WaPo Poll: Most Americans Believe SCOTUS Decision on ACA Will Be Political

So says WaPo poll:

More Americans think Supreme Court justices will be acting mainly on their partisan political views than on a neutral reading of the law when they decide the constitutionality of President Obama’s health-care law, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Half of the public expects the justices to rule mainly based on their “partisan political views,” while fewer, 40 percent, expect their decisions to be rooted primarily “on the basis of the law.” The rest say both equally or do not have an opinion.

This is hardly surprising in light of the partisan oral arguments. Ann Althouse objects:

[L]et's examine that poll question again: "Do you think the Supreme Court justices will rule on this case mainly on the basis of law or mainly on the basis of their partisan political views?" Consider the missing detail. I would like to see the answer to these questions: If the Supreme Court strikes down the health care law — in whole or in part — do you think that will be a decision based primarily on constitutional law or a decision based primarily on the Justices' political opinions? If the Supreme Court upholds the health care law, do you think that will be a decision based primarily on constitutional law or a decision based primarily on the Justices' political opinions?

This is a silly objection. Althouse has her answers and she even references it in her post. She quotes from the WaPo article:

Almost twice as many conservative Republicans think the court will decide on the basis of the law rather than politics, 58 to 33 percent. Liberal Democrats are more skeptical, saying by an equally wide margin that the court will put politics first.

But that is precisely what she wants to know - conservatives and Republicans believe, in light of the oral arguments, that ACA will be struck down. Democrats and supporters of ACA agree. Ergo, Republicans "believe" the case will be decided on "the basis of law rather than politics" and Democrats "believe" the case will be decided on the basis of politics.

The takeaway to me is that EVERYONE has come to a realization, the Supreme Court is a political institution that has reached historic heights of partisanship. That's not good for the institution's credibility and standing.

Interestingly, BECAUSE of the oral arguments, a SCOTUS decision upholding ACA and the individual mandate would likely improve the institutional standing of the Court, in the same way the detainee and habeas corpus cases did. Why? Because the political leanings of the Justices runs contrary to such a result, as it did in those cases.

But the bottom line is clear- the Court's standing with the public as an apolitical institution is in tatters. Honest Republicans and Democrats must accept that, whatever the outcome of the ACA case.

It seems to me that if this is a concern for the Court, it may want to consider stepping away from thrusting itself in the middle of high profile political controversies. A little restraint and minimalism seems in order at this juncture.

Speaking for me only

< State's Attorney to Make George Zimmerman Announcement Within 72 Hours | Allen West: 'I Hold In My Hand ... ' A List Of 80 Communist Party Members In The Dem Caucus >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    it has (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 09:29:08 AM EST
    been obvious what has been going on with the Supreme court since Bush V. Gore. The Reagan/Roberts court is probably going to go down as one of the worst in history.

    the court's standing as an apolitical entity (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 11:10:56 AM EST
    was pretty much destroyed in 2000, with Gore v Bush, so i don't believe any thinking person seriously considers it one at this point. if it were simply a matter of law, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because clearly the HCA falls well under congress' purview. that pretty much leaves only one other possibility.

    This was ALWAYS going to be political. (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 09:31:04 AM EST

    That's an indictment of the Court (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 09:35:06 AM EST

    I'm positive you disagree.


    I think judges are people (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 10:14:52 AM EST
    With biases and tendencies.  I think most try very hard to be ad neutral as possible.  But Scalia and Thomas?  Snort.

    Exhibit A:  Bush v Gore

    Exhibit B:  Citizens United

    The justices read polling data too, even though they aren't elected.


    More Importantly (none / 0) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 12:19:27 PM EST
    How do you get people on the SCUTUS states without making it political ?  Voting or appointments seems to be the only options, both of which will result in political judges.  

    They are only a reflection of us and our love of polarization.

    I think there should be a defined period of servitude, this business of waiting for retirement is non-sense.  Someone will stay beyond a period they would like waiting for their party to gain presidency.  Or worse, appointing someone too young to lock up the position for that party.

    And this quote, "That's not good for the institution's credibility and standing."  What ????  

    Their credibility comes from the Constitution is their standing is irrelevant.  What they say goes, doesn't mater how ridiculous the argument, even a child knows a corporation is not a person.  And yet it's law that they are in regards to injecting cash into politics.


    More partisan than in the days of the (none / 0) (#3)
    by me only on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 09:33:49 AM EST
    Four Horsemen?

    More partisan than when FDR and Truman had appointed all 9 justices?

    More partisan than Taney's court?

    No (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 09:34:36 AM EST
    Is your question related to my post? I think not.

    You wrote (none / 0) (#6)
    by me only on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 09:38:18 AM EST
    The takeaway to me is that EVERYONE has come to a realization, the Supreme Court is a political institution that has reached historic heights of partisanship.

    Or did someone else post that part?


    And so it does (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 09:42:00 AM EST
    Historic does not mean "the most partisan ever."

    IT always amazes me how I, whose first language is Spanish, so odten have to explain English to Americans.


    If there are several instances (none / 0) (#8)
    by me only on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 09:47:19 AM EST
    of greater partisanship, it really doesn't qualify as historic.  I didn't cite one, I didn't cite them all.  I noted that there are several times that the court has been at least this partisan.

    I guess this year when someone hits 38 homeruns, you are going to call it an historic season.

    Keep trying to explain English so odten to me.


    Nonsense (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 09:47:49 AM EST
    Ah, going for the incite with (none / 0) (#11)
    by me only on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 10:00:23 AM EST
    little insight.

    I see, you wrote this for Orange.  I mistook it as something serious.


    The French Revolution (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CST on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 10:08:36 AM EST
    was historic.  Despite the fact that the American Revolution had already happened.

    All of them? (none / 0) (#13)
    by me only on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 10:11:32 AM EST
    'Cause there was more than one.

    nice deflection (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 10:12:51 AM EST
    I was hoping more for the (none / 0) (#17)
    by me only on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 10:24:49 AM EST

    A pome fer u (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by DFLer on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 10:42:01 AM EST
    Your selection of inflections
    Led to the detection of your attempted deflection.
    Defection correction
    Me only baloney so lonely.

    here this might help (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 10:31:02 AM EST

    "historic  (hɪˈstɒrɪk)
    -- adj

    1. well-known or important in history: a historic building; historic occasions."

    "Example Sentences

    - Preservationists are debating the merits of solar panels and wind turbines on historic buildings."


    You're being silly (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 10:13:38 AM EST
    The word you THOUGHT I used was "unprecedented."

    Unlike the President, I chose my words more carefully.

    Try again.


    No, I wouldn't have responded to (none / 0) (#18)
    by me only on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 10:27:29 AM EST
    you, like I didn't the other day when you wrote

    four extreme radical hacks

    At least that time you told me upfront that it was for Orange so I knew to expect a polemic.


    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 10:30:39 AM EST
    I'd say that anywhere frankly.

    Because of your "centrist" (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by me only on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 10:34:25 AM EST

    Why do you consider (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 10:58:00 AM EST
    the descriptive I applied to those Justices as a question of ideology?

    You know who else is a hack? Breyer. Kagan prbably will be one too.

    You know who wasn't? Souter.


    This kind of stuff can't go unnoticed... (none / 0) (#10)
    by magster on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 09:51:29 AM EST
    ... by Roberts.

    Maybe a ruling by Roberts is forthcoming akin to Rehnquist upholding the Miranda case based on the importance of stare decisis notwithstanding how he would have originally ruled in 1937.

    I'd also like to buy the world a Coke.

    Will be interesting to see (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 11:26:05 AM EST
    I've got so far $150,000 of disabled child insurance bills that Tricare says they aren't sure were "legally" charged to them now.  And we are mid procedure here, the kid is in a halo traction vest for six more weeks.

    He didn't have a choice whether or not to go through this, he was losing his cardiopulmonary health and he was going down swiftly.  They waited as long as they could to do this because they wanted his growth plates to be closed first, but they aren't yet.

    I would imagine the final price tag on Joshua's surgery is going to be around $350,000 in the Republican party's culture of for profit life :)  It could be more but who knows?  I have noticed that some fees that hospitals have been charging have been coming down.  But Tricare has placed me on notice that I may be on the hook for this, and if I am......honestly, I completely give up on this country until there are reasons to give a $hit again.

    And before Jim says something, can I just add that I had to fight tooth and nail for my son to receive the benefit of the Titanium Rib Veptr system but one of the first children to be saved in the start up days was from Canada.  He started the first rib kids online support group too, and Canada paid for his dad to drive to San Antonio twice a year and stay in a modest hotel during the rod extensions.  I don't know if Canada still sends their children here, they may now have their own program as Dr. Campbell and Dr. Smith spent month after month having surgeons visit from all over the world and train alongside them.  


    Tracy, I just cannot imagine (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 11:55:18 AM EST
    what you all are going through- and then to be told that Tricare may eventually want the money back?  My heart hurts for you.
    And BTW- I assume that your husband's paycheck goes right straight into a checking account.  The civilian fed employees' paychecks do, so I guess the military is the same?  Do you know if Tricare (through the DOD) has the legal authority to withdraw any kind of over-payments directly from your account?  I do know that if the feds happen to overpay Mr. Zorba in any way, they can suck the over-payment right back out of our account.  I know Tricare pays the docs/hospital, not you directly, but you need to find out about this.  I don't know how they would work this, if worse came to worst.  Get the money back from the hospitals/doctors (or try to), and then the medical guys come after you?  Tricare sends you a bill directly?  Who knows?  But if they can directly access your account, you need to set up a separate account that the government has no access to, and start transferring a whole lot of your money to it.  
    I really, really hope that it never, ever comes to this.  And the way they notified you!  Way to take care of our military and their families, guys!

    There have been a lot legal challenges (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 12:54:59 PM EST
    To the military deducting pay from soldiers paychecks.  They used to be able to deduct your child support from your check, but a few years ago that was legally challenged.  I don't know if it was litigated out, when it comes to soldiers rights very often if someone approaches JAG with a very good solid legal argument JAG decides to adapt and avoid the negative attention.

    They used to be able to almost force a soldier to pay his bills too, but over the years of divorcing spouses gone wild how they view that changed a lot too.  They have tended to focus more on businesses that prey upon young naive soldiers and will forbid soldiers from doing business with certain unethical businesses and entities and will also contract some businesses about the fact that they are about to lose their ability to conduct business with soldiers.  I think the blowing up of the economy has thrown that whole "soldiers must pay their debts" thing into a tailspin too.

    I don't think they would touch our pay Zorba over Tricare South trying to do this to us, because DOD and our leaders are responsible for turning our healthcare dollars over to these crooks.  It would be blasphemous if they did that to us.  They have allowed soldier credit to be destroyed over such things a little bit, but then what they began to do was make the provider responsible for eating the denials.  So providers wouldn't even touch you without a letter of authorization from Tricare.  Then Obama changed that, said that some life threatening situations were "authorization" free zones.  Well, Tricare smells legal standing to not have been responsible now for over a year of unauthorized children lives saved.

    When I opened that letter though, I just laughed Zorba.....motherf#%*ers.  What next?  What can they do to me anymore?  I've proven to be a little too crazy proof, frighten proof, emotional abuse proof....whatcha gonna do to me anymore?  Take away my birthday....please, have all the rest of them :)  Writing about it I think is responsible for most of that.  But what are they really gonna do?  Ruin my credit?  Pfffft....okay, so I was one of the last ones they blew up, I was getting lonely out here anyhow.  The only they can do is give me more stuff to write about, that more people will be compelled to read.


    Sorry for typos (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    I get all impassioned typo friendly :)

    Typo away, my sister (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 01:37:54 PM EST
    Typo away.   ;-)
    Really, this whole situation is almost Kafkaesque.  How can they do this to suffering families, to innocent, hurting children?  Get the word out, sister.  I'll tell people I know about this, too, if you don't mind.  I know that Tricare is a bunch of for-profit insurance companies, but is it still overseen by the Department of Defense Military Health System?  Because if the DOD is still responsible for administering Tricare, they need to get off their butts and tell Tricare, no, you're not going to get away with this.  Although I suspect that what may happen if Tricare does ultimately say "Oh, we need that money back under the law" is that the DOD will pony up the money (after huge fights from you and other parents, and a whole lot of bad publicity), yet again subsidizing for-profit insurers with yet more taxpayer dollars.  {{Sigh}}
    It's a wonder that your hair isn't on fire every single day.  Mine sure would be, especially if it concerned my kids when they were younger.
    Stay strong.  And again, I'm so very, very sorry you and Josh and your whole family have to go through all this.

    Sh*t... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 01:39:54 PM EST
    I wouldn't even trust a seperate account, I don't think any digital money is safe from easy seizure or freezing by the government, or a private entity the government likes more than you.

    I'd run to the bank after every direct deposit and withdraw it all immediately, in cash.  If you own your house, sell it to a dummy coporation or something.  Nothing in your name nowheres that they can take without prying it from your human hands.


    Kdog, I understand (none / 0) (#42)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 02:07:52 PM EST
    your paranoia about the government, and to a certain extent, I share it.  But living largely "off the grid" and dealing mainly in cash is, let's face it, impractical for most people, especially people with families.  Tracy has to travel with Josh on a regular basis for his surgeries and treatments.  What's she supposed to do?  Carry a suitcase full of cash around with her to pay for things?  Run and get a money order every time she has to pay a bill?  Not realistic, not with everything she has to deal with.  (Even if she gets travelers' checks, both money orders and travelers' checks can be traced back to you- you have to sign them.  So they'll still know what you're spending if they care to, at least to a large extent.)  
    Plus, let's face it, no matter where you hide your dough, it can be stolen, or destroyed in a fire, tornado, or what have you, and that cash isn't insured.  You lose it, you're up sh!t creek without a paddle.    

    I hear you... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    definitely not practical.  And I certainly hope never necessary!

    My only point really is digital money can be frozen/seized in an instant, and even if by simple keypunch error can be the dickens to unfreeze/unseize.  You could wake up one day and not even be able to buy a gallon of milk if all your money is of the electronic variety.

    You've all been warned by the local crackpot;)  


    Well, living where we do (none / 0) (#45)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 02:25:41 PM EST
    At least we have food, wood to cook it with and stay warm, and water.  And rifles and shotguns to hunt more food.  And seeds and a garden to plant more.  We might miss the milk, but we wouldn't starve.  And actually, there are enough people around here with dairy cows, we could probably even trade them some of our food/wood/etc for milk, if we wanted it.  Coffee, though- coffee I'd miss.  Won't grow up here.   ;-)

    The land of milk and honey... (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 02:28:56 PM EST
    in the urban/suburban realm, I've got the supermarket distribution warehouses mapped out, to hold me over till I reach the gates of the New Republic of Zorba;)

    I hope you get relief (none / 0) (#27)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 11:48:38 AM EST

    But Tricare as a government manager only payment for what the government will pay for.  



    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    when things are privatized like with Tri care, Tri care is the arbiter of what is going to be paid not the government in this case.

    Well the government tried (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    They tried to tell insurance companies that underwrite Tricare that the American taxpayer would get services for the money they paid insurers....but now, I guess no.  I guess the American taxpayer will not get services for the money they pay for services :)

    Gong....Wrong (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 12:39:20 PM EST
    If you are in the South like we are you are insured through Humana.  I'm not sure who TriWest is underwritten by these days.  I have to educate people about this all the time though, and as you are winger I can promise you that you will not store this information in your longterm memory, but Tricare is for profit insurance. They divided the military up into five groups regionally and gave us to for profit insurers so that no single big for profit insurer made all the money off of the American taxpayer for supplying some slightly crappy insurance to the families of the United States military.

    They had to grant the facilities separate slush funds to cover things that Tricare was denying some family members.  If you got denied for a procedure that you really needed and it wasn't a $150,000 like Joshua's was, you went in to see a patient advocate and because you had the gumption to complain somehow it became instantly approved.  I've said this before and no winger wants to hear it so I have to educate again and again and again but, you were buying the military crappy insurance and the insurance denied the families coverage all the time. So you then had secret slush funds at all the military facilities that they would pay the services out of if families went to the advocacy because lack of reliable healthcare coverage causes soldiers to NOT DEDICATE their lives to the mission.  You bought us insurance, and then you paid the full bill on about half of everything we needed after that as well.  How much do you think that is contributing to the national debt?  Just wondering?  Are you really okay paying for everything two or three different times over just to save for profit insurance from having to actually earn their profits?


    I am on tricare (none / 0) (#40)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 01:51:26 PM EST

    Every document I can find on Tricare says the only thing privatized is claims processing, and Uncle Sam still carries the insurance risk and decides what it will pay for and what it won't.  For example:

    This notice describes the changes made to the TRICARE DRG-based payment system in order to conform to changes made to the Medicare Prospective Payment System (PPS).

    Have you got other information?



    You are on Tricare via what area (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 02:22:48 PM EST
    Or are you Tricare for Life now?

    If you are Tricare for Life (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 02:27:37 PM EST
    You are being covered under Medicare (which is an entitlement program and socialism and is EVIL).  Active duty soldiers and their families are not covered under Medicare, we are with for profit insurers and often being chased by the same Lions as the rest of the people who can still run, we are only kept safe with our secret slush funds.

    Google is your friend man.  You are just playing stupid with me now.  Google Tricare Prime, google Tricare standard, ask Google some hard questions, challenge yourself to actually really understand shit for a change!


    My Tricare provider (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 02:29:40 PM EST
    is called Tricare Humana.....H U M A N A

    Profits dropped (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 02:34:51 PM EST
    Because the government demanded that their military receive services for the money.  See here

    Most large employers (none / 0) (#50)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 02:51:05 PM EST

    Most large employers hire insurance companies to process claims only.  Don't be confused by the fact that Humana offers both insurance policies as well as claims processing services.



    I am part of a contract with Humana (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 02:57:30 PM EST
    They don't get paid per claim processed like stuffing envelopes.  Why would they deny anyone a claim then? There is no incentive to deny someone healthcare if that were the system.  The system is the government pays the underwriters premiums to cover us, and whatever the underwriters can deny us with some kind of "legal" standing they get to keep.  Their legal denials were profound and horrific before President Obama.  But it was how every winger wanted it I guess, not transparent, mysterious, and confounding, and child killing.  Hell, Tricare would kill a United States soldier's child through denial of services before that socialist country of Canada would allow one of their civilian children to needlessly die.

    Why would they deny anyone a claim then? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 07:47:18 PM EST

    How about because the party they are processing claims for won't cover the claim.  When you are only a claims processor, if the party that carries the insurance risk won't cover the claim, then you are bound not to pay.  

    So you are saying the U.S. goverment (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 08:10:35 PM EST
    decided to kill my son, and not cover my best friend's RA treatment when her husband was in Iraq in 2003 for no reason other than they (whoever they is) wanted military families to suffer?  If that is so, why did they stop denying services when President Obama officially took office and began making his beginning approaches toward Healthcare Reform?  Why could I not get physical therapy approved for my son in any form in 2006 but in 2010 I began to get 25 physical therapy appointments pre-approved just for asking and not even having a doctor signed off on it first, just sometime in the near future?

    I did not say that (none / 0) (#55)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 10:41:08 PM EST

    The company does not set policy on what gets paid for, the government does.  

    Do you really think the contract requires the government to pay the company a ton of money but allows the company the power to refuse to pay for anything it so chooses?  If you really think that, why would the Obama administration agree to such a contract?



    Yes, that is what you are saying (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 06:44:44 AM EST
    Funny how government under Republicans (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 06:47:07 AM EST
    calls for my child to die and my best friend to suffer, but government under Democrats allows my child to live.  

    The government sets the rates of reimbursement to keep Tricare cost down, but I'm still contracted to different for profit underwriters who were making a great profit on me and killing my family members before President Obama took over.


    Exactly right! (none / 0) (#58)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 07:50:55 AM EST

    The government sets the rates of reimbursement to keep Tricare cost down...

    Now you are catching on.  If the government is not going to pay reimbursement the claims processor won't pay the claim.  In short, the only claims that the claims processor are ones that are covered by the reimbursement schedule.

    That is the difference in a a company acting as and insurer and a company acting as a claims processor.  

    Most "insurance" companies do both kinds of business depending on what their client wants to buy.



    I'm not catching on? (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 08:19:50 AM EST
    Sorry but you're not catching on.  The government does not cut the check to pay for my healthcare charges.  They pay the underwriters a premium to cover me and they control reimbursement costs, the underwriters get to keep what is left over from my premium if they can be "efficient" and have more leftovers.  How they got some big leftovers during the Bush administration was to deny payment for services and deny authorization for needed procedures to serving military families.

    The government is not paying them a processing fee.  Also, my daughter was covered under Tricare in New York state that was provided through the Coast Guard and she had her nose broken here in Enterprise AL.  It was considered an emergency surgery, but the Tricare underwriter in the North East refused to pay for her emergency surgery in I think it was 2006 or the beginning of 2007.  At the end of 2007 the unpaid for surgery was put on my daughter's credit report and my husband ended up at Lyster Army Hospital screaming his fool head off.  Tricare is not the same Tricare in every place.  What had happened was like having BCBS of New York arguing with BCBS of Alabama over who pays for a bill.  Why would they do that?  Because they are separate companies about to lose profit if they have to pay this bill.  Lyster Army Hospital told my husband they would try to pay the bill out of that hospitals secret slush fund, but that didn't happen either.

    I could not argue for our daughter though in this because she was no longer a minor, she was going to have to argue for herself and she was in the middle of a divorce and completely overwhelmed and depressed.  It stayed on her credit report until magically about six months after Obama took office it disappeared all by itself.......magic


    If you want a service that the governmen (none / 0) (#60)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 09:30:53 AM EST

    If you want a service that the government has no reimbursement rate, you won't get paid.

    If my doctor says I need to move to the warm dry air in Arizona from my home in the frozen north, Tricare is not going to pick up the tab even if the move will save my life.  Because that is government policy.  



    Nobody asked Tricare to do that (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 09:45:34 AM EST
    You are a total freak man.  My best friend's RA was advancing and was not responding to the old drugs.  The newer regimens were FDA approved, but they are more expensive so Tricare denied her.....they made her fight them.  They do that because not everybody fights, and that makes them money.  They were not asked to cover something that every other insurance company wasn't covering.

    For my son, they denied his surgery even when it was FDA approved.  They said that "in their opinion it was still too experimental".  Colorado Medicaid had paid for three children's lives to be saved by that same surgery though months and months prior to my first denial by Tricare.  Tricare West denied my son the surgery twice.  I couldn't even get anyone to talk to on the phone other than a nurse who worked for them.  Before Obama also, we had nurses hired by the Tricare underwriters who were specifically hired to find some medical reasons to tell doctors NO!  We had nurses telling doctors what they could and could not treat.  Nurses have some medical background, and when offered incredible salaries some will use their skills and training in ways that damage human beings.

    I haven't spoken to a Tricare nurse on the phone denying Josh's doctor basic requests in over two years now.  I used to attempt to speak to them at least once a month though over something they had denied my child.

    You have zero idea what you are talking about, and worse you don't want to have an honest real understanding of what was done to the military families and their healthcare under George W. Bush.  You would also support and argue for the return of the corruption and the death panels that were Tricare underwriters before the ACA.


    Well the IPBA (none / 0) (#62)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 11:45:22 AM EST

    Well the Independent Payment Advisory Board or IPBA (commonly referred to as the death panel) is going to decide what gets paid for and what does not.  However, unlike an insurance company they cannot be sued.


    "Commonly referred to ..." (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 12:26:00 PM EST
    Well the Independent Payment Advisory Board or IPBA (commonly referred to as the death panel) is going to decide what gets paid for and what does not.

    ... as a death panel".

    Sure, ... by people who have no problem with lying.

    In fact, it's the 2009 "Lie of the Year"!


    Kinda funny how the IPAB is now saving (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 12:39:32 PM EST
    Josh's life, while before it existed he was being killed for profit :)

    Priceless considering (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 05:08:52 PM EST
    That the wingnutty party you adore has done everything possible to make it impossible for anyone to sue a corporation too.  Also priceless that someone with a dying child and millions in hospital bills could afford an attorney capable of climbing that mountain of impossible now and maybe losing in the end too.

    Average Americans do not have the money to take on corporations anymore.  And the years that it takes to get the corporation into a courtroom only means your kid would have died years before you got there.  Your post is heinous, it is despicable.  It's like you have cancer of the soul or something.


    Wow. Thoughts and prayers.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by magster on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 02:07:18 PM EST
    I don't get Althouse's problem. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 11:21:48 AM EST
    Althouse's refined questions don't really add much anyway. They're just a too-clever-by-half twisting of the question and impugning the motives of the polltakers to allow for a whine. People think the court will rule more on politics than law. That's a story, a very clear and simple one. Comment on it, not on mostly irrelevant crosstabs babbled about to avoid the obvious truth that most Americans think the legal "balls" and "strikes" being called have little to do with the strike zone.

    A Little Analysis of Past Decisions... (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 12:29:27 PM EST
    ... would have produced better results.  On political issues, which judges have, in the past, crossed political lines.  And more importantly, which ones haven't.

    She seems to be under the impression that everything things else is equal, but one party to me at least, seems to have more issues with 'rogue' judges, which certainly makes the results questionable, at best.


    Sssh!! (none / 0) (#32)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 12:35:51 PM EST
    Don't look behind the curtain!!

    They're just a too-clever-by-half twisting of the question and impugning the motives of the polltakers to allow for a whine.

    These people gotta stay in business somehow you know...  ;)


    Althouse's commenters.. (none / 0) (#33)
    by pcpablo on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 12:36:54 PM EST
    make numerous references to the "fact" that the Washington Post skewed the poll to get the approved Democratic Party results, and that the paper is a left leaning rag.
    Facts do have a liberal bias, but not the Post!

    Silly post (none / 0) (#52)
    by Slado on Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 07:10:41 PM EST
    Court has always been political.  If it winds up being historic it will only be because the liberals will have an historic hissy fit.