof. This is what the Conservative plan looks like. Wail on that.
Justice Roberts should then let the people decide which other provisions of the law should remain or go, if ever the mandate was struck down.
P857 - You said "Why should health insurance cover annual check ups? Because it lowers health care costs by catching problems before they become serious(and expensive)." You can say the same thing about a lot of things. Having a gym membership lowers health are costs by keeping me active. Should that be covered too? Annual check ups are a good idea, but as an expected expense, covering them really isn't the purpose of insurance, though most insurers will cover them simply because the benefits outweigh the costs. That should be their choice, not a mandate from Washington. Routine maintenance on my roof is a good idea because it catches problems before they become serious and expense. Should my homeowners insurance cover that?
The court certainly needs to practice more restraint, in how they tear apart the work of Congress as well as how they discuss it. These conversations are like something you might hear in a bar on Friday night, where a group of conservatives and a group of liberals are delivering half-drunk opinions about topics that are mainly unknown to them. Guessing what Congress thought about potentially unconsidered liability to private insurance companies or the procedural details of how the law was cobbled together SHOULD BE irrelevant to a SCOTUS proceeding. Is this like other special taxes, of which there are many (like water, sewage, life safety services, etc), designed to provide the state with a basic means of establishing Constitutional benefits to the population, or isn't it? If they are worried this is unacceptable interference from the Legislative branch, follow that argument to its conclusion. Anything else is unwarranted judicial activism, of which both sides are horribly guilty.
why is this bastard allowed to litigate this case? he worked for Scalia as a clerk!!!! they have their hands in each other's pants.
to Pat....you someday could be Mary Brown (a Florida plaintiff in this case) ... she said she could pay her own bills for health and 2 years later she is filing for medical bankruptcy....the one guarantee we all have is that at one point in our lives we will need health care and none of us ever know how much the care will cost. I once was like you until an unexpected health crisis hit my family. It is great to plan and say you can pay until you the extraordinary costs and we are average earning individuals not mutimillinaires. Some people have poor health due to no choice because it could be linked to the environment, birth factors etc. If nothing else Obamacare has forced us as nation to start a "lively" discussion of all the things that affect health care costs. My personal choice would have been a single payer system with those of us who want purchasing private insurance to cover what a single payer does not (similar to how it is done in Sweden and their costs for health are lower). Overusers of the system are being addressed in the health care bill through the creation of case management models and this is already bending the health cost curve. It is time to be rational and realize we are all intertwined as a nation. Poor health choices by one can result in an epidemic within a community.
Kagan looks like Lou Costello in drag - Hey Abbott !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And she acts like him.
It's not looking good for Team Obama
It really bothers me that Justice Kagan is involved in this decision. Her involvement in crafting and defending the law and her obvious attempts to protect all or as much of it as possible does not indicate an open mind to the deliberations. Is it possible for someone to step aside as the case progresses if they haven't done so prior to the case being heard?
Len -
Your job is to take care of the need of your wife and daughter. Why should Obama force me to pay for others needs?
to Richard....it really bothers me that Justice Thomas is invovled considering his wife has accepted extensive funds from groups opposed to the ACA. Yes justices can recuse but it is their individual decision. If Kagan recuses then Thomas should do the same.
@Kyle Amen.
I don't see how you can remove just the mandate; the whole law would have to be struck, and Congress et al should have to try again. It's funny how if the Congress had just said the mandate was a tax, then SCOTUS would not have heard this case; but if the DEMS HAD said that, it would have been political suicide. You just can't hide your intentions behind semantics.
If the Court found the mandate unconstitutional, individuals would then be free to opt out of the insurance market and just become free-loaders and parasites on the insured when they become ill down the road. That's still constitutional under the health care law.
The entire bill should be voted constitutional or un-constitutional. Let Congress re-draft it. Picking and choosing pieces destroys the overall intent and might alter whether or not it would have passed Congress at all.
WOW! Scalia just showed his partisan hand in a HUGE way.
If the argument is that govt cannot tell businesses what to do, then the president is already set by the law that requires businesses to make businesses accessible for the handicap (i.e. allowing animials in restuarants that are seeing eye dogs, etc) . There are certain regulations that cost companies money to implement.
If the argument is that there are people who don't want insurance, but want to pay cash for their own healthcare, then hospitals should be allowed to refuse services in Emergency rooms without being sued, cause they can't be sure to collect the money. Unless you run it like a store or resturant where the customer is not allowed to leave till the billi is paid.
I need to have car insurance to drive a car. People need health insurance to get medical care.
Horrible to find the CONSTITUTION is now found to be- NOT written in plain English- but instead in Liberal English and in English. It blessed us with 2 political arms, Congress- to write laws, Administration to administer them, and a court that understood English. So now we have 4 rulers in the court whose ideology is more important than thier reading ability. Was not supposed to happen. Bye bye rule of law.
Healthcare is a state issue, not a federal issue. State representatives are more answerable to citizens than the Congress. As everyone saw, some Democratic Congressional members received special favors in the bill in exchange for their vote. Kagan should not be involved in this decision.
I'm confused.... Obamacare LACKS a severability clause. So, if one part is struck down, teh whole thing is invalid. Why would the Supreme Court in effect create new legislation by affirming ANY part of a law that - by its own wording - must stand or fall in the entirety?
The law needs to go. Not only is it untenable, but it is unworkable and does not solve the problem.
Congress does not have the authority to mandate purchases - taxes, yes - that's clearly enumerated. Perhaps if they read it before they voted, it might have dawned on them how outside the lines they were with this abomination (Obomination?). Of course, that presumes they have indeed read and understand the Constitution. Someone wrote Congress should have to take a test before they vote on a bill. I'd be in favor of a test on the Constitution before they are eligible to run for office (including re-elections). Call it thinning the partisan herd if you will.
For those demanding a right to healthcare (more correctly healthcare insurance - it is already against the law not to provide healthcare) - sorry, that's not in the Constitution either. Actually, what rights are there are being usurped daily.
And would someone please explain the noticeable absence of tort reform in this whole discussion? Much of the reason the system is so expensive is because of the ambulance chasers and silly lawsuits. One can't help but find it curious that the trial lawyers have managed to stay out of it. That the law didn't include that as a basic tenon is proof enough it was never a serious effort at cost control.
Time to start over.
It should all stand or all fall, and I can't see how anyone can see this as a Federal issue. It is a state issue. Promote the general welfare doesn't mean provide for the general welfare.
We need the Supreme Court to view the Constitution and apply it. We do not need them placing any other considerations in ruling on this law.
Are any of you bloggers currently living with a terminal or chronic illness? Have any of you attempted to purchase health care insurance with a pre-existing medical condition? Have any of you been laid off from work and lost your health care benefits? Are any of you alive today thanks to the health care you were able to receive – through whatever means? I wonder if the spirit of this blog would change if your answers to any of these questions were different.
lunch break? or lunch brake
Not a good day for the Obozo crew today . That equates to good day for America !
"Imagine living in a society where the health and well being of our people is valued – where the lines between the "have's" and "have-not's" is blurred".
What a crock, this country has always had values and the opportunity to succeed. We don't need losers spouting this kind of rhetoric because they want to sit on their dead a$$es and collect freebies all day long.
Regulating health insurance is a role for the states, not the federal government. This law overreaches in many ways and should be found to be unconsitutional. One point I wish was under discussion is why so many favored by the administration were given waivers. If they really thought the law was so good, why were waivers needed?
Consider the fact that most people cannot afford insurance resulting in the eventual penalty they also cannot afford to pay. This is a bad law that will further distance the government from their constituent. Should this law pass there should also be provisions for allowing deductible payments towards a medical plan, fully not partially deductible. Also any person required to pay the penalty should be eligible for free medical from the US Gov., ...................this is poor government at its best.
So Sonny what is your point?
Life sucks at times.
I am with you Sonny.....I work with people who need Medicaid. I see people like many of the bloggers and once they, their child or a parent develops a chronic or critical illness, or they are unemployed they sing a totally different tune. Now they "demand" their health coverage. As the conservatives thought in 1993 led by Newt et.al. a mandate would ensure personal responsibility.
Unfortunately for some the law is to be measure by the Constitution and the Rule of Law not emotions. What we want is not always what we get. Medical care is a cost of living, and that is the responsibility of a family. Sounds cruel I know, but we have a set of rules for government and those rules (the Constitution) are to be followed or changed, it is called the Rule of Law. Without it we live in chaos and tyranny.
The Right thing for USA to do is to follow Canada's example!
Canada has had universal health care for a century.
Memory serve me right, it was first implemented in the Province of Saskachuwan, Canada by former Premiere of Saskachuwan, the late Hon. Tommy Douglas, founder of the CCF party which morphed into presentg day New Democratic Party of Canada.
As a resident of Ontario, Canada, I have been enjoying for years free universal health care!
illinifan - Yes, but the role of regulating health insurance belongs to the states, not the federal government. Obama could have put pressure on the states to enact some of what he was trying to do - address pre-existing conditions exclusions, getting more people insured - but at the state level. He could have also created an assigned risk pool, a market of last resort, for those with conditions that made it impossible to get private insurance. This would still be voluntary - like federal flood - and could have been financed by a combination of premiums and taxes paid by everyone, regardless of income.
Sonny Boy - If you lived in a State that had heath reform you wouldn't have any issues .
In many ways, I am very sorry that this issue came to head regarding healthcare because this is a "third rail" issue to many on both sides with a wide array of side issues from birth control to freedom of medical choice. In reality, the issue at hand is whether the federal government can legislatively mandate personal involvement and purchase of a product, any product, because all of us at sometime in our lives will eventually use that product and hence that affects "commerce". The legislative argument is that if all of us are required to buy a "widget" today, regardless of our immediate need, it reduces the overall cost to everyone who actually needs the widget now. Further, since those that do not need it today eventually will need it at sometime in the future, it will then be to their advantage since they will be subsidized by those who do not need at that point in time. However, using this circular logic, there is virtually no end to the range of widgets that Congress could control at some future point in time. For example, forget about healthcare and substitute food. All of us eat, be it baby formula or steak and potatoes. On this basis, does it give the federal government the right to insist that we can only buy food grown in America, picked and packed by American workers, and transported over our highways in American trucks with American drivers and, potentially, go so far as to decide what may and may not be grown? Would not a law requiring us to buy only American food, etc. be tantamount to a moral imperative since this definitely affects commerce and would create tens of thousands of additional American jobs that, in-turn, would increase tax revenues, which, in-turn, could be used to subsidize people who would otherwise not be able to afford a wholesome and nutritious diet? If not food, what about transportation – you can only buy cars, trucks, etc made in America - or energy – you can only buy oil or gas pumped from American wells and transported through American pipelines or on American tankers - or virtually any widget one can imagine since its production and use in some way or form affects commerce? Put simply, this is the preverbal slippery slope. If the Justices find Obamacare to be constitutional, we, as a people, will have lost critical safeguards preventing future Congresses from deciding that virtually any day-to-day activity can be regulated under the rubric of commerce.
Justice Kagan should be recused from this case. A DEFINITE conflict of interest. Ridiculous miscarriage of Justice at our highest court level!
@ Saint Joseph - Nice try but nothing is for free !
Sonny and illinifan, I agree that it would be wonderful if anyone who needed healthcare could get it. It would also be wonderful if everyone bought wholesome, healthy food, as this would cut down on obesity and healt costs related to heart disease. But should the government be allowed to mandate everyone buy organic spinach or low-fat milk? I wish more people would eat healthier, but I can't allow the government to require such actions. Likewise, I wish everyone could receive the medical care they need, but the government chose to act in a way that violates its limitations. Good intentions do not justify unconstitutional actions.
The right thing to do is follow the Canadian model??? The RIGHT thing to do is follow the law as set forth in the Constitution.
MP50 - I agree. Since we all use energy at one time or another, shouldn't the government be able to require us all to buy solar panels for our homes? It is unpredicatable if or when we will use them because we might live in a warm climate, like cold showers and go to bed when it gets dark. How about forcing us to buy electric cars? We never know when we might need to get someplace that walking or biking won't work.
Pat it is great to suggest the states, but what do you do when you cross state lines for health care, or you work in multiple areas. I have seen in some states being a survivor of domestic violence makes you high risk so you can't get insurance. High risk pools exist in some states (Illinois is one), but the cost is more than the private market and often people who want to be insured cannot afford the cost. Example in my family someone I know enrolled in the high risk pool at a cost of $1500 a month (they had the income to pay) but many people do not. Also how do you get taxes put through in todays environment where everyone is looking out for themselves. Obamacare is allowing states to opt out and create their own programs as Vermont is considering. Absent Obamacare none of this would be happening. Also the arguement is the feds have never forced a person to buy private insurance, Medicare D makes this arguement implausible. This program requires the purchase of private insurance and if not purchased when eligible the person pays a penalty of lifetime higher premiums. Similar to the mandate which says if you don't buy the insurance you will just pay a tax penalty. There is no enforcement mechanism for the supposed mandate.
First, thanks to WSJ for this wonderful live blog. For those of us who care, or are interested in this historic juncture, we thank you.
Justice Kennedy - the arbiter, as it were - may consider the possibility of throwing parts of the law out, and keeping others. This certainly would be true to his nature. I can only wonder about the weight he may feel on his shoulders. The very relationship of how the government involves itself in our lives rest with his final decision.
Out of 2700 pages - which would take months, if not years to sort out - it may be incredibly difficult to pick and choose; however that may not preclude the court from doing so.
I agree it should go back to congress to re-do the law, and it probably will. Mandate, struck down, law struck down, but with instructions to go back to congress to re-work it. My opinion of this is stronger today, then it was yesterday.
Every situation has examples of people that slip through the cracks. The fact is that as responsible adults we are required to make choices daily. In the end, the real issue is, are we responsible for ourselves? Or are we all just wards of the state pretending to be responsible for ourselves. "It's not fair" is an emotional argument, not a legal one. We must follow the rule of law. Otherwise we live under a mob mentality where people can extort money out of others, and it is ruled okay and for the best.
This law violates the very basics of contract law, that is, that for a contract to be valid each party enters into the contract freely and not under duress or coercion. In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]". Duress is pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform. The requirement to purchase health insurance or be penalized is coercion.
Ahhhhh, the activist judge preaching judicial restrain..... whoops!
God, Bachman needs to go away, she is a complete moron.
Proponents of this aw have their hands out to the rest of us and their heads in the sand. The law is BS. Sure healthcare can be expensive, lose weight, take better care of yourself. Sure it doesn't cover everything, cut out cigarettes, save money and buy your drugs. I don't want to give the government any more money. They have proven, democrats and republicans alike, that they can't be trusted with our money. Reduce the deficit, cut spending dramatically except for vital areas such as defense, limit terms and give the president line item veto. Change the law so that all federal and state employees now participate in Social security. No healthcare law.
Forcing me to buy a product I may never need or might need years from now so someone else can get the product now at a cheaper price, and then try to make me feel bad for not wanting to do it. Sad. Just sad.
This HC law was simply bad from the start with all sorts of political give-aways and waivers. Our HC Insurance has gone up over $5,000 in two years. Even with HC insurance, we're paying all costs of doctors visits.
Already the CBO says the costs of the bill have doubled .... so when costs continue to rise, what will the Advisory Panel say? Limit medical access at a certain age or for certain medical conditions. Annonymous people making health decisions that will affect us all. This law was no panacea and it needs to be replaced.
Jeff Smith get your head out of the sand,.....Federal employees have participated in Social Security since the 1980's. The states decide if the state, county and municipal employees participate in Social Security. I am a former state employee who paid 4% into my state system and the 6.25% in Social Security for the 35 years I worked. Some state employees do not participate since states have decided they didn't want to pay the employer share of social security taxes and then they did not even pay the employer share into their state pension systems.
Please keep in mind that none of us is forced to draw benefits from government programs (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). They were intended for people in need and, if you look around, you may actually come to realize that a lot of people are in need - and not of their own choosing. We pay taxes to support the infrastructure of this country – all kinds of public works (a broad category of projects, financed and constructed by the government, for recreational, employment, and health and safety uses in the greater community). They include bridges, parks, roads, municipal buildings, dams, railroads, schools, hospitals, beaches, and other, usually long-term, physical assets and facilities. Yes people, "we are the world" . . .
Sonny, you've obviously been smoking too much free medical marijuana.
Pay for your own health care I say
"Justice" Kagan, a boatload of money from the Federal Govt isn't a "gift"....when you TAKE something from someone and give it to someone else it's called "theft"
illinifan I have read your posts. You are making articulate and persuasive points. Thank you. To me this has become simply a political issue and along the way to getting to the impassioned objections to the government mandating that we have some sort of health insurance we have lost our focus on the real problem – cost of healthcare is becoming unmanageable and after years of allowing the private sector to solve the problem the only thing that has occurred is costs keep rising and due to the business economics care is becoming less available to the people that really need it. I do not think that anyone – even crafters of the law - believe that the new healthcare program is perfect or even close to being perfect. The real problem isn't in identifying the issues with the new program. It is that Washington Gridlock and political maneuvering has created a situation where shutting down efforts to solve problems – whether it is healthcare or the deficit or needed infrastructure upgrades - is more important than working together to craft the best solutions. Some object to the notion of the government imposing a requirement for us to carry health insurance. However, why aren't these same people objecting to government requirements for us to have auto insurance, or driver's licenses, or paying into workman's compensation funds, or unemployment insurance, or crop insurance, or local building codes and a requirement for a county approved building permits, or zoning requirements, or local taxes used to fund tourism marketing and etc. Why should some of the profit generated by my monies in a bank be used to fund FDIC insurance? Get the government out of all of those areas. One could ask - how can the government reasonably force me to do anything? In the end it is all about this notion of the greater good. In my opinion if we could focus the energy that has been put into whether we should or should not have details of this healthcare program into influencing our Congress to get off the Gridlock and to start working together we would not only have a much better healthcare system we would be further along to solving all the issues we face including the deficit, the great recession, making our country more competitive and creating a place that we will be proud to leave for our children.
It saddens me to think that some of my fellow Americans are willing to take money out of my pocket against my will, under threat of penalty of law just to make things cheaper for themselves. Emotionally justified theft. This is why we have and need a constitution. TO protect us from those who would use the law and their emotions to steal from us. Thank God and our founding fathers for our Constitutional protections!
America is spending more than 10 times for the similar medical services in most of the developed nations and that is the key problem. If we change the system to suit the minimum medical necessity providing the best FREE preventive medical services to all citizen, our health system and health cost will come down drastically. America should open their own medical facilities in each county just for basic medical health services to anyone at no cost but let the effluents can pay their own insurance and take better hospitals or medical care, if they want. MEDICAL-MEDICAID AND EMERGENCY ADMISSION TO UNINSURED MUST BE STOPPED. America is almost broke financially and we can not afford to have Cadillac Medical services to ALL.People like V.P. Cheney should have paid his own bills, which has crossed 20 million dollars instead of passing to the government to pay.Also let old people die with dignity and peacefully within their own time rather than suffering on the hospital beds keeping several tubes and life support system, which bill to the government in millions making doctors and medical providers, insurance companies millionaires and billionaires.
Kagan shouldn't even be up there.
The problem that should be addressed as well is that the product that is being mandated remains unknown except that everyone will receive less health care than what they receive today since even the poorest today see the best doctors in the world. That will not be the same after this bill. Pharmaceutical research will be halted and regulated; care will be rationed and screened, delaying treatment; incentives will disappear for the brightest students to enter general healthcare....it is evident by just witnessing the same approach taken in other countries. So, not only is coercion terrible but the product itself that is forced is of lesser quality than the current product/delivery system. Doesn't the product itself matter?
"Mr. Clement made it about ten seconds into his argument before being cut off by Justice Elena Kagan. "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?" she asked. "It's just a boatload of federal money. It doesn't sound coercive to me, let me tell you."
To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi "Are you f'ing serious?" Just goes to show Kagan's true feeling about the generous federal government showering the states with "boatloads" of money. What a joke.
First to Michael, it saddens me to think my fellow Americans are willing to take money out of my pocket against my will by making poor life decisions and being responsible through ensuring their medical needs are met, thus increasing the cost for those of us who are being responsible. Michael get over it....we are in this world together. Like the poet Donne said "no man is an island" in a society we all share some responsibilities to obey laws that allow all of us to live together. If you want an island I understand there are some for sale and then you can establish the kingdom of Michael and no one will infringe on your "rights".
To all who discuss the framers of our constitution, please remember these were radicals who chose to take a stand against the laws of England. Remember the preamble which says "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The words promote the general welfare are open to discussion. Our founders wrote many letters to each other to try and clarify their thoughts. Also remember much of what we have today in technology etc. did not exist then, so this must be a living document unless we plan to be Amish. Good example is we today elect our Senators, but when the constitution was written this was an appointed position.
Sonny and Gridlock is the Problem are correct that we have shared responsibilities to each other. This also requires Congress to work together to address the issues. There is no simple or single solution to health care issues, and we will never have 100% happiness. There are also times the government has to take positions that do not have populist support because it is the right thing to do (civil rights law being right but not popular at the time).
Justice Kagan challenged Mr. Clement to explain whether he would still be saying that the provision was coercive if the federal government agreed to pick up 100% of the tab permanently. He's arguing that it is, because the government is insisting that the states comply with the expansion as a condition of remaining in the 45-year-old Medicaid program at all.
Justice Kagan, by the way, isn't having any of that. She compared Mr. Clement's argument to her offering him $10 million to come work for her. Would he refuse that, she wanted to know. He said he would want to know where the money came from, prompting Justice Kagan to reply, "Wow. Wow!"
That does it. Kagan's an idiot. No way 'round it.
Exactly right.
She sees the government as the great benefactor made up of elites who "give gifts" to the people of the United States. I can't believe it. A socialist on the Supreme Court!
Just where does she think the government gets this money? You know, it's from our taxes. So she feels the government has a free hand taking from us, and it is a gift when some comes back to those the government chooses.
What ever happened to a government of the people, by the people and for the people?
Interesting that Judge Kagan sees "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion? Really...a gift? Does she not realize that this so called "Gift" is monies earned by tax payers from the individual states. The money is the peoples, not the governments Does the Government work for us...or do work for the Government? . Obvious core differences in whose money is in play here.
Now the Left are quoting "We Are the World".....I pray to God you Occupiers get stoned and sleep in on election day....
Obeying the laws is what we are supposed to do and our responsibility to each other is limited, just like our government is limited, that is the purpose of the Constitution.
We've been on pause now for twenty minutes. What other paper is covering this as a blog?
Justice Scalia is being outlandishly partisan. Republicans would not have 60 votes to break a filibuster so the court must strike down the law?? What kind of logic is that? Further evidence that the highest court in the country is comprised of, besides the other seven more thoughtful justices, an extreme partisan, Justice Scalia, and a mute, Justice Thomas, who virtually always votes with Justice Scalia. These two justices are a disgrace to the dispassionate and impartial reputation of the highest court in the land.
Its amazing that Scalia can be blatantly partisan- i dont understand this guy, no pretense at all for impartialty. Little wonder things are going from bad to worse- expect any less from the court that brought us citizens united?
I will not defend the words or actions of Scalia, but I would hardly say Kagan is any better...
All those who say "healthcare is a right" have taken it one step too far.
Americans are given the right to go out and obtain healthcare for themselves. We have the right to choose who we go to, when we want to go if at all, and how we want to manage our own health. Americans also have the right to obstain from healthcare altogether if they so choose. If I am in need a heart transplant, it's my choice to decide to get one, or not. No one has an absolute right to any certain product or service, only the right to their own freedom to pursue such things.
RE: our right:
i guess its okay if people like me who pay even when we don't need it to make sure you can get the heart transplant when you eventually realise you are dying right? Thats called cheating the system. Why should I pay for your greed. i will gladly support your argument If you can guarantee that you'll pay out of pocket your hospital bills out of pocket (I hope you can afford it) and not pass it on to pple like me
Ms. Ginsburg needs to focus on the Constitutionality of the case..not the policy.
Please tell me I'm not the only one laughing at Verrilli as he tries to dodge the artillery shell fired in the form of the coercion argument layed out so beautifully by Mr. Clement?
JKR wrote :
Justice Scalia is being outlandishly partisan. Republicans would not have 60 votes to break a filibuster so the court must strike down the law?? What kind of logic is that? Further evidence that the highest court in the country is comprised of, besides the other seven more thoughtful justices, an extreme partisan, Justice Scalia, and a mute, Justice Thomas, who virtually always votes with Justice Scalia. These two justices are a disgrace to the dispassionate and impartial reputation of the highest court in the land.
So you're going to tell me that there is no one bias on the other side of the bench, i.e. Sotomayer or Ginsburg? Its hysterical how you fail to see both sides of the fence at once.
Wrong, Our Rights, a right without options is not a right. All healthcare is expensive; so you leave one expensive healthcare organization for another that's just as expensive. And if you have a pre-existing condition you may not even have the "right" to purchase healthcare from another organization. And that's one of the points of ObamaCare, to give folks the option of inexpensive healthcare.
The problem with the 4 Liberal SCOTUS justices is that they tend to see things through policy-tinted glasses, where the other 5 tend to look to the constitution. That's why Kennedy is see as 'the swing vote'; because he is looking NOT at the policy, but at the constitutionality of the issue, and the constitution HAS NO PARTY AFFILIATION. Kagan/Sotomayer were put on the court to be Obama-rubberstamps for policy and to fragment constitutional frameworks.
Health care is not a right. Health care consists of doctors' & nurses' physical labor, added to the combined product of all research and development by individuals and companies in the medical field. Which of these groups are you going to rob when you force their products to be provided for free? If you pay them (as you should), who are you going to rob to produce money to pay the doctors with? Health care is a convenience provided to developed nations, and for some to demand it through protesting and screaming like petulant children makes me feel ill.
"Why shouldn't we let Congress" decide what to do, Justice Sotomayor asked.
Sure, why not! A mortgage company includes unfair and unenforceable provisions in a mortgage contract, there is no severability clause in the contract, and when the homeowner goes to court for relief, the judge says: "Hey, why shouldn't we let the big bad bank decide what to do?"
Sure, let's let the fools who came up with this abomination "decide what to do". What a bizarre premise from Sotomayor. Not so "wise" after all.
No, that would never happen. Pelosi and her minions have already restricted water allocations to the farmers of California's Central Valley allowing thousands of acres to go fallow and unemployment to rise in some farm towns to over forty percent. No, the federal government would never allow that to happen.
'unreasonably coercive'
Just ask Kathleen Sebelliius what 'unreasonably coercive' means?? Or Obama.
Policy, Anonymous, is often argued in court, especially in constitutional issus, because the policy often reflects what the policy makers think the Constitution says. The Constitution, in and of itself, is sometimes of little help.
It's physically impossible and a violation of physics to be able to see "both sides of the fence at once."
I agree that we need healthcare reform, but I do not think this is the right plan. The govenment does not need to be in the healthcare business as I understand it. From what I know of the that little thing called the Bill of Rights, there is nothing in it that guarantees health care. Therefore, health care is not a right. It is something that is available to every citizen. What is in question is how it is paid for.
Anonymous wrote
And that's one of the points of ObamaCare, to give folks the option of inexpensive healthcare.--------
Now that right there is funny.
"The Federal government would never...."
What a joke. Those of us old enough to be able to read know that yes the Federal government will.
It is very clear that Scalia and Alito are simply arguing party lines. Justice Roberts appears to actually be weighing the actual subject matter in a realistic, judicial way. Kennedy appears to be taking the matter before the court seriously as well
Dear Anti-Socialist, aside from the opinions of most of the individuals on this planet who think otherwise, healthcare may very well be a right. And besides, who said anything about healthcare being free?
If you feel ill, use your healthcare and shut up.
States already have the right to refuse Medicaid funding, period. Funny, but they haven't. Much ado about nothing. Partisan positioning, I'm thinking.
It will be interesting to see how and how many more uninsured poor people vote next time out.
It also makes the states accept abortions being covered whether they want to or not. Or Kathleen Sebellius would some of that 'unreasonable coerciveness'.
Not sure how you figure that, I can think of 4 logically reasonable manners in which one can see both sides of the fence at once.
Anonymous said
healthcare may very well be a right-------
And it may well not be. I believe it's not a 'right'.
That 'right' granted by who? Corrupt government?
That's not a right, that's cronyism.
Healthcare IS a right in this country. It has been a right for a very long time. What is being proposed today is that everyone that currently has a right to healthcare in this country be made to share the financial burden for that right. Until Republicans in Congress pass legislation allowing emergency rooms to REFUSE care to those who cannot pay, Healthcare IS A RIGHT in the USA.
Fred, eventually, because of the ever increasing cost of healthcare, we will have some sort of universal health care system. That's been recognized and acknowledged. Interestingly, health care insurace companies are leading the way (high health-care costs eat into their profits). I guess you'll be in a constant state of hysterics at some future date.
By providing health care to millions more Americans, the law leaves citizens "unshackled" and better able to "secure the blessings of liberty."-----
Exactly the opposite of what it will do. Frckn liar, socialists make me sick.
Before Mr. Verrilli sits down for the final time in these cases, he stresses the overarching goals of the health-care law and urges the justices to keep those in mind during their deliberations. By providing health care to millions more Americans, the law leaves citizens "unshackled" and better able to "secure the blessings of liberty."
"Unshackled" by forcing people to purchase a product???
we will have some sort of universal health care system.---------
Anonymous, that remains to be seen. And it doesn't mean it will be government mandated simply because we are alive and are an american citizen, well most of us anyway.
Interestingly, it was Ron Reagan who signed into law legislation requiring no hospital to turn away individuals from the emergency room because they couldn't pay. Was Ron a...gulp...Socialist?
Oh and Anonymous, go use your Saul Alinsky tactics on someone else. They don't work on me.
What is being proposed today is that everyone that currently has a right to healthcare in this country be made to share the financial burden for that right.
Are they not already paying their share of the burden already, i.e. their own expenses? Since when was a "fair share" paying for those who don't pay? This is simply going to turn into another reallocation of wealth in the country; a tax-like binding that is paid for by the top 49% of earners and benefiting only the bottom 51% who pay nothing.
Looks like 'ol Anonymous and his anti-Socialist, more red-white-and-blue-than you-self is in need of behavioral health.
Glad at least a few caught that twisting of words.
Actually we don't have to have universal health care. We could continue to choose to be responsible for ourselves and reduce government intrusions into our lives. Unfortunately far too many people would rather pass the buck of responsibility on to others to foot the bill instead of realizing that they should step up and be responsible for themselves. Charity ceases to be charity when it is forced upon you.
Only possibly "unshackled" from potentially high healthcare costs, but now enslaved to the newly omnipotent State. No, thanks.
Yeah, whatever.
The intellectual dishonesty that Justice Scalia is displaying is shocking (though not surprising). Consider: "Justice Scalia would have none of that. He said that there wouldn't be 60 Senate votes, presumably Republicans, to break a filibuster and repeal the entire act, so the other provisions would remain on the books. Mr. Farr replied that it was not appropriate for the court to make legislative choices reserved to Congress."
Suddenly, it is acceptable for Justice Scalia to peek behind the curtain, and make political calculations (divining the intent and mood of Congress). In any other case, Scalia would throw up his hands, ignore political reality entirely, not look at legislative history, chide congress for not passing a better law, and STOP (without suggesting or doing anything broader to a challenged statute). But here, the ACA is apparently special enough for him to use a sledgehammer (though healthcare is not special enough to warrant deferential Commerce Clause analysis). This is ends-driven decision-making at its worst. Depressing.
thank you wsj for your very informative blog. i was clued to the computer and appreciate all your summaries. not sure how this will end, but it was interesting to have summarized sc judges comments.
Yeah, exactly! Let's keep on paying for the uninsured to go to the emergency room to take care of their cold. When an uninsured seeks medical treatment, the hospital or clinic charges them higher amounts than insurance will pay. That's why you see disallowed portions adjusted on your health insurance statements of payment. Of course, most of the time, the uninsured can't pay even more than insurance will pay, so they just walk out. And then those costs get thrown into all the charges the insured end up paying. Everyone needs to wake up to the fact that preventative care is cheaper than emergency care. If it wasn't, EVERYONE would hold out and wait for a condition to rise to the level of emergency!
Thanks you WSJ for your outstanding coverage of the scotus hearings. Quality journalism is hard to find. Worth the price of my yearly subscription.
I live in NY, which has a law that everyone has the right to purchase health insurance regardless of health. I pay $1260 a month. I am healthy and if I lived in NJ it would cost $600. My point is that if the pre-existing condition part of the law applied to all states everyones premiums would go up.
No one talks about how health care would be provided to 30 million additional people added to the present capacity without massive investment in new capacity or rationing current capacity.
THANK YOU SO MUCH for the live blog!
That is a pointed remark given Justice Breyer's recent experience. just kidding...
This was excellent coverage of events we rarely are able to access as they happen and with such detail. Thank you WSJ and the reporters who managed this blog. Well done!
Health care is NOT a right in this country. If it was, there shouldn't be any limits on it. If it's a right, why can't someone get an MRI or physical every day if they are very concerned about their health? The main argument is cost, but if it's a right, cost shouldn't be an issue.
If you want everyone to make the "choice" to buy insurance, make the alternative that they will be treated regardless of ability to pay NOW, but will be sent the bill which can be paid by them, or their children, or their estate...
Before Mr. Verrilli sits down for the final time in these cases, he stresses the overarching goals of the health-care law and urges the justices to keep those in mind during their deliberations. By providing health care to millions more Americans, the law leaves citizens "unshackled" and better able to "secure the blessings of liberty."
What a lie.
Shackled to poverty is the real outcome. What 0bama has done is diametrically opposed to liberty.
Kansas wrote :
Yeah, exactly! Let's keep on paying for the uninsured to go to the emergency room to take care of their cold.
What you fail to understand is how the guvmint has pushed out all the free care provided by catholic hospitals in the last 40 years.
**Unitended** consequences?
So now with the new WallStreet Poll we have actual statistics of how many people in the GOP and Tea Party are liars, or idiots, or lying idots…(it's at least 56% and I have the facts to back that up)
What I really want to know is of the 67% of them that want to overturn Obamacare is this. What if the child of that Tea Party person marching with the sign and protesting the bill was the person who had a pre-existing aggressive cancer. What if it was THEIR child who would loose their insurance, THEIR child who would not be able to get treatment without that insurance, THEIR child who was going to DIE as a result of their protest.
Do you still think it would be 67%? READ MORE….
Kagen is really an idiot. Her argument "What if I offered you $10 million to come and work for me? Would you turn me down?" left out the most important detail....the money she was offering would not be from her own pocket....IT BELONGS TO THE TAXPAYERS!
To brian murphy: Don't get sucked in brian. We all want to see healthcare REFORM, but not a total takeover of the system by the government. Not a 2700 page mandate bought and paid for by the elites of BOTH parties. Don't fall for the political propaganda. This law will destroy us. I work in health care and am already seeing the devastating effects of this mess.
Here are the facts. 94% of those with pre-existing conditions would not pay the cost equal to that of a healthy person / family's rate if offered because "it is too expensive". 87% of those with pre-existing conditions do not like the idea that if they are allowed to get a full coverage policy, they would have to remain fully paid up in order to receive the benefits otherwise they would have to wait 12 months to become eligible again. They believe in the "come and go as I please" mentality. Third, 13% of those with pre-existing conditions do not have three months of premiums in the bank. This whole issue revolves around another large pool of freeloaders. They want to pay nothing. Most are the OWS crowd which smoked dope, lived recklessly and now want everyone to pay for their LOSER lifestyle. I only can see a system whereby children up to age 18 born with catastrophic diseases will be covered under the system. Then again, the liberal / leftist / socialist / marxist / dirty-hippie / OWS zero would probably want to abort them first!
She is absolutely correct. It is the resposponsiiltybof elected officials to make laws that govern the citizens, it is not the Supreme Courts job o do so. It seems the court would be the first to agree with this. Our three branches of government all have separate responsibilities. If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, it should be done so in a strictly legal manner. Of course any decision should be backed up with legal reasoning, and not with hypotheticals. I am not so naive to believe the Supreme Court is not a political entity, but it would be refreshing to hear legal decisions that do not try to superimpose one branches powers over another.
Let's not get caught up in statistics no one can really prove. Because we use the currency of the U.S A is it even legal for the expenses for caring for the uninsured to be shuffled onto those that have insurance? This almost sounds like theft. The money spent by my insurance company was paid by me, why should my rates be increased because someone refuses to insure themselves? They do not have to get the Cadillac of plans, but an attempt should be made to be responsible for yourself, and your family. This may lead to a single payer system that will be enacted by the government, and then it will be a lock that you have to pay your taxes to pay for the system. Be careful what you wish for.
You are professional-level ignorant: no one is advocating for free health care (although that would be good idea). We are advocating for less expensive health care and health care coverage for more individuals. It's a worthy goal. And ultimately, if you and I have to pay a few more dollars in taxes each year to achieve this civilized goal, so be it.
It's just money you damn fool.
Of all the branches of government, the Supreme Ct. is the least political. Unfortunately, we have a fairly activist Justice on the panel, Scalia.
Mandate that all health care instructions become non-profit (poof) the affordability problem goes away and there is no need for the bureaucracy of Obama Care.
I have a daughter with spina bifida but I do not support Obamacare. I realize that some of the provisions of Obamacare would make our life easier in the future but I cannot support a law that demands I participate in something I do not agree with. The real problem is that people do not/cannot pay their bills. We could fix that through taxes or even changing bankruptcy laws. This government takeover of health care is an unnecessary exercise that will set up future abuses of the commerce clause. People are being blinded by the emotional near term issues of unaffordable health care when we should be safeguarding our long term liberties.
Lastly....I think one of the most important points made today was the reason people have insurance. They take on insurance policies to diversity risk. If the risk probabilities don't work in the favor of the insurance company then they have to adjust their business model. It is not the job of Congress or the supreme court to make sure that some private enterprises 'scheme' works.
Not one comment here has offered the idea that, in order for a person to have access to medical service, some other person must provide that service. I would like to hear from proponents of Obamacare where they expect to find people who want to provide them with medical services at a price determined by the Government. Why, if I spend seven years learning to perform renal surgery, are YOU entitled to have me perform it on you, at a price YOU (that is, the Government) demand(s)? If I incur enormous debts learning to be an OB-GYN, and huge expenses setting up a practice, am I not entitled to ask my patients to compensate me at a rate that I determine is necessary to meet my expenses? Look at the results in the UK of their version of "Obamacare" Many good doctors have left their specialties. The wait to see a specialist is months, sometimes years. Is this what you want?
Why is Kagan involved in the discussion when she helped author Obamacare? She should obviously be excused. Comments relating to the Liberal Supremes augueing FOR Obamacare are sad but true.... The highest court in our land should be discussing the issues (after each reading the entire 2,700 pages) not fighting for or against. This is the highest court in the land and it sounds like they are a bunch of children. The fight is for the attorneys and those making their presentations. To hear a Supreme Justice mention that she would like to pass the buck back to Congress is appauling. This process is making me sick.
a very nice free place```` richmatchmaking.c~o~m --is a place where you can meet wealthy, successful men and sexy women. It's worthy a try. You do not have to be rich or famous.It's free and always will be.,,now,!!It's your turn to join in!aertykukjhk...................
Right on, Virginia Mom!!!
Anytime you offer something for "free", there will be a shortage...
Covering people with pre-existing conditions - even right wing conservatives with a predisposition for being narrow minded, self-centered and short-sighted? That's a pretty big challenge. Please keep in mind, the fundamental tenants of the health care debate have been focused around reform intended to: a) broaden the population that receives health care coverage through either public sector insurance programs or private sector insurance companies; b) expand the array of health care providers consumers may choose among; c) improve the access to health care specialists; d) improve the quality of health care; e) give more care to citizens; and f) decrease the cost of health care. Sounds pretty noble to me.
Yes; you are entitled to ask your patients to reimburse you at what you think you need. No; you are not entitled to expect to receive that amount because it may be more than your patients can afford, ergo, you will receive what the free market dictates.
Now if you charge exorbitant prices for a non-essential service, fine (e.g., expensive leather purses). But that's not ok if it's an essential service (e.g., fees for certain banking services, health care, etc.) That's where government, via regulations, steps in and says how much you can charge.
And no; no one is arguing for free health care (where do these fools come from?).
No, Dave; you are blinded by false understanding of capitalism, pseudo-democracy, Rush Limbaugh-ism and jingoism. You want the most liberty you can get? Move to Somalia; very weak central government and nearly no pesky regulations or laws.
Like a true republican, you are hypocritical (so apparently being such is not important to you): on the one hand to condemn the bureaucracy of big gov't re health care, but on the other you condemn private enterprises' involvement.
Sounds like Mr. Farr would like people in an auto accident to not buy insurance until after the accident...Sounds fine, but where would the money come from and how much would be the charge for the post accident coverage?
It's not a gift from the federal government. It is our money that we have sweat for. And my childrens and grandchildrens money that they haven't even had a chance to earn yet. It's so easy for you to want to give it away. Shame Shame
> Your choice not to buy healthcare does raise my costs and also increases my taxes". That may be true sometimes, but if a person is healthy and has no need to use the system, how does that raise your costs?
Even if you haven't paid for insurance, you're already getting the benefit. In this country, you cannot be denied care just because you can't pay for it. The cost what you get free is passed along to all those who can pay (in almost all cases) through insurance, Medicare or Medicaid. The benefit of insurance isn't just whatever it actually pays in claims but that it assumes the risk that it will pay no matter what, which is a valuable benefit even if there are no claims. This is why we pay our insurance premiums even those years when we have no claims.
So the government's argument is you are already in the market for insurance and you are actually getting the benefit. But you're freeloading on the rest of us if you get the benefit but don't pay for it.
A medical bill is just like this healthcare bill. You have to get sick in order to find out how much it cost.
I'm a sweet, friendly, honest , caring girl in search of "the one".I've been single for over two years so i got a name Queenna2011 on----- richmatchmaking.c~o~m -------to find my Mr right..it is the first and best club for wealthy people and their admirers. …you don't have to be rich ,but you can meet one there , maybe you wanna check it out or tell your friends! Sometimes the perfect person for you is the one you least expect. maybe you can have a try.dhrtwaeq.....................
hi there macauley this is there site address ,check out there great deals , tell them mick donan put you on
hello there linda here is the contact info ,ring them for advice , mention Howardsy give you there number
hello there kevin it took me ages to find it i think this is there link
filling address , they have 20% discount now,just say mrs m binaford told you to ring
Quite right! Idea good, it agree with you.
By the way, what do you think about this icons site?
I think it already was discussed, use search in a forum.
P.S. Please review App Bar Icons for Windows Phone 7 Demo from fawkesbonfire
hello again dennis if your still in need of them i think this is there link
and some info , there there most competitive in the game ,just say martellas gift him out
934923368002398254322711851 222222487314968976 seo 85090200225838518058 company 42782280722822052. 762279 seo company 139339244985795 best 32 022552318716229262222422650023689 seo company 023898 48164932235263767483 00344.12347 :(
Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what's happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.
Sign up for Capital Journal Daybreak


text:
1 of 60
Throw Rag, ahoy!
Happy birthday, Alex's Bar! For night two of their anniversary celebration, Alex's Bar invited Mike Watt and the Secondmen, Throw Rag, Werewolf and Riverboat Gamblers. To read more about Alex's Bar and their history, check out our Q&A with Alex himself right here. All photos by Keith May.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
This is where you can post and discuss the spoilers for the next chapter of Toriko!
Printable View
This is where you can post and discuss the spoilers for the next chapter of Toriko!
From ◆27p9/DnZE//X
名無しさんの次レスにご期待下さい : 2012/05/30(水) 13:34:55.18 ID:ORS16cEF0 [1/3回発言]
超簡易 後でもう一回来る
トリコの成長を見届けスプーンドームに二人で入る珍師範 最期のデートを・・・・ ドームは珍師範にしか開けられない
シュウがトリコに進言 ゴーレムの中に混ざった灰汁獣の中に食義に似た奥義を取得している獣がいるっぽい
以前のトリコならキレてた状況にも怒らずゴーレムを倒すためだけに感謝している 実際には怒っていないわけじゃない
軽く振ったナイフでゴーレムの腕を輪切り 続いて釘パンチで一撃必殺 釘パンチは何連か分からないほど炸裂していた。釘パンチ前に髪は自然と??切れて元通りの髪形に
Toriko hits the Golem with Nail Punch and then casually moves his arm to use Knife and manages to cut off one of the Golem's arms easily.
woooooaaaah fast
I don't really know how I enjoy this new Toriko personality/persona, he seems too drab and dull. Always appreciating everything, makes him seem pretty stale as a person and not very entertaining.
I agree with LoS, being appreciative is fine and all but he shouldnt change is former personality. The only thing that I could see changing is that he should be a little less of a glutton because the food will now provide him more nutrients.
He just mastert it of course he overapreciat stuff wait some chapters and he will almost be back to normal and only apreciat with his inner self^^
Translation is up at hiwamatanoboru. There's only 1 reaction from me this time....
I've never seen an eviller person
The chapter is out on mangahere.:
The chapter was really great. Even though Toriko's character changed a bit I still like him.:) His evolution is tremendous and his Kugi Punch evolved beyond my expectations, but Toriko said that he can do even more.:)
So I believe we'll see some interesting fight between him and Take or him and Chiyo in the next chapter.
I hope Master Chin isn't dead. He was rather funny. Still, it's strange that he not only lost to Chiyo, but the fight seemed so one-sided.
P.S. Take is too confident. Either he is damn strong or he is overconfident, but still he has seen Toriko's power and it was just simple Kugi Punch and he has tons of other moves, so might show some enormous combos.:)
Cannot resist anymore to post so I register new account today. The chapter is beyond epic, Toriko kugi punch just pure awesome. Now left the question, how the hell will they faced Chiyo next since Chinchin is out of the game. I think some other big power will arrive to help them, Ichiryuu probably.
Welcome to the forum.:)
I though about the same thing. After Chiyo defeated Chinchin Toriko is the only one who can oppose Chiyo or Take, but they are two and he is one. I hope at least one strong person will come to help him. It would be funny to see Zebra.;) He might show some power-ups.:)
How many ren is that? I'm counting about 31, but that could be my mistake.
I dont think Ichiryuu would be there its too soon to see the big guys fight. I think Take's just BS he can't have powerup that quick to be on the same level as TOriko. Maybe cuz he has seen what the others in bishokukai can do that he is not awed by that pure power. I have no idea how many ren is that either its just too much. I wonder why he cut his hair =P Next chapter might be end of food honor arc so the probability of someone else came and rescue them is high. Will Chiyo run away or they would be able to capture her and re cleanse?
It is indeed true that Toriko's kugi punch was 38 ren, and that is only one arm. Math expert agree that 38 ren with 2 arms = 76 ren, but we never know because he said he can do more than that.
In the discussion about Take, we dont seriously think that a chief with no fighting experience that got captured by the Bishokukai is capable of opposing Toriko, do we? Most likely it will be Chin vs Toriko.
In this week Shounen, Toriko is the best. This is such an underated manga, so few posts in discussion thread!


text:
Image Gallery
Todd Hale's iPhone/iPad DrawingsIllustration // Thursday, 07 Mar 2013
"Drawing using only my finger is an interesting marriage of the digital world and the primal act of making marks. I think that notion seeps into the work itself, and has manifested into a type of organic technology, from which I am mining artifacts and images... I want to approach making visual art as if I was a musician on the road, experimenting with and refining my work in front of people on a consistent basis, establishing a conversation that we can expand upon." Todd Hale was born in Richmond, VA where he works part of the year making art and opening his studio during the city's First Friday art walk. The rest of the year Hale lives at the beach in Nags Head, NC where he works as a photographer and looks for inspiration in the ocean.


text: Whether you're cooking for a family supper or entertaining with friends, these top-rated pasta recipes will never fail to impress. Print Email Up Next... 25 Best Soups PagesPrevious 26 of 26 Next View All More like this Sign up now for our FREE email newsletters! Related Links 25 Best Soups Best Macaroni and Cheese Recipes 25 Best Chicken Recipes Advertisement


text:
A common support request we receive is customers needing a little help customizing the look of their forms using CSS. Specifically, we often get questions about how to make the submit button at the bottom of their forms look different, or better conform to their website's color scheme. Today, I thought I would go over a little light CSS that you can use to jazz up your submit buttons. (Some of the CSS selectors I'll use are specific to Formstack, but the CSS code can be reused for any HTML form.)
In order to add custom CSS to your form you will need to either add this CSS to a form Theme inside Formstack or add it directly to your website (if you are embedding your form on your website).
1. Text Buttons
Our first example changes the basic colors and spacing of the default submit button. Take a look at the CSS below:
.fsSubmitButton { border-top: 2px solid #a3ceda; border-left: 2px solid #a3ceda; border-right: 2px solid #4f6267; border-bottom: 2px solid #4f6267; padding: 10px 20px !important; font-size: 14px !important; background-color: #c4f1fe; font-weight: bold; color: #2d525d; }
- The CSS class of .fsSubmitButton is the class of the submit button itself.
- Occasionally, you'll need to add the "!important" tag to some styles if they don't appear to work. This tag forces the web browser to use that style over all others. This can be an issue if there are other CSS rules already set for your submit button.
Of course, you can modify this CSS to use colors specific to your website. The above CSS rules will make your button look like this:
2. Graphic Buttons
Another popular method of styling submit buttons is to use a graphic instead of changing individual button styles. If you are able to create a button graphic and host it on your website, you can use CSS rules to use the graphic as your button instead of the default button.
.fsSubmitButton { background-image: url(signup.png); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-color: transparent; height: 66px; width: 182px; border: none; text-indent: -999em; }
- The "url()" part of the rule will contain the link to your hosted button image.
- The height and width rules will change depending on how large you make your button image.
- The background-color and border rules are set to turn off the default button style so only your button image is visible.
- The text-indent line pushes the default button text off the screen so your button image can be seen clearly. This method allows screen readers to still find your button text.
These CSS rules would make our submit button look like this:
As you can see, we are only scratching the surface that the many possible ways you can style your submit buttons. Sometimes the best method is to play around with different styles and values until you get the look you want. Before we close out this post, here's the CSS for 2 additional form buttons. We've styled these very nicely so that you have a great starting point for your new online form.
Button Style 1
.fsSubmitButton { padding: 10px 15px 11px !important; font-size: 18px !important; background-color: #57d6c7; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: 1px 1px #57D6C7; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 5px; -moz-border-radius: 5px; -webkit-border-radius: 5px; border: 1px solid #57D6C7; cursor: pointer; box-shadow: 0 1px 0 rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.5) inset; -moz-box-shadow: 0 1px 0 rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.5) inset; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 1px 0 rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.5) inset; }
Button Style 2
.fsSubmitButton { padding: 10px 20px 11px !important; font-size: 21px !important; background-color: #F36C8C; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: 1px 1px #F36C8C; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 100px; -moz-border-radius: 100px; -webkit-border-radius: 100px; border: 1px solid #F36C8C; cursor: pointer; box-shadow: 0 1px 0 rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.5) inset; -moz-box-shadow: 0 1px 0 rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.5) inset; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 1px 0 rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.5) inset; }
Want more tips on form buttons?
Check out our video with 7 steps to better your submit buttons, and learn all about form button optimization.
Image credit: Chris Glass


text:
A sprain is an injury to the ligaments around a joint. Ligaments are strong, flexible fibers that hold bones together. When a ligament is stretched too far or tears, the joint will become painful and swell.
Joint sprain
Sprains are caused when a joint is forced to move into an unnatural position. For example, "twisting" one's ankle causes a sprain to the ligaments around the ankle.
Symptoms of a sprain include:
Aspirin, ibuprofen, or other pain relievers can help. DO NOT give aspirin to children.
Keep pressure off the injured area until the pain goes away. Most of the time, a mild sprain will heal in 7-10 days. It may take several weeks for pain to go away after a bad sprain. Your health care provider may recommend crutches. Physical therapy can help you regain motion and strength of the injured area.
Go to the hospital right away or call 911 if:
Call your health care provider if:
The following steps may lower your risk of a sprain:
Biundo JJ. Bursitis, tendinitis, and other periarticular disorders and sports medicine.In: Goldman L, Schafer AI, eds. Goldman's Cecil Medicine. 24th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders Elsevier; 2011:chap 271.
Brinker MR, O'Connor DP, Almekinders LC, et al. Physiology of Injury to Musculoskeletal Structures: 1. Muscle and Tendon Injury. In: DeLee JC, Drez D Jr, Miller MD, eds. DeLee and Drez's Orthopaedic Sports Medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders Elsevier; 2009:chap 1, section A.
UPHS Contact Us
Site Map Privacy
Legal Disclaimer
Terms of Use
The University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA 1-800-789-PENN ©
2015, The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania