Constitution Free Zone

[Kurt Ullman]

That was my thought, too, but I had to ask.

The healthcare stuff bounces around a lot so it depends on what and when. The annual Healthcare Expenditures report found for 2013 (the latest on the website for the Office of the Actuary at MCare) Pharm prices went up 2.5% compared to 0.5% the year before. Physicians and clinical services went up 3.8% (4.5%) largely related to sequester and other "artificial" happenings. Hospitals went up 4.3% (5.7%). So Pharm spending went did not grow at a rate higher than these other two. I would also point out that prescription meds account for only about

10% of all health expenditures according to Mcare. It is hard to suggest that increases less than increases in other areas (especially given the small relative percentage of the hit) means that drugs are eating up any savings. Also, I am a little tired of the non negotiation of prices. While MCare can't those putting together Part D plans can and do negotiate just like they do for their "regular" insured. Many studies of the early years of Part D showed the impact, which has disipated over the years since you can only wring out excesses for a certain amount of time before they are no longer there. So, while technically, they can't negotiate, this really means just for in-hospital people and the vast majority of medication is spent outpatient.

Serious question: "I hear" could you be more specific?

[Kurt Ullman]

And that is anything other than YOUR opinion with even fewer facts since I did, afterall, toss a couple of parts of the actual opinion your way.

All of this has been a balance of differing rights. That is pretty much what the Supremes do.

I would suggest the Gang of Four +1 since Kennedy does tend to wander in and out. (g) You may be correct, although Roberts had to resort to judicial activism (defined by me personally as not only making law up as they go along, but admitting to it in the opinion such as Roe V Wade where the majority acknowledged there was no words in the Constitution backing up what they are doing, but we were able to find a "prenumbra" to justify doing what they wanted to do.) Roberts did the same thing deciding that something was a tax even though both the law and the REcord showed that Congress went through all sorts of parlimentary gymnastics to specifically say it wasn't a tax. Depends on who is President at the time. My concern is that the current climate will mean that only the most bland and less than brilliant judges will get through the serial Borking of any candidate by any president.

Depends on when it happens. Could be Obabm, could be Hillary, could be Bernie, heck could be Trump (okay now I am officially terrified).

And many that think it was absolutely brilliant jurisprudence. Opinions are like... well you know. Besides the only opinion that matters is the one from the Supremes.

And this is personal since it is a closely held company that is reflective of the owners.

Yeah. Corporate masters, they really care what happens to a very small group of people.

[G. Morgan]

Most are. It goes 100 miles from the coasts and borders, where most cities are.

[Robert Green]

The problem is that advocates for any side of an issue can construct reasonable sounding hypotheses that break down under even moderate scrutiny. Hell, even the most neutral of analysts has to start making assumptions about what various stats even mean and whether they were properly collected. From my experience in MilMed the likelihood of health and health spending data being accurately collected at the data input level is very, very low. I always look at the coding sheet at each visit to the MDs and the same procedures can be coded very differently depending on who's doing the classifying. In fact my wife suspects a little bit of upcoding going on. I suspect it's in the billion$. I guess I should look it up:

Oy!