More on the Court’s (Some Justices) Supreme Indifference

This says it very clearly:

Justice Alito said that if he didn’t buy a Volt, the price of Volts would go up. Where did he learn that? Yale Law School? I hope not; I was there with him and I don’t remember learning that if demand falls, then prices go up. It’s the other way around: if customers won’t buy at a certain price, suppliers lower the price. It’s not that complicated — for most goods and services.

The same is true of vegetables, which is what Justice Scalia cared about. Better he should eat them than make a metaphor out of them.

But insurance is an exception to the normal rule of price being determined by supply and demand. That is because the price of insurance is determined by the risk pool, or in other words the likelihood of needing insurance among the group of purchasers of insurance. Insurers try to avoid selling to those who will actually need the insurance, and cause the insurer to make payments. They wish to deny insurance to those who will likely need it, or they want to charge more money for insurance to those who are likely to need it. (This was why part of Obamacare was to preclude insurers from denying insurance to those who are already sick.)

Read the rest of the article!

Medicynic:  I would have hoped that four of the five conservative justices were smarter than they demonstrated at the hearings on health reform  The fifth, Justice Thomas, is hopelessly compromised as his wife has publically opposed health care reform and the Thomas family has received income from the Liberty Lobby a group opposed to reform.  Amazingly unethical but not surprising that he chose to hear the case. 

Advertisements

One response to “More on the Court’s (Some Justices) Supreme Indifference

  1. It’s too bad that we can”t vote these justices out. Lifetime tenure for people who make decisions that benefit entities which have (questionable) financial or political gains in mind, seems to be a poor situation to have. Is it possible to pass an amendment to correct this problem? I know that part of lifetime jobs for justices is supposed to take away the worry of campaigning, money and outside influence. So where did the thinking go wrong?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s