Jump to content

Universal Health Care...


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't think it's the #1 problem, but it's a huge, huge problem.The question is, how do we go forward and build a better system?As is standard, you take the high-flying ideological position, whereby

nice dodge.Hey Guapo, maybe you'll have sex tonight. OR NOT. FACE.
I read it somewhere or heard it or something.Anything that allows me to ignore my own weight issue by pointing my fingers at chubby people elsewhere seems to catch my eye.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ha ha ha. That's a good one.Wait, is my wife out of town? Maybe I will have sex tonight!
Heh. That's a better one. BG, develop a back problem to blame your weight on. Guapo knows.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh. That's a better one. BG, develop a back problem to blame your weight on. Guapo knows.
I already have a too fast tempo golf swing to blame for my back problem, why do I need another one?Besides, I blame my weight problem on being awesome.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh. That's a better one. BG, develop a back problem to blame your weight on. Guapo knows.
As I sit here and eat a giant enchilada from whole foods (it's healthy right, because I paid way too much for it at whole foods?) I can proudly say that I am almost under 200lbs. Couple lbs to go.180 is the goal weight and I am halfway there.
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the road to the Supreme Court. It was pretty clear that this would wind up there eventually. How irresponsible of the Obama Administration and Dems to pass legislation that would waste so much $ being debated in the Legal System.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/14/health.ca...tion=cnn_latestJudge rejects motion to dismiss 20 states' lawsuit against health care lawA federal judge in Florida on Thursday rejected a motion by the government to dismiss some counts of a multistate challenge to the sweeping health care reform signed into law by President Barack Obama earlier this year.The ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson means the lawsuit filed by attorneys general from Florida and 19 other states can proceed on questions of whether the health care law is constitutional in requiring citizens to obtain health care coverage or face financial penalties, as well as forcing states to expand Medicaid.
Link to post
Share on other sites
On the road to the Supreme Court. It was pretty clear that this would wind up there eventually. How irresponsible of the Obama Administration and Dems to pass legislation that would waste so much $ being debated in the Legal System.
Disagree completely. It's not them bringing the lawsuit.....nice to see all these states on the verge of bankruptcy have the money to go debate the commerce clause for 5 years. This is (expensive) political grandstanding by 20 states that lean conservative.Also, if the Supreme Court doesn't abruptly change how they have interpreted the commerce clause over the last half century, the odds this legislation is ultimately deemed unconstitutional is about 50-1. How petty and wasteful of the conservatives to waste so much money in the legal system to score political points chasing a result that is highly unlikely.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Disagree completely. It's not them bringing the lawsuit.....nice to see all these states on the verge of bankruptcy have the money to go debate the commerce clause for 5 years. This is (expensive) political grandstanding by 20 states that lean conservative.Also, if the Supreme Court doesn't abruptly change how they have interpreted the commerce clause over the last half century, the odds this legislation is ultimately deemed unconstitutional is about 50-1. How petty and wasteful of the conservatives to waste so much money in the legal system to score political points chasing a result that is highly unlikely.
I'll bet you $10 at 50-1 that the states win their lawsuit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Disagree completely. It's not them bringing the lawsuit.....nice to see all these states on the verge of bankruptcy have the money to go debate the commerce clause for 5 years. This is (expensive) political grandstanding by 20 states that lean conservative.Also, if the Supreme Court doesn't abruptly change how they have interpreted the commerce clause over the last half century, the odds this legislation is ultimately deemed unconstitutional is about 50-1. How petty and wasteful of the conservatives to waste so much money in the legal system to score political points chasing a result that is highly unlikely.
But we should blame AZ when they pass Legislation that was clearly going to be challenged...How terribad of the Conservatives to stand up for our Constitutional Rights.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But we should blame AZ when they pass Legislation that was clearly going to be challenged...How terribad of the Conservatives to stand up for our Constitutional Rights.
The (obvious) difference is that the health care legislation is much much more likely to stand than to be overruled......whereas the AZ immigration law was basically guaranteed to be thrown out. Immigration is the sole province of the Federal Government. It's pretty clear.I'm sure there are many conservatives who think that is what they are doing, standing up for constitutional rights. And that's fine. Just don't start turning that into somehow the Democrats started this legal battle and were irresponsible for not anticipating legal challenges. The fact that a law might be challenged in the court system is a terrible justification for saying the law should have never been passed in the first place. Lots of laws end up being reviewed by the courts.....happens all the time.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Immigration is the sole province of the Federal Government. It's pretty clear.
...of course legal consultants who with years of experience in the field of Immigration Law couldn't possibly have a different interpretation.
While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
But, hey, what do those other law talking guys know?I think that both laws were likely to be challenged.Each is going to do a lot to ultimately define the rights of the States.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no legal expert, but it sounds like we need to stop interpreting the commerce clause to mean, essentially, the federal government has power to do a bunch of stuff that isn't actually in the constitution.aging document, all the rest, fine. doesn't change the fact that a bunch of the functions we want and need from the fed government wouldn't IMMEDIATELY be implemented as amendments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm no legal expert, but it sounds like we need to stop interpreting the commerce clause to mean, essentially, the federal government has power to do a bunch of stuff that isn't actually in the constitution.
This would be reversing 75 years of precedent. Not saying you are wrong just that it is unlikely.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not holding my breath or anything, I just think it would be a better implementation of democracy and all that jazz if we chose the direct, open route.
I don't think you'd like a true democracy very much. What we really want is a republic.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Disagree completely. It's not them bringing the lawsuit.....nice to see all these states on the verge of bankruptcy have the money to go debate the commerce clause for 5 years. This is (expensive) political grandstanding by 20 states that lean conservative.
I think it's important to take a stand here. I don't think anyone seriously believes that the Commerce Clause was meant to apply to people growing vegetables in their back yard for their own consumption. Up til now though, people have been optimistic that the court would draw a line *somewhere*. If they don't draw a line here, at "government can force everyone to buy a specific commercial product just by virtue of being alive", then the Constitution means absolutely nothing. There will never be any justification ever again for overturning *any* law, because everything on earth affects commerce in some way.So this isn't political grandstanding, this is grasping at the last possible straw that can save constitutional government in the US.I hate to say it, but the next step involves weapons.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

Krugman comes out in favor of Death Panels.He later clarified it by saying by "death panels" he meant the federal government deciding which medicine you deserved to get based on the value of your life, and that it would be necessary because of the runaway cost of Medicare.I think he meant that as support for the federal government's involvement in medicine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Krugman comes out in favor of Death Panels.He later clarified it by saying by "death panels" he meant the federal government deciding which medicine you deserved to get based on the value of your life, and that it would be necessary because of the runaway cost of Medicare.I think he meant that as support for the federal government's involvement in medicine.
The point is, of course, that both sides have become so bogged down by inflammatory language (such as the term "death panel") that it's now almost impossible to have a reasonable conversation about health care (which, of course, is the most important issue in terms of long term budget, by far). Without getting into "who said what" or trying to redefine terms or whatever, do people here believe or do they not believe that there should be advisory panels that determine what specific procedures Medicare will cover? Keep in mind, of course, that no matter what Medicare does or does not cover, one can still pay for that procedure out of pocket if one so chooses, or using a private insurance plan if that covers the procedure.Also, in general, I find it a waste of time to judge or criticize someone based on a slip-of-the-tongue.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is, of course, that both sides have become so bogged down by inflammatory language (such as the term "death panel") that it's now almost impossible to have a reasonable conversation about health care (which, of course, is the most important issue in terms of long term budget, by far). Without getting into "who said what" or trying to redefine terms or whatever, do people here believe or do they not believe that there should be advisory panels that determine what specific procedures Medicare will cover? Keep in mind, of course, that no matter what Medicare does or does not cover, one can still pay for that procedure out of pocket if one so chooses, or using a private insurance plan if that covers the procedure.Also, in general, I find it a waste of time to judge or criticize someone based on a slip-of-the-tongue.
I do not know much about the Obama Health care plan, but I remember the Hillary Clinton Health care plan that Bill tried to get through had at least 15-20 references to jail time etc for people and doctors working outside the system that they create. In other words, there would have been no option to pay for it yourself.And it is likely that Hillary will be taking the presdiency away from Obama, so then we will probably get her influences into the health care bill.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Without getting into "who said what" or trying to redefine terms or whatever, do people here believe or do they not believe that there should be advisory panels that determine what specific procedures Medicare will cover?
I think this points out the fatal flaw in government-run medicine -- that one size does not fit all, and the government will be in the position of letting people die based on putting a value on human life, or going broke giving everyone what they want. Decisions that should be made at the personal/medical level are suddenly being made on a one-size-fits-all basis by someone with no knowledge of the specifics of the case. Death panels, by some name, are an inevitable part of socialized medicine.The death panel thing could be minimized if the program were re-structured, but I'm glad someone on the left (Krugman) finally has the intellectual honesty to admit that they are a necessary part of government run care.
Also, in general, I find it a waste of time to judge or criticize someone based on a slip-of-the-tongue.
It wasn't a slip of the tongue, he said it twice and later defended it in a column.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not know much about the Obama Health care plan, but I remember the Hillary Clinton Health care plan that Bill tried to get through had at least 15-20 references to jail time etc for people and doctors working outside the system that they create. In other words, there would have been no option to pay for it yourself.And it is likely that Hillary will be taking the presdiency away from Obama, so then we will probably get her influences into the health care bill.
We see some of this in Obamacare, where you have to buy a certain minimum level of insurance (those HSAs that people love get you jail time) and you get penalized if you buy *too much* insurance. They know exactly what the correct level of insurance is, and if you don't like it, you can pay fines and/or go to jail.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So ... what are the odds that this thing gets enough momentum to be repealed??I'm putting it as a 100-1 shot.
In the next two years, there is a zero percent chance it will be repealed. I think there is a slightly better than even chance that the House will take a token vote to repeal it at least once, maybe twice, and then again in the summer leading up to the election. They will NOT take any meaningful action that could lead to ending it, such as refusing to fund it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...