This would only get better with a national health plan. I'd be able to see anyone. I'd be able to call around until I found the doc who could see me first. This would create greater incentive for the providers. The providers would NOT be government employees under a national health plan. That bears repeating: The providers would not be government employees under a national health plan - not any more than they're health insurance employees now.
The research clearly shows that health care & health outcomes - and healthcare expenditures - improve with national programs.
I'm back for more - first - I said EFFECTIVELY gov't employees. If the Gov't is providing all your income, I think EFFECTIVELY is a proper modifier. Don't be like the media and miss important words that change the meaning of a commentary. That's yet another problem with this and other debates of its kind.
Second - Medicare FFS was OUT OF CONTROL cost wise and showed the poorest outcomes (relative to EXPECTED outcomes) of any segment of the US health care system. Managed Care Medicare has done a far superior job of controlling costs with better coverage and results for Seniors (members have greater coverage opting into a Managed Care plan). Yes, there still needs to be more done. But, your last statement is so wrong, it needed another more specific rebuttal.
The problem with a lot of studies folks use on the last one is that the populations compared are not homogeneous. Additionally, in the US we have a far greater "keep them alive" mentality. I have no issue with that. But, the vast majority of expense are spent in the last 6 months of life in the US. Other countries with Nat'l Health Care do not have that issue. And this does greater damage to those dying. If our Hospice and palliative care programs were more widely understood and accpeted, folks would live more fruitful, comfortable lives in their last days, and expenses would go down. That's not as big an issue in other countries. (and yes - this is the Obama or the Republicans or whoever mentions this is deciding who lives and who dies proviso - another unfortunate simplification of the issue that prevents us from making real headway).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
My understanding of national health systems is that the only real drawback is long wait times to see specialist doctors for non-emergency care. I'd be willing to put up with that, of course. Some already put up with that in our current system anyway.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
My understanding of national health systems is that the only real drawback is long wait times to see specialist doctors for non-emergency care. I'd be willing to put up with that, of course. Some already put up with that in our current system anyway.
Poor outcomes is another (how could waiting for a specialist visit result in good outcomes in either instance)? That line of reasoning is so illogical. A good system would make sure high risk patients get non-emergent care before the exacerbation. There are plans that do that. And it's not currently nor ever will be the Government. They are simply a payment mechancim.
Expense is another. It is far more expensive than other options that we are somehow unwilling to explore because a profit might be made. Let's think outside the box.
And, so far I think I've had 3 commentaries saying the biggest problem of our CURRENT system is the long waits and inability to get in to see a doctor. So, it seems others are not so accepting of that "little" (my word) drawback you are so willing to go with. And, this can be prevented to provide better outcomes.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I was looking for an endocrinologist. There are three that are in-network for my (relatively good) insurance plan. They work in the same practice & it was a year wait to get in to see anyone at that practice.
This is about our healthcare system as a whole & the kind of untimely care that people get even with good insurance - even with managed care coverage. They do not help you. It may seem logical that they should, but they won't. Nothing about our current healthcare system is based in logic. And, no, this is not a contractual no-no that my plan would like to know about. They already know. I'm sure they're sick of hearing it. My PCP is seeing as many people as is humanly possible - all of the PCPs who are in-network are. The contractual problem lies with the fact that who I see is limited by my insurance coverage.
This would only get better with a national health plan. I'd be able to see anyone. I'd be able to call around until I found the doc who could see me first. This would create greater incentive for the providers. The providers would NOT be government employees under a national health plan. That bears repeating: The providers would not be government employees under a national health plan - not any more than they're health insurance employees now.
The research clearly shows that health care & health outcomes - and healthcare expenditures - improve with national programs.
You do not have a good insurance if they only have 1 practice of Endocrinologists in your network. So, let's start there. Why are there no other Endocrins in the network? Because the insurance company absolutely, positively only wants 1 group? Ummm. That makes no sense. I work on the inside and I know that's not the case. But, feel free to answer.
2nd - if your insurance is unwilling to help you, again - you do not have good insurance. You get what you pay for. My company would most certainly help you. Then, again, we would never BE ABLE TO (read that again) BE ABLE TO get away with contracting with 1 group for that type (or any type) of specialty. And, as an employer, I would most certainly never purchase such insurance for my employees (and as an individual consumer, I'd never purchase such a thing). Why are we better consumers for our cell phones than our health care?
You think there's no logic because you are uneducated about it. And your last statement is a fabrication. Kaiser has the best outcomes for the lowest cost of pretty much any health care system in the world. And it's a very tight lock in HMO.
And anyone who thinks access to providers will improve under National Health care, do a little research. That is the single biggest issue. And, it also doesn't eliminate a tiered system. It makes it worse. The wealthy get their services faster b/c they purchase consierge insurance plans with THE BEST doctors while everyone else waits for their non-emergent care (not every single visit. Just like in the US it's not EVERY single visit your examples speak of. I go to an Endocrin, and I never have an issue getting an appointment. I guess mine just likes me better).
I assume they only have one practice in network because it's the practice where I work. And we are the second-largest employer in the state (next to the federal government).
What exactly does "I work on the inside" mean? I appreciate you giving me the freedom to answer.
I don't have insurance because insurance companies suck. But I have better insurance than most people I know. The only time I've had better coverage is when I was covered by a publicly-funded program.
We're better cell phone consumers in large part because cell phone companies are infinitely more consumer-friendly than insurance companies. They are helpful. They are easy to understand. And if you make a poor choice it won't possibly cost you your life. And, when it comes to insurance companies, we don't feel like we have any choice.
Just because YOU are uneducated about the research to which I'm referring doesn't mean it's a fabrication. (And making blanket assumptions about what people are educated about certainly does not make you seem any smarter.) Your assertion about Kaiser (which may or may not be true) is not relevant to the topic of healthcare reform. We are talking about our national healthcare system and its outcomes, not one particular company.
There you go again making assumptions about my education on this subject. I've done a shit-ton of research. And, again, the data speaks for itself. I'd show you, but I'm busy right now. If you cared to actually educate yourself about what I'm talking about it, I'm sure you're capable of finding it yourself.
For the sake of argument, let's just say you're right that access wouldn't get better under a national plan. It couldn't get any worse. Same with rationing. So even if the status quo remained the same in those areas, I'd rather wait a year for care and have everyone covered than wait a year for care and have millions of people dying & going bankrupt due to medical bills and lack of coverage.
This would only get better with a national health plan. I'd be able to see anyone. I'd be able to call around until I found the doc who could see me first. This would create greater incentive for the providers. The providers would NOT be government employees under a national health plan. That bears repeating: The providers would not be government employees under a national health plan - not any more than they're health insurance employees now.
The research clearly shows that health care & health outcomes - and healthcare expenditures - improve with national programs.
I'm back for more - first - I said EFFECTIVELY gov't employees. If the Gov't is providing all your income, I think EFFECTIVELY is a proper modifier. Don't be like the media and miss important words that change the meaning of a commentary. That's yet another problem with this and other debates of its kind.
Second - Medicare FFS was OUT OF CONTROL cost wise and showed the poorest outcomes (relative to EXPECTED outcomes) of any segment of the US health care system. Managed Care Medicare has done a far superior job of controlling costs with better coverage and results for Seniors (members have greater coverage opting into a Managed Care plan). Yes, there still needs to be more done. But, your last statement is so wrong, it needed another more specific rebuttal.
The problem with a lot of studies folks use on the last one is that the populations compared are not homogeneous. Additionally, in the US we have a far greater "keep them alive" mentality. I have no issue with that. But, the vast majority of expense are spent in the last 6 months of life in the US. Other countries with Nat'l Health Care do not have that issue. And this does greater damage to those dying. If our Hospice and palliative care programs were more widely understood and accpeted, folks would live more fruitful, comfortable lives in their last days, and expenses would go down. That's not as big an issue in other countries. (and yes - this is the Obama or the Republicans or whoever mentions this is deciding who lives and who dies proviso - another unfortunate simplification of the issue that prevents us from making real headway).
Yeah, I caught that "effectively" - and I'm still saying you're wrong. Don't be like the media and add words that change the meaning of a commentary so you can't technically be accused of lying when your intent is still to make people think things that aren't true.
Second - What's your point? That our national health plan should be a Managed Care Medicare system?
Yes, most of direct services expenses are spent on end-of-life care. And I have no problem with that. But you're failing to mention the OUTRAGEOUS expenses that are not associated with direct care that are part of the private health insurance bureaucracy. That's what we need to be concerned with.
My understanding of national health systems is that the only real drawback is long wait times to see specialist doctors for non-emergency care. I'd be willing to put up with that, of course. Some already put up with that in our current system anyway.
Poor outcomes is another (how could waiting for a specialist visit result in good outcomes in either instance)? That line of reasoning is so illogical. A good system would make sure high risk patients get non-emergent care before the exacerbation. There are plans that do that. And it's not currently nor ever will be the Government. They are simply a payment mechancim.
Expense is another. It is far more expensive than other options that we are somehow unwilling to explore because a profit might be made. Let's think outside the box.
And, so far I think I've had 3 commentaries saying the biggest problem of our CURRENT system is the long waits and inability to get in to see a doctor. So, it seems others are not so accepting of that "little" (my word) drawback you are so willing to go with. And, this can be prevented to provide better outcomes.
You're not seriously suggesting that we have better health outcomes than the other developed nations with national health plans, are you?? Or that we make sure high risk patients get non-emergent care before exacerbation of their problems? :?
Do you have data to support your claim that national health plans are far more expensive than private, for-profit plans?
I've been one of your commentaries saying one of the problems (certainly not the biggest) of our current system is the long waits to be seen. But you're certainly not speaking for me if you're drawing the conclusion that I wouldn't be more accepting of this if it meant everyone had coverage.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
So all brocoli is grown in the state its purchased?
I never leave the state and eat brocoli at dinner? Or even purchase it for my mom? I'm out of state all the time. I can't just eat my veggies when I'm home. :roll:
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
So all brocoli is grown in the state its purchased?
I never leave the state and eat brocoli at dinner? Or even purchase it for my mom? I'm out of state all the time. I can't just eat my veggies when I'm home. :roll:
If you choose not to purchase broccoli you can't later get broccoli for free just because you were diagnosed with a broccoli deficiency. (or something like that)
Point is, it's not the same thing.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
The fact that this guy is a Law professor leads me to believe that he is applying the militia act to this case to completely obfuscate what mandate means in regards to which provisions of the constitution. Basically this was a conscription act for national defense and had nothing to do with commerce. Those are vastly different and bringing the militia mandate into play is rather strange. In my opinion it is a purposeful misunderstanding. It would be similar to a draft today, except saying that if you are called into service you need to buy your own gun as one will not be provided for you. Much different than forcing the public to purchase a private product today for commerce reasons. A more likely comparison would be a federal law requiring someone to purchase a gun and bullets to protect themselves from their neighbors. Those are different things. The health insurance reform act isn't national defense related without a thin overreaching immunization argument. Which, surprisingly I don't agree with... So I suppose someone can go ahead and site this as precedent, but it doesn't seem like a very strong argument ( IMO of course ). He is a pretty learned guy but I find this whole open letter really strange to read
he should also know that state's have police powers...so state mandates are very different than a national mandate. Gov't can force money be paid to them in the form of taxes. It cannot force me to give you money...even if you were the one receiving the benefits directly from my money...you see they have the power to TAX they do not have the power to avoid calling it a tax because it would be political suicide.
his answer in retort to the burial insurance? Could have been life as well. It is the exact same premise...You cannot approve of an unconstitutional item because it does good for the a lot of people. Nor can you discount the result of granting that power to the legislative branch when they already had the ability to fund this through actual powers. If the court buys the commerce clause for the mandate argument I will be pretty surprised. But then again...
I don't know...The constitution is truly amazing. I am amazed that people who read the same document get to such different conclusions...as frustrating as it can be I am glad that we have it that way. The pressure that is constantly on the Justices has got to be crushing. But then again...those people got there for a reason...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
So all brocoli is grown in the state its purchased?
I never leave the state and eat brocoli at dinner? Or even purchase it for my mom? I'm out of state all the time. I can't just eat my veggies when I'm home. :roll:
If you choose not to purchase broccoli you can't later get broccoli for free just because you were diagnosed with a broccoli deficiency. (or something like that)
Point is, it's not the same thing.
this made me laugh, well done.
I have one for you...isn't forcing health insurance on people who may have otherwise never used the healthcare system a lot like making people buy broccoli and then never eat it?
But the main point is that once the Feds are allowed to make laws with individual mandates for the greater good because of the interstate commerce clause...then what is to stop them from forcing requiring purchase of enough vegetables to constitute a healthy diet? A size and scope argument doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from doing it in the future with other products...
Also, they could mandate that anyone who goes to a clinic either pays out of pocket up front or is required to purchase insurance that day. That is legal because a person is VOLUNTARILY entering into the healthcare contract. Taking into account inevitability of contact doesn't take into account means of the person and just isn't a solid footing in my opinion. They have overstepped and are now forcing justification that really wasn't thought out prior to drafting the law. They could have raised taxes and given a credit to people who have insurance. That is different accounting as well and well within the already strong powers of the legislative branch
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
So all brocoli is grown in the state its purchased?
I never leave the state and eat brocoli at dinner? Or even purchase it for my mom? I'm out of state all the time. I can't just eat my veggies when I'm home. :roll:
If you choose not to purchase broccoli you can't later get broccoli for free just because you were diagnosed with a broccoli deficiency. (or something like that)
Point is, it's not the same thing.
Why not? And why should I be getting anything for free? I'm lost. We're now just handing stuff out? No more earning your own keep? Have I fallen asleep and woken up in the FORMER Soviet Union?
And if I am in another state and what to purchase broccoli and bring it home, have I not done interstate commerce? What if I'm able to order it on line? So, now EVERYTHING is interstate commerce. Great! I am Soviet. Damn!
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
So, if the government imposes a veggie mandate, do you think sweet potato chips would count? How about hummus?
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
So, if the government imposes a veggie mandate, do you think sweet potato chips would count? How about hummus?
Only if you bring it across State lines....
And, then we can turn into a true Nanny state. So, I'm guessing No on the chips, yes on the hummus and mandatory brussel sprouts. The sprout farmers will be psyched.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
So, if the government imposes a veggie mandate, do you think sweet potato chips would count? How about hummus?
Only if you bring it across State lines....
And, then we can turn into a true Nanny state. So, I'm guessing No on the chips, yes on the hummus and mandatory brussel sprouts. The sprout farmers will be psyched.
Just sautee them with some bacon and sign me up.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Comments
I'm back for more - first - I said EFFECTIVELY gov't employees. If the Gov't is providing all your income, I think EFFECTIVELY is a proper modifier. Don't be like the media and miss important words that change the meaning of a commentary. That's yet another problem with this and other debates of its kind.
Second - Medicare FFS was OUT OF CONTROL cost wise and showed the poorest outcomes (relative to EXPECTED outcomes) of any segment of the US health care system. Managed Care Medicare has done a far superior job of controlling costs with better coverage and results for Seniors (members have greater coverage opting into a Managed Care plan). Yes, there still needs to be more done. But, your last statement is so wrong, it needed another more specific rebuttal.
The problem with a lot of studies folks use on the last one is that the populations compared are not homogeneous. Additionally, in the US we have a far greater "keep them alive" mentality. I have no issue with that. But, the vast majority of expense are spent in the last 6 months of life in the US. Other countries with Nat'l Health Care do not have that issue. And this does greater damage to those dying. If our Hospice and palliative care programs were more widely understood and accpeted, folks would live more fruitful, comfortable lives in their last days, and expenses would go down. That's not as big an issue in other countries. (and yes - this is the Obama or the Republicans or whoever mentions this is deciding who lives and who dies proviso - another unfortunate simplification of the issue that prevents us from making real headway).
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Poor outcomes is another (how could waiting for a specialist visit result in good outcomes in either instance)? That line of reasoning is so illogical. A good system would make sure high risk patients get non-emergent care before the exacerbation. There are plans that do that. And it's not currently nor ever will be the Government. They are simply a payment mechancim.
Expense is another. It is far more expensive than other options that we are somehow unwilling to explore because a profit might be made. Let's think outside the box.
And, so far I think I've had 3 commentaries saying the biggest problem of our CURRENT system is the long waits and inability to get in to see a doctor. So, it seems others are not so accepting of that "little" (my word) drawback you are so willing to go with. And, this can be prevented to provide better outcomes.
I assume they only have one practice in network because it's the practice where I work. And we are the second-largest employer in the state (next to the federal government).
What exactly does "I work on the inside" mean? I appreciate you giving me the freedom to answer.
I don't have insurance because insurance companies suck. But I have better insurance than most people I know. The only time I've had better coverage is when I was covered by a publicly-funded program.
We're better cell phone consumers in large part because cell phone companies are infinitely more consumer-friendly than insurance companies. They are helpful. They are easy to understand. And if you make a poor choice it won't possibly cost you your life. And, when it comes to insurance companies, we don't feel like we have any choice.
Just because YOU are uneducated about the research to which I'm referring doesn't mean it's a fabrication. (And making blanket assumptions about what people are educated about certainly does not make you seem any smarter.) Your assertion about Kaiser (which may or may not be true) is not relevant to the topic of healthcare reform. We are talking about our national healthcare system and its outcomes, not one particular company.
There you go again making assumptions about my education on this subject. I've done a shit-ton of research. And, again, the data speaks for itself. I'd show you, but I'm busy right now. If you cared to actually educate yourself about what I'm talking about it, I'm sure you're capable of finding it yourself.
For the sake of argument, let's just say you're right that access wouldn't get better under a national plan. It couldn't get any worse. Same with rationing. So even if the status quo remained the same in those areas, I'd rather wait a year for care and have everyone covered than wait a year for care and have millions of people dying & going bankrupt due to medical bills and lack of coverage.
Yeah, I caught that "effectively" - and I'm still saying you're wrong. Don't be like the media and add words that change the meaning of a commentary so you can't technically be accused of lying when your intent is still to make people think things that aren't true.
Second - What's your point? That our national health plan should be a Managed Care Medicare system?
Yes, most of direct services expenses are spent on end-of-life care. And I have no problem with that. But you're failing to mention the OUTRAGEOUS expenses that are not associated with direct care that are part of the private health insurance bureaucracy. That's what we need to be concerned with.
You're not seriously suggesting that we have better health outcomes than the other developed nations with national health plans, are you?? Or that we make sure high risk patients get non-emergent care before exacerbation of their problems? :?
Do you have data to support your claim that national health plans are far more expensive than private, for-profit plans?
I've been one of your commentaries saying one of the problems (certainly not the biggest) of our current system is the long waits to be seen. But you're certainly not speaking for me if you're drawing the conclusion that I wouldn't be more accepting of this if it meant everyone had coverage.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/supreme_court_and_obamacare_what_donald_verrilli_should_have_said_to_the_court_s_conservative_justices_.single.html
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
So all brocoli is grown in the state its purchased?
I never leave the state and eat brocoli at dinner? Or even purchase it for my mom? I'm out of state all the time. I can't just eat my veggies when I'm home. :roll:
If you choose not to purchase broccoli you can't later get broccoli for free just because you were diagnosed with a broccoli deficiency. (or something like that)
Point is, it's not the same thing.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
The fact that this guy is a Law professor leads me to believe that he is applying the militia act to this case to completely obfuscate what mandate means in regards to which provisions of the constitution. Basically this was a conscription act for national defense and had nothing to do with commerce. Those are vastly different and bringing the militia mandate into play is rather strange. In my opinion it is a purposeful misunderstanding. It would be similar to a draft today, except saying that if you are called into service you need to buy your own gun as one will not be provided for you. Much different than forcing the public to purchase a private product today for commerce reasons. A more likely comparison would be a federal law requiring someone to purchase a gun and bullets to protect themselves from their neighbors. Those are different things. The health insurance reform act isn't national defense related without a thin overreaching immunization argument. Which, surprisingly I don't agree with... So I suppose someone can go ahead and site this as precedent, but it doesn't seem like a very strong argument ( IMO of course ). He is a pretty learned guy but I find this whole open letter really strange to read
he should also know that state's have police powers...so state mandates are very different than a national mandate. Gov't can force money be paid to them in the form of taxes. It cannot force me to give you money...even if you were the one receiving the benefits directly from my money...you see they have the power to TAX they do not have the power to avoid calling it a tax because it would be political suicide.
his answer in retort to the burial insurance? Could have been life as well. It is the exact same premise...You cannot approve of an unconstitutional item because it does good for the a lot of people. Nor can you discount the result of granting that power to the legislative branch when they already had the ability to fund this through actual powers. If the court buys the commerce clause for the mandate argument I will be pretty surprised. But then again...
I don't know...The constitution is truly amazing. I am amazed that people who read the same document get to such different conclusions...as frustrating as it can be I am glad that we have it that way. The pressure that is constantly on the Justices has got to be crushing. But then again...those people got there for a reason...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
this made me laugh, well done.
I have one for you...isn't forcing health insurance on people who may have otherwise never used the healthcare system a lot like making people buy broccoli and then never eat it?
But the main point is that once the Feds are allowed to make laws with individual mandates for the greater good because of the interstate commerce clause...then what is to stop them from forcing requiring purchase of enough vegetables to constitute a healthy diet? A size and scope argument doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from doing it in the future with other products...
Also, they could mandate that anyone who goes to a clinic either pays out of pocket up front or is required to purchase insurance that day. That is legal because a person is VOLUNTARILY entering into the healthcare contract. Taking into account inevitability of contact doesn't take into account means of the person and just isn't a solid footing in my opinion. They have overstepped and are now forcing justification that really wasn't thought out prior to drafting the law. They could have raised taxes and given a credit to people who have insurance. That is different accounting as well and well within the already strong powers of the legislative branch
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Why not? And why should I be getting anything for free? I'm lost. We're now just handing stuff out? No more earning your own keep? Have I fallen asleep and woken up in the FORMER Soviet Union?
And if I am in another state and what to purchase broccoli and bring it home, have I not done interstate commerce? What if I'm able to order it on line? So, now EVERYTHING is interstate commerce. Great! I am Soviet. Damn!
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Only if you bring it across State lines....
And, then we can turn into a true Nanny state. So, I'm guessing No on the chips, yes on the hummus and mandatory brussel sprouts. The sprout farmers will be psyched.
Just sautee them with some bacon and sign me up.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16