Health Care Reform Debate-Megathread

[Iangould]

Did you read that link? They are worried abut an unemployment rate that Americans would be orgasmic to have.

It really seems like he just read the headline.

[Jeff Brady]

It really seems like he just read the headline.

Doesn't that remind you of someone? Briareos from YABS?

[7thangel]

i found bri funny at times (not on purpose, of course), can't say the same of this one

[dupont2005]

It really seems like he just read the headline.

Same with just about anything he comments on. He latches onto keywords like "social" and "public" and then immediately decides it's bad. Must be nice not having to think too hard.

[Iangould]

Incredible as it may seem, I sometimes get something right.

I can't remember where I read it but a year or so back someone encapsulated what I think is the essential truth about the US Supreme Court and similar institutions around the world (certainly it describes the High Court here in Australia).

Justices do not come to major issues as tabulae rasa, they come leaning towards one side or the other based on their personal political and philosophical views. In general, if say a gun-rights case is before the Supreme Court we know that Scalia is likely to favor an extensive reading of the second Amendment and Ginsberg is likely to favor a narrow reading.

When a case is actually before them, Justices will typically seek to determine it based on those prejudices. However, and this is the important bit, if they are doing their jobs properly, they can be persuaded to set aside those prejudices and decide the case on its merits.

In a case as complex as this and despite Scalia's comments from the bench, the decision is not going to be determined by three days of public hearings, it's going to be determined by weeks or months of written argument, research by the Justices and their clerks and discussions between the Justices.

The comments by the Republican-appointed Justices, especially Kennedy, are indicative of their prejudices going into the case, they are not necessarily indicative of how they will ultimately vote.

Oh and in case anyone takes offense at my use of the word "prejudice" I use it in its narrowest sense "prejudgement".

[7thangel]

the reliable media at work

In A Rush To Be First, CNN, FOX, Huffington Post and TIME Get Supreme Court Story Exactly Wrong







[...]



President Obama Initially Heard Mandate Had Been Overturned

President Obama rode the same emotional rollercoaster as millions of Americans watching cable news on Thursday, as the first reports to reach him via CNN and FOX erroneously declared that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate had been upheld.

The president remained calm in the face of what would have been devastating news for his signature legislation, according to senior White House officials. One to two minutes passed before White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler entered the room flashing two thumbs to signal that the law had, in fact, survived almost entirely intact.

Obama’s first response was confusion: Two of the four televisions in the outer Oval Office were still breathlessly pronouncing the mandate dead. But the initial shock quickly turned to smiles and hugs, the administration officials said, as the true results sunk in: The Supreme Court had upheld the Affordable Care Act, 5-4.

The president’s first phone call was to Solicitor General Don Verrilli, who was widely criticized for his performance defending the law before the Supreme Court, to congratulate him. A former constitutional law professor who had carefully reviewed the court proceedings, Obama was well aware that it was one of Verilli’s arguments, that the mandate could also be considered a tax penalty instead of an imperative to purchase insurance, that had ultimately swayed Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the majority opinion.

[Michael P]

[Loren]

the reliable media at work

In A Rush To Be First, CNN, FOX, Huffington Post and TIME Get Supreme Court Story Exactly Wrong

And yet: Huffington Post - Supreme Court Health Care Ruling: CNN, Fox News Wrong On Individual Mandate (VIDEO) . With the front page headline: "CNN's Epic Supreme Court FAIL"

Only way down at the bottom of the article, in the third-to-last paragraph, does it acknowledge that, yeah, HuffPo got it wrong too.

[7thangel]

lmao. not surprised that huffpo would do that

[Matt Algren]

You guys don't read my blog. Harumph.

[Charles RB]

the reliable media at work

In A Rush To Be First, CNN, FOX, Huffington Post and TIME Get Supreme Court Story Exactly Wrong

How the heck do that many people get it wrong at the same time? It's not like a typo or something. Were they all copying each other or something?

And yet: Huffington Post - Supreme Court Health Care Ruling: CNN, Fox News Wrong On Individual Mandate (VIDEO) . With the front page headline: "CNN's Epic Supreme Court FAIL"

Only way down at the bottom of the article, in the third-to-last paragraph, does it acknowledge that, yeah, HuffPo got it wrong too.

Har har!

[Michael P]

How the heck do that many people get it wrong at the same time? It's not like a typo or something. Were they all copying each other or something?

My guess is they were all anticipating that it would be struck down (because that's the narrative they've been building for the past few weeks), heard the decision had come down, and immediately went with their pre-fabbed stories.

[Charles RB]

My guess is they were all anticipating that it would be struck down (because that's the narrative they've been building for the past few weeks), heard the decision had come down, and immediately went with their pre-fabbed stories.

And there's the problem of trying to build a narrative around current events. (My twin favourites are "with NATO, Libya will be an ongoing civil war for a very long time oh wait the rebels are in Tripoli now" and "the Liberal Democrats are going to make large gains this time around oh they got pretty much the same as last time")

[Iangould]

How the heck do that many people get it wrong at the same time? It's not like a typo or something. Were they all copying each other or something?

I haven't read the decision but my guess is that it started out by stating that the mandate was an improper use of the Commerce Clause - before going on to say it was a valid application of the power to levy taxes.

[Iangould]

My guess is they were all anticipating that it would be struck down (because that's the narrative they've been building for the past few weeks), heard the decision had come down, and immediately went with their pre-fabbed stories.

With a story like this, they would have had two nearly-complete stories ready to run just waiting for stuff like slotting in the details of how the individual justices voted.

That happens all the time. How else can they, for example, have a 2,000 word obituary ready to run within 30 minutes of a celebrity's death.