The Huff-Po View: If High Court Overrules ObamaCare, Justices Are Stupid and People Will 'Die As a Result'
On Wednesday's edition of the Bill Press radio show, Huffington Post reporter Ryan Grim put on his best conceited act and expressed that the Supreme Court just doesn't have great brains on it, and they're not qualified to overturn Obamacare. In fact, if they overturn Obamacare, Grim warned, "people's lives are at risk and people will probably die as a result." Conservatism kills.
It's amazing that Grim would say it's the Supreme Court with the failing brains, since he originally boasted (before oral arguments) that Obamacare would be upheld 6 to 3. Now he doesn't believe that, because the Justices are too stupid to rule on it, especially Antonin Scalia: [Video and transcript below]
GRIM: I don't know what's going to happen, but I think I greatly overestimated -- I think the brains that these guys have. You know, you hear these guys in the confirmation hearings and you read what they write and they seem like awfully intelligent folks but then you watch them in that oral argument or you listen to the tapes of the oral argument where they are talking being healthcare reform. They have no idea what they are talking about. I mean you have [Antonin] Scalia saying, you know, we can't throw out the mandate and then leave the rest of it because that would be legislating from the bunch. He can actually say that.
PRESS: As if they never legislate from the bench. This gang. This gang.
GRIM: And he’s like we can't read 2,000 pages of this bill and decide what we can throw out and what we can’t throw out. Well then just leave it alone if you don't feel like reading the actual bill. And the other, ok say you throw out the mandate. What does that have to do with say 8 billion dollars in money to build community health centers? On what planet is it unconstitutional to build a community health center? Just because he doesn’t like the mandate? He’s going to say...what are they going to do, bulldoze the community health centers that have already been built. It was clear from the oral argument that they hadn’t thought it through. And so I think the only hope for advocates of the bill or the law now is that they have had a chance to think it through over the last few months and have realized the error of their ways. Because if they go with the way that they were thinking when it was argued you know they’re tossing it out.
It's really amazing how liberals always presume you agree with them, or you're a mental midget. There's no way they can be intelligently rebutted. The threat has been in the air for months: the justices must uphold, or else the "integrity" and "prestige" of the court gets nuclearized by the Left. Then came prediction time:
PRESS: I think they’re going to overturn the individual mandate and keep the rest of the bill. So the question is, let's say -- let's explore both, that they overturn the whole enchelada or they just overturn the individual mandate. What happens and how does it play in this election?
GRIM: Well if they overturn the entire thing, people’s lives are at risk and people will probably die as a result. I mean, that's the very harsh reality. People who had health insurance as a result of the bill and lose it and get some type of disease that needs major medical treatment, they won't be able to get it.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
GRIM: "People who had health
Submitted by Brad90956 on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 11:31pm.
GRIM: "People who had health insurance as a result of the bill and lose it..."
You mean like companies that will drop their employees from health care coverage because the fine to the government is cheaper than covering their employees?
People Will 'Die As a Result'
Submitted by needle on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 11:35pm.
People will die in any case, but with ObamaCare’s inevitable rationing of health care people most assuredly will die sooner – Obama’s unspoken solution to “save” Social Security.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
The unfortunate truth
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:52am.
Disregarding the fear mongering fro the dems since this bill was first proposed (isn't that what republicans do?), NO ONE dies in this country due to lack of medical treatment. NO ONE. Insurance or not, hospitals are REQUIRED to treat people who come into the ER. PERIOD. This BS about "we have to insure everyone because millions die every year because they don't have insurance" has got to stop. It is a flat-out lie. Maybe if we curtailed illegals from going to the ER for minor colds, sniffles, and hanfgnails, our healthcare costs would be a tad lower. Or how about hammering the ambulance-chaser lawers who get millions of dollars for settlements for frivolous "injuries". THAT'S how to "fix" our healthcare system.
In other words
Submitted by panzerakc on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 12:51am.
If people don't do what I think they ought to, they are a bunch of stupid poopy-heads.
You need to trademark that phrase
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 9:19am.
I think the DNC might steal it as their official slogan.
Back to the future?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 1:13am.
"People who had health insurance as a result of the bill and lose it and get some type of disease that needs major medical treatment, they won't be able to get it."
Well, since the insurance mandate part doesn't even kick in until 2014, I don't they have too much to worry about right now. They can't lose something they won't have for another TWO YEARS, you moron! Relativity doesn't work that way.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
IMHO
Submitted by amyshulk on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 1:44am.
Apples and oranges. Health coverage is NOT health care.
If a business stops providing it as a PERK, wages *should* go up.
If we could purchase health coverage like any other insurance, and it was open shop vs. closed, then *maybe* costs could go down.
Bundling everyone into a closed shop, one size fits all HURTS the vaunted "middle class" and forces costs up - just like with housing & education.
Ronald Reagan
Talk about apples and oranges
Submitted by Reaver on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 9:02am.
Talk about apples and oranges this guy went from the individual mandate to bulldozing “community health centers”! Somehow I don’t think a second cup of coffee will make that leap of logic any clearer.
Using liberal logic:
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 7:10am.
Obamacare isn't fully in place (and, hopefully, will never be).
Since Obamacare is the only thing that will save certain people's lives, those people must currently be dying or dead.
So Obama must be responsible for their deaths and illnesses, as he didn't use his God-like powers to save them.
9 supremes
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 9:00am.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act dubbed "Obamacare" is an obvious unconstitutional law as congress has ever passed and a US president has ever signed into law. There is no authority for the congress to be involved in medical care period.
Qurestion: Is it constitutional for congress to pass a law forcing everyone to buy a product they may or may not want?
Boy that one must have been a tough one to figure out. Of course it isn't! But as one Republican husband and wife in my neighborhood so piously stated prior to the vote on Obamacare told me: "you are forced to buy auto insurance. I don't see why the Republicans are so against forcing people to buy health care."
Well, that family didn't call their Reps in Washington to vote No on Obamacare! "May I have my DVD back?" http://www.facebook.com/ChooseFreedom.StopObamaCare
Once the majority of Americans know what is and isn't in the Constitution - the nation's rule book - then we won't have to wait with bated breath for a SC decision - a decison that addresses a small portion of a bad, very bad and unnconstitutional to boot, healthcare law.
The bureaucracy which has been put into place will remain.The thousands of bureaucrats will continue to conduct business as usual; gumming up the system until it grinds to a stop due to bureaucratic overload.
Congress must step in to abolish Obamacare or the bureaucracy built to support Obamacare will destroy this nation. Unless that's what they wish to do and remake America into a replica of mainland China.
What are your thoughts on this?
Submitted by Someone Said on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 9:13am.
You don't have to buy health care, but the hospital must treat you. They will bill you, but can't force you to pay. So why bother with insurance?
In the case of auto insurance, have you ever been a victim of an accident with an uninsured motorist? Sucks to get stuck with that bill too.
"In the case of auto insurance"
Submitted by phryingphish on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 9:27am.
False argument. Auto insurance is a requisite only if you want to drive, you don't have to drive. I don't own a car so I don't need auto insurance, and the state will not force me to buy it. But I must buy health insurance if I want to breath.
Someone Said
Submitted by CommonSenseGuy on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 1:17pm.
I know this will generate a lot of hate comments but I'm beyond caring what the Leftards think anymore...TOO much at risk in the USA. Frankly, the requirement that hospitals treat anyone regardless of ability to pay is, in my view, bordering on unConstitutional in iteslf. Is a restaurant required to feed a homeless starving person? I think not. The safety net that WE THE TAXPAYERS fund is more than sufficent to keep society's irresponsible DEMO alive and that's quite enough. Remember the origins of two places that sensible men used to deal with this kind of crap. GEORGIA (USA) AND AUSTRALIA. If common sense people don't get rid of the Socialist, racists, NWO crowd in Washington in November, we're all screwed...cause productive people like myself will get the hell out of what the Leftanistas are turning into a ____________ (choose your own descriptive)...OMG-2012 (Obama Must Go)
Well said.
Submitted by nolefan2 on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 1:28pm.
You hit the nail right on the head.
CSG
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 3:59pm.
The problem with the "safety net" that we are paying for has turned into a hammock for many.
In the case of auto insurance.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 2:06pm.
In the case of auto insurance, liability is considered. If I am the cause of an accident, even if I am the only one involved, I am responsible for that, I am liable for that. That's why it is mandated, it's a case of liability. If you refuse to accept liability, you're not allowed to drive.
That's not true with health insurance. With health insurance, no one is responsible, for no one is liable, for their own health. Even for self inflicted injuries like, say, sawing off your own limb with a chain saw, you're not held liable. Liability doesn't come into play. So, why is self-insurance being mandated? You're being forced to cover something that you can never, ever, be held liable for, your own health! What happens if you refuse to accept liability for your own health? Are you refused to allow to continue living? No, that doesn't happen, ever. You may be liable for the costs of treatment, but no one is going to "repossess" your body if you refuse to pay.
By the way, that's why no one can be refused appropriate medical treatment here in the US, for any reason whatsoever. They're never, ever, ever, held liable for their own health. Once you are in the care of a doctor, the liability of your health is theirs, not yours. So, why aren't they forced to pay for your healthcare insurance? After all, they are the ones who are liable.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Slight correction, Cobra...
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 2:11pm.
no one can be refuse emergency medical treatment. That's why people show up in ER's.
But emergency rooms only have to "stabilize" you.
If you go in with a broken wrist, they can splint it and refer you to an orthopedist. When you call to make an appointment, that other doctor doesn't HAVE TO treat you.
You've alreayd been treated
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 2:25pm.
That orthopedist doesn't have to give you additional treatment, for you already received treatment at the ER. If you want to pay for that additional treatment, which would probably be a good idea for you may be suffering from other injuries that the ER didn't detect, I'm sure he won't have a problem with that. But not even an orthopedist can refuse to give you the initial treatment.
By the way, ALL medical treatments keep your health "stabilized," it just that some are far more effective than other. For example, both a splint and a cast keep your injury "stabilized" enough to promote healing, but a cast is far more effective at it.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
What the medical regulations and ethics say.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 5:52pm.
The ethics are very clear: first do no harm (primum non nocere); second do only that which is good for the patient; and third respect the choices made by the individual patient or representative. The newer "fourth pillar" is the social justice bullcrap, but anyone educated before 1995 doesn't have that socialist utopian nonsense.
Yes it is true that hospitals are required to "stabilize". What this means is a matter of "standard of care". "Standard of care" means the prevailing treatments are applied IF the hospital has the appropriate equipment and professionals with the appropriate licensing AND "scope of practice" to do so. "Scope of practice" means by a reasoned consideration of training, experience, licensing and hospital-approved credentialing. As a psychiatrist, I would not be delivering a baby or suturing wounds or doing a cardiac catheterization unless circumstances were dire. I do not perform these services in the routine practice of my professional specialties, nor am I credentialed by the hospitals where I am on medical staff to perform such services. In similar ways, a hospital is not required to render services if it does not have the appropriate facilities to perform any further services beyond what it normally provides. For example, I am the last available physician called during a major medical emergency at a psychiatric hospital where I am on staff. I would not be credentialed appropriately to do a thoracotomy (incision into the chest) and the hospital would not have the appropriate facilities (surgical facilities and equipment) to do it. Thus we would stabilize the patient and transfer. That is the appropriate "standard of care" for my services at that particular hospital.
As a matter of policy, most hospitals will continue to provide services and will look for a way to put the patient on some kind of assistance program. Most hospitals have medical social workers whose entire job it is to work to find ways of paying the bill and of continuing the care until the patient is out of the facility under an appropriate discharge plan. Whether or not the bill gets paid is ultimately a gamble anytime a patient enters a hospital, emergency or not.
That's understandable
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 6:56pm.
"As a psychiatrist, I would not be delivering a baby or suturing wounds or doing a cardiac catheterization unless circumstances were dire."
That's understandable. As helicopter mechanic, I wouldn't be flying combat patrols, unless I had no other choice.
As for my use of "stabilized," I was using that in a general sense. For example: heart surgery is designed to keep your circulatory system "stabilized" so that you don't die. It's only when it becomes "unstable" that you have a serious problem, like impending death.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
How ironic,
Submitted by winston smith on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 9:26am.
the supporters of abortions, assisted suicide, allowing convicted murderers to walk free, and now substituting "pain pills" for serious medical intervention ---the cornerstone of Obamacare, are bellyaching that conservatism "kills".
!!
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 9:47am.
Brilliant!
I agree.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 9:51am.
You can't even parody this stuff.
I''ll tell you what's ironic
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 3:11pm.
I'll tell you what's ironic. Liberals want us to liable for our own health. If we aren't, they will do everything within their power to insure that we are. But we're only liable part of the time. It only applies when our heath is good, not bad.
You're a smoker? Don't you know what that does to your own health? STOP! NOW! If you don't, we'll make it illegal to smoke.
You're obese? Don't you know what that does to your health? STOP! NOW! If you don't, we'll make it illegal to consume more calories than you need to survive.
You do physical activities without the use of safety equipment? Don't you know what that does to your health? STOP, NOW! Of you don't, we'll make it illegal to refuse to wear safety equipment.
You're overweight, a smoker, and broke your elbow riding you bike but the doctors refuse to treat you because you can't afford it? Don't they know how much harm they're causing you? They must STOP! NOW! If they don't, we'll make it illegal.
You're perfectly healthy, have no known adverse medial conditions and are uninsured? Don't you know what that does to your future health? STOP! NOW! If you don't, we'll make it illegal.
These people are nothing, if not inconstant.
Here's an idea, liberals. If you want to make people liable for their own heath, which is what you want, then make them liable for their own health CARE as well! You try to force each and every one of use to take personal responsibility over our own heath, but when one of us not healthy, you don't hold any of us personally responsible. Suddenly it's the responsibility of society as a whole. Do that make any sense to you?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
<sound of duct tape ripping off roll>
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 9:25am.
On what planet is it unconstitutional to build a community health center?
Quoting Nancy Pelosi: Are you serious? Are you serious???
On what planet is it the constitutional responsibility of the government to build community health centers???
Excuse me now while I wrap my head.
I lived in the U.K. and know
Submitted by rbosque on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 12:04pm.
I lived in the U.K. and know of people who went to the U.S. for medical treatment. Had they stayed and waited months for thei appointment in the U.K., they would have died. So this idiotic argument that people will die without Obamacare is beyond stupid.
"So this idiotic argument
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 2:20pm.
"So this idiotic argument that people will die without Obamacare is beyond stupid."
Especially when you consider that this nation has gotten along quite well for over 200 years without it. It's not like people were dying in the streets with no help in site on December 23, 2009.
Echoes of Pelosi
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:14pm.
Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It".
GRIM: And he’s like we can't read 2,000 pages of this bill and decide what we can throw out and what we can’t throw out. Well then just leave it alone if you don't feel like reading the actual bill.
Too bad Congress didn't just "leave it alone" because they didn't feel like reading the actual bill.