|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On March 29 2012 17:46 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +As for whether health care mandates in particular are constitutional, the founding fathers sure thought so. I think you need to re-read that article... and the constitution. They imposed a tax in “An Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”. Also, the tax was limited to those who were maritime sailors. They did have the option to seek employment elsewhere and avoid the tax. The individual mandate is not a tax. Authors of the bill have said the bill contains no new taxes. President Obama himself has said the bill contains no new taxes. Opponents of the mandate have said all along that Congress should have invoked their powers of taxation instead of assuming a gross overreach of power by compelling private citizens to do business with a private company by virtue of simply being alive. It wasn't until recently that they started using the language "tax penalty" which is really quite a ridiculous effort to cover up the blatant disregard lawmakers had for the Constitution when they authored the bill. “General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax..." - Justice Samuel Alito Also, I found this interesting: In 2009, President Obama was asked whether the individual mandate in his healthcare plan was really just a tax in disguise. "I absolutely reject that notion," he responded. source: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-healthcare-tax-versus-mandate-20120329,0,1427494.columnCrazy to think that if they had just broken Obama's promise of "no new taxes on the middle class" then none of this would be going on right now.
Look, the point is that they approved of the regulation and mandates for healthcare. Yes its a direct tax, instead of a transfer of goods through private insurers. But the whole damn point of the Constitutional arguments against healthcare are that the law represents a broad overreach of government power. In fact, the mandate (with tax penalty) gives the consumer far more choice than a direct tax ever could, and a direct tax is exactly what the Founding Fathers approved of. And the point of the article is that the founding fathers would agree that healthcare is something that the government can Constitutionally regulate, where to regulate, according to John Marshall, is to make a rule for. This is exactly what the mandate does.
A tax penalty is exactly what the law contains, although Verelli is going to be approaching it from the Commerce Clause point of view. That is how he and the White House chose to defend it, in part because of the public optics of the case. Democrats covered up what the mandate was (a tax penalty) in some political hogwash. A rose is a rose by any other name, and so is its constitutionality. And you know, maybe every economist in the world will tell you that this has a net money-saving effect on the middle class?
Do you even know what the mandate does? It's not clear from anything you said that you know anything about what the mandate actually stipulates, or what the Constitution does and does not prohibit.
|
On March 29 2012 22:56 xDaunt wrote:In case anyone missed this funny exchange involving Scalia: Show nested quote + Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?
Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
MR. KNEEDLER: Well -
Audio here: http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/Scalia's opinions were always my favorites to read because they were so entertaining. He has a very sharp tongue and always used a lot of wit when picking apart the arguments of people with whom he disagreed.
This would be a valid point if his counterproposal wasn't to strike the whole law, which includes everything from Black Lung disease to healthcare on Indian Reservations. To kick down the mandate and at least closely related statutes is one thing. To have court challenges on the Federal Courts of Appeals for the effect of the mandate on other clauses is still reasonable.
But Scalia's proposal to destroy the whole thing outright without even knowing what it contains is coming dangerously close to supplanting the legislative branch entirely, based on what he pieces of legislation he does and doesn't like.
Anyways, 2700 pages is not very unreasonable for you know, the fate of a pretty big piece of legislation for our time? Even the shills in Congress have read a lot of it. Obama will certainly know the core parts. Apparently Scalia thinks his time is more valuable than the President's.
|
On March 30 2012 03:29 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 22:56 xDaunt wrote:In case anyone missed this funny exchange involving Scalia: Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?
Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
MR. KNEEDLER: Well -
Audio here: http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/Scalia's opinions were always my favorites to read because they were so entertaining. He has a very sharp tongue and always used a lot of wit when picking apart the arguments of people with whom he disagreed. This would be a valid point if his counterproposal wasn't to strike the whole law, which includes everything from Black Lung disease to healthcare on Indian Reservations. To kick down the mandate and at least closely related statutes is one thing. To have court challenges on the Federal Courts of Appeals for the effect of the mandate on other clauses is still reasonable. But Scalia's proposal to destroy the whole thing outright without even knowing what it contains, is coming dangerously close overruling the legislative branch entirely, based on what he does and doesn't like. Anyways, 2700 pages is not very unreasonable for you know, the fate of a pretty big piece of legislation for our time? Even the shills in Congress have read a lot of it. Obama will certainly know the core parts. Apparently Scalia thinks his time is more valuable than the President's.
There are multiple problems with your argument. First, there is no severance clause within the Obamacare legislation, which creates a presumption that Congress intended that the law either must stand or fall as a whole. Second, everyone generally agrees that the insurance companies will be hosed if the individual mandate is stricken and the rest of the law stands. Third, having a court review a gigantic law such as Obamacare and determining which provisions should survive the striking of the mandate sounds suspiciously like judicial legislation to me, particularly where there is no severance clause within the statute and where the statute contains many provisions that are unrelated to each other.
I am particularly amused by your last paragraph in which you note that the shills in Congress "have read a lot" of Obamacare. Perhaps if everyone in Congress read the bill it wouldn't have been passed as the steaming shitpile that it is. Oh well, it's about to be flushed.
|
On March 30 2012 03:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 03:29 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 29 2012 22:56 xDaunt wrote:In case anyone missed this funny exchange involving Scalia: Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?
Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
MR. KNEEDLER: Well -
Audio here: http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/Scalia's opinions were always my favorites to read because they were so entertaining. He has a very sharp tongue and always used a lot of wit when picking apart the arguments of people with whom he disagreed. This would be a valid point if his counterproposal wasn't to strike the whole law, which includes everything from Black Lung disease to healthcare on Indian Reservations. To kick down the mandate and at least closely related statutes is one thing. To have court challenges on the Federal Courts of Appeals for the effect of the mandate on other clauses is still reasonable. But Scalia's proposal to destroy the whole thing outright without even knowing what it contains, is coming dangerously close overruling the legislative branch entirely, based on what he does and doesn't like. Anyways, 2700 pages is not very unreasonable for you know, the fate of a pretty big piece of legislation for our time? Even the shills in Congress have read a lot of it. Obama will certainly know the core parts. Apparently Scalia thinks his time is more valuable than the President's. There are multiple problems with your argument. First, there is no severance clause within the Obamacare legislation, which creates a presumption that Congress intended that the law either must stand or fall as a whole. Second, everyone generally agrees that the insurance companies will be hosed if the individual mandate is stricken and the rest of the law stands. Third, having a court review a gigantic law such as Obamacare and determining which provisions should survive the striking of the mandate sounds suspiciously like judicial legislation to me, particularly where there is no severance clause within the statute and where the statute contains many provisions that are unrelated to each other. I am particularly amused by your last paragraph in which you note that the shills in Congress "have read a lot" of Obamacare. Perhaps if everyone in Congress read the bill it wouldn't have been passed as the steaming shitpile that it is. Oh well, it's about to be flushed.
Don't an idiot. There's no severance clause because every right wing justice and their dog found the mandate far more constitutional than medicare (a direct government provision of health care, which by the way if you notice has not and will probably never be challenged, if only for its political endearment to key voting blocks), until Obama's name was attached to it. Whether this was poor planning by the Democrats or not is neither here nor there. The point is that their intent for not containing severability is because they felt the legislation was easily Constitutional; not that they should have the whole thing "stay or fall in one piece" or some canard like that.
Whether the insurance companies are hosed or not will make it a bad piece of legislation. It will not make the thing unconstitutional. The supreme court judges constitutionality; the legislative branch has already legislated the damn thing, and its not legislating from the bench to rule on the constitutionality of the other statutes of an existing law.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 30 2012 03:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 03:29 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 29 2012 22:56 xDaunt wrote:In case anyone missed this funny exchange involving Scalia: Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?
Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
MR. KNEEDLER: Well -
Audio here: http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/Scalia's opinions were always my favorites to read because they were so entertaining. He has a very sharp tongue and always used a lot of wit when picking apart the arguments of people with whom he disagreed. This would be a valid point if his counterproposal wasn't to strike the whole law, which includes everything from Black Lung disease to healthcare on Indian Reservations. To kick down the mandate and at least closely related statutes is one thing. To have court challenges on the Federal Courts of Appeals for the effect of the mandate on other clauses is still reasonable. But Scalia's proposal to destroy the whole thing outright without even knowing what it contains, is coming dangerously close overruling the legislative branch entirely, based on what he does and doesn't like. Anyways, 2700 pages is not very unreasonable for you know, the fate of a pretty big piece of legislation for our time? Even the shills in Congress have read a lot of it. Obama will certainly know the core parts. Apparently Scalia thinks his time is more valuable than the President's. There are multiple problems with your argument. First, there is no severance clause within the Obamacare legislation, which creates a presumption that Congress intended that the law either must stand or fall as a whole. Second, everyone generally agrees that the insurance companies will be hosed if the individual mandate is stricken and the rest of the law stands. Third, having a court review a gigantic law such as Obamacare and determining which provisions should survive the striking of the mandate sounds suspiciously like judicial legislation to me, particularly where there is no severance clause within the statute and where the statute contains many provisions that are unrelated to each other. I am particularly amused by your last paragraph in which you note that the shills in Congress "have read a lot" of Obamacare. Perhaps if everyone in Congress read the bill it wouldn't have been passed as the steaming shitpile that it is. Oh well, it's about to be flushed.
Don't be dense, Republicans found it much more palatable until Obama's name was attached.
|
On March 30 2012 03:47 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 30 2012 03:29 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 29 2012 22:56 xDaunt wrote:In case anyone missed this funny exchange involving Scalia: Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?
Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
MR. KNEEDLER: Well -
Audio here: http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/Scalia's opinions were always my favorites to read because they were so entertaining. He has a very sharp tongue and always used a lot of wit when picking apart the arguments of people with whom he disagreed. This would be a valid point if his counterproposal wasn't to strike the whole law, which includes everything from Black Lung disease to healthcare on Indian Reservations. To kick down the mandate and at least closely related statutes is one thing. To have court challenges on the Federal Courts of Appeals for the effect of the mandate on other clauses is still reasonable. But Scalia's proposal to destroy the whole thing outright without even knowing what it contains, is coming dangerously close overruling the legislative branch entirely, based on what he does and doesn't like. Anyways, 2700 pages is not very unreasonable for you know, the fate of a pretty big piece of legislation for our time? Even the shills in Congress have read a lot of it. Obama will certainly know the core parts. Apparently Scalia thinks his time is more valuable than the President's. There are multiple problems with your argument. First, there is no severance clause within the Obamacare legislation, which creates a presumption that Congress intended that the law either must stand or fall as a whole. Second, everyone generally agrees that the insurance companies will be hosed if the individual mandate is stricken and the rest of the law stands. Third, having a court review a gigantic law such as Obamacare and determining which provisions should survive the striking of the mandate sounds suspiciously like judicial legislation to me, particularly where there is no severance clause within the statute and where the statute contains many provisions that are unrelated to each other. I am particularly amused by your last paragraph in which you note that the shills in Congress "have read a lot" of Obamacare. Perhaps if everyone in Congress read the bill it wouldn't have been passed as the steaming shitpile that it is. Oh well, it's about to be flushed. Don't be dense, Republicans found it much more palatable until Obama's name was attached.
Don't give me that bullshit. There has never been broad-based republican support for an individual mandate at a federal level. Some republicans offered it as an alternative to Hillarycare during the early nineties, but it faded quickly thereafter and never became a major part of the party's platform (though some individual republicans have pushed the idea). This was all twenty years ago anyway. Different congress, different republicans.
|
Here's an article to temper xDaunt's characteristic over-optimism. The main points:
Justice Kennedy wasn’t convinced by arguments healthcare isn’t a market Congress can regulate.
Roberts wasn’t convinced the Supreme Court has the institutional competency to unravel 2,700 pages of legislation, most of which even he hasn’t read.
Kennedy and Roberts, as moderate conservatives, will have a hard time getting past the idea they are substituting their wisdom for that of elected representatives if they strike down the law.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/03/29/obamacare-will-survive-the-supreme-court-heres-why/
And another:
But all three groups of former clerks-even those who had worked for the Court’s conservative block-said the odds that the Justices would uphold the mandate was well above 50 percent. Lawyers who have argued before the Court said there was a 36 percent probability the Justices would strike down the mandate, about the same as the clerks overall.
“I don’t think this case will be nearly as close a case as conventional wisdom now has it,” one respondent noted in an open-ended comment. “I think the Court will uphold the statute by a lopsided majority.”
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/03/26/survey-of-legal-insiders-the-supreme-court-will-uphold-obamacare/
|
On March 30 2012 03:47 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 30 2012 03:29 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 29 2012 22:56 xDaunt wrote:In case anyone missed this funny exchange involving Scalia: Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?
Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
MR. KNEEDLER: Well -
Audio here: http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/Scalia's opinions were always my favorites to read because they were so entertaining. He has a very sharp tongue and always used a lot of wit when picking apart the arguments of people with whom he disagreed. This would be a valid point if his counterproposal wasn't to strike the whole law, which includes everything from Black Lung disease to healthcare on Indian Reservations. To kick down the mandate and at least closely related statutes is one thing. To have court challenges on the Federal Courts of Appeals for the effect of the mandate on other clauses is still reasonable. But Scalia's proposal to destroy the whole thing outright without even knowing what it contains, is coming dangerously close overruling the legislative branch entirely, based on what he does and doesn't like. Anyways, 2700 pages is not very unreasonable for you know, the fate of a pretty big piece of legislation for our time? Even the shills in Congress have read a lot of it. Obama will certainly know the core parts. Apparently Scalia thinks his time is more valuable than the President's. There are multiple problems with your argument. First, there is no severance clause within the Obamacare legislation, which creates a presumption that Congress intended that the law either must stand or fall as a whole. Second, everyone generally agrees that the insurance companies will be hosed if the individual mandate is stricken and the rest of the law stands. Third, having a court review a gigantic law such as Obamacare and determining which provisions should survive the striking of the mandate sounds suspiciously like judicial legislation to me, particularly where there is no severance clause within the statute and where the statute contains many provisions that are unrelated to each other. I am particularly amused by your last paragraph in which you note that the shills in Congress "have read a lot" of Obamacare. Perhaps if everyone in Congress read the bill it wouldn't have been passed as the steaming shitpile that it is. Oh well, it's about to be flushed. Don't be dense, Republicans found it much more palatable until Obama's name was attached.
Who likes it and who doesn't has nothing to do with its constitutionality. Pretty much everything Dauntx said is pretty much right. Striking down a portion of the law is possible though, and I'm more of the belief that they will just sever that portion.
|
The part you missed is that health care is a unique case.
That's because you get emergency care whether or not you paid for it (Reagan's fault, by the way) and because your health impacts others due to the nature of infectious diseases.
As soon as you're born, you're entitled to emergency health care, so you're already in the market. I guess it wouldn't be a problem if you opted out of that (think Christian Scientists), but they do have a waiver for it if you do.
You're still billed for emergency care. In fact, the market for emergency care is itself not a unique case. I know of 2 hospitals that closed their emergency care service to run a private 24/7 clinic because of the costs associated with running it. Just because they are forced to provide you emergency care by law does not mean they aren't handing you the bill after it. I previously discussed necessary reforms to make hospital care cheaper and more competitive.
About health impacting others via infectious diseases ... really? Maybe my lack of a wife impacts my emotional health and predisposition for crime, having no family to care about. Maybe the state needs to provide me with a dating service to that end, because it impacts others, doesn't it? I already mentioned cell phones. It's just like health care in its impact to others ... I can't report crime or medical emergencies if I don't have one. Maybe the government should force me to buy a plan just like health insurance.
The mandate is just a tax penalty that regulates commerce. Call it a tax rebate for people who bought insurance; who cares? Congress has the power to tax, and there's a pretty clear limiting principle in healthcare (although it falls well under the Commerce Clause), where the consumer is captive and essentially forced into the market when a loved one / self gets sick.
As for whether health care mandates in particular are constitutional, the founding fathers sure thought so.
If marijuana grown in one's backyard for personal use can be regulated via the Commerce Clause (thanks, Justice Scalia!) and people can be sent to jail for it, it's hard to imagine that a net tax rebate for purchasers of insurance on interstate health care markets can't be.
The ability to regulate the market via minimum requirements (most of which make no sense, and are terrible ideas, but that's Congress for you) is a far cry from the mandate from the state saying you MUST engage in this market. Let me quote again some discussion at the Supreme Court:
GENERAL VERRILLI: To live in the modern world, everybody needs a telephone. And the — the same thing with respect to the — you know, the dairy price supports that — that the Court upheld in Wrightwood Dairy and Rock Royal. You can look at those as disadvantageous contracts, as forced transfers, that — you know, I suppose it’s theoretically true that you could raise your kids without milk, but the reality is you’ve got to go to the store and buy milk. And the commerce power — as a result of the exercise of the commerce power, you’re subsidizing somebody else –
JUSTICE KAGAN: And this is especially true, isn’t it, General –
GENERAL VERRILLI: — because that’s the judgment Congress has made.
JUSTICE KAGAN: — Verrilli, because in this context, the subsidizers eventually become the subsidized?
GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, that was the point I was trying to make, Justice Kagan, that you’re young and healthy one day, but you don’t stay that way, and the system works over time. And so I just don’t think it’s a fair characterization of it. And it does get back to, I think, a problem I think is important to understand –
JUSTICE SCALIA: These people not stupid. They’re going to buy insurance later. They’re young and need the money now.
GENERAL VERRILLI: But that’s –
JUSTICE SCALIA: When they think they have a substantial risk of incurring high medical bills, they’ll buy insurance, like the rest of us.
GENERAL VERRILLI: But that’s — that’s –
JUSTICE SCALIA: — I don’t know why you think that they’re never going to buy it.
GENERAL VERRILLI: That’s the problem, Justice Scalia. That’s — and that’s exactly the experience that the States had that made the imposition of guaranteed issue and community rating not only be ineffectual but be highly counterproductive. Rates, for example, in New Jersey doubled or tripled, went from 180,000 people covered in this market down to 80,000 people covered in this market. In Kentucky, virtually every insurer left the market.
And the reason for that is because when people have that guarantee of — that they can get insurance, they’re going to make that calculation that they won’t get it until they’re sick and they need it. And so, the pool of people in the insurance market gets smaller and smaller. The rates you have to charge to cover them get higher and higher. It helps fewer and fewer — insurance covers fewer and fewer people until the system ends.
This is not a situation in which you’re conscripting — you’re forcing insurance companies to cover very large numbers of unhealthy people –
JUSTICE SCALIA: You could solve that problem by simply not requiring the insurance company to sell it to somebody who has a — a condition that is going to require medical treatment, or at least not – not require them to sell it to him at a rate that he sells it to healthy people. But you don’t want to do that.
The sickening condescension of the Fed holding your hand and saying that you need to spend your money NOW on THIS because it's law came up in the Supreme Court. You can be young and make the conscious choice to hold off and buy it later because you need the money now. The threat of high medical bills is reason enough for the purchase of health insurance. Scalia dealt with the argument that insurance rates go up across the board and there's nothing for that. Let's look at the reform in insurance regulation already on the books to get costs down.
|
Yes, Yes just buy into something because they force you. It is going to be worse than how the Feds force student loans upon themselves, forcing colleges to up Tuition rates at the rise of inflation(that the Feds create by quantitative easing) This is completely retarded. This is a STATES right, not a FEDERAL right. Read the Constitution. The FEDERAL government has no business in telling you what to buy. The war on drugs? Retarded as fuck. Let States handle it. Just about every piece of useless legislature that goes through congress is something that fucks you (The average american) over.
The Federal Gov't is ruining every single Americans life. Maybe they should give you a choice, instead of "oh, do this or I will execute you" The Opt-Out is a fucking joke. You know what the average wait time for someone to just get a simple MRI on socialized medicine is? Like 45 days. On my healthcare I have to wait maybe 5-7. We should go back to a completely free market economy and stop putting restrictions on everything. The Medical industry prices are drove up by the cost of medical supplies, medical supplies keep going up because the FDA, and EPA put such heavy restrictions on what they can and can not do, and if you do not give them money to pass your product through then well, fuck you good sir. This whole system of lobbyism sickens me, and until every single American stands up and says stop, this will continue. I will bet that by 2030 it will be so be so bad if it continues like this. In fact I would be willing to bet that by 2030 if it doesn't get fixed there will be a revolution.
|
On March 30 2012 16:26 bayside wrote:
Yes, Yes just buy into something because they force you. It is going to be worse than how the Feds force student loans upon themselves, forcing colleges to up Tuition rates at the rise of inflation(that the Feds create by quantitative easing) This is completely retarded. This is a STATES right, not a FEDERAL right. Read the Constitution. The FEDERAL government has no business in telling you what to buy. The war on drugs? Retarded as fuck. Let States handle it. Just about every piece of useless legislature that goes through congress is something that fucks you (The average american) over.
The Federal Gov't is ruining every single Americans life. Maybe they should give you a choice, instead of "oh, do this or I will execute you" The Opt-Out is a fucking joke. You know what the average wait time for someone to just get a simple MRI on socialized medicine is? Like 45 days. On my healthcare I have to wait maybe 5-7. We should go back to a completely free market economy and stop putting restrictions on everything. The Medical industry prices are drove up by the cost of medical supplies, medical supplies keep going up because the FDA, and EPA put such heavy restrictions on what they can and can not do, and if you do not give them money to pass your product through then well, fuck you good sir. This whole system of lobbyism sickens me, and until every single American stands up and says stop, this will continue. I will bet that by 2030 it will be so be so bad if it continues like this. In fact I would be willing to bet that by 2030 if it doesn't get fixed there will be a revolution.
I laughed pretty hard.
I think your post lost its sanity and valid direction at socialized medicine. Could your revolution date be any less arbitrary? At least cite information to make your points valid. :|
|
On March 30 2012 16:26 bayside wrote:
Yes, Yes just buy into something because they force you. It is going to be worse than how the Feds force student loans upon themselves, forcing colleges to up Tuition rates at the rise of inflation(that the Feds create by quantitative easing) This is completely retarded. This is a STATES right, not a FEDERAL right. Read the Constitution. The FEDERAL government has no business in telling you what to buy. The war on drugs? Retarded as fuck. Let States handle it. Just about every piece of useless legislature that goes through congress is something that fucks you (The average american) over.
The Federal Gov't is ruining every single Americans life. Maybe they should give you a choice, instead of "oh, do this or I will execute you" The Opt-Out is a fucking joke. You know what the average wait time for someone to just get a simple MRI on socialized medicine is? Like 45 days. On my healthcare I have to wait maybe 5-7. We should go back to a completely free market economy and stop putting restrictions on everything. The Medical industry prices are drove up by the cost of medical supplies, medical supplies keep going up because the FDA, and EPA put such heavy restrictions on what they can and can not do, and if you do not give them money to pass your product through then well, fuck you good sir. This whole system of lobbyism sickens me, and until every single American stands up and says stop, this will continue. I will bet that by 2030 it will be so be so bad if it continues like this. In fact I would be willing to bet that by 2030 if it doesn't get fixed there will be a revolution.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on your healthcare system. But your meandering, non-sensical rant warrants a response.
You health care is expensive because:
a) You spend more on prescription drugs per capita than any other country. $950 per person per year. I'm not sure why your drugs are so expensive. And I'm not sure why American's take so many unnecessary drugs (Viagra, Prozac, etc.). But they are and you do.
b) Unnecessary and expensive diagnostic services and elective surgeries -- such as you precious MRI's, or tweaking a bum knee -- drive up the demand and costs of these services.
c) Insurances companies and health care providers had no real incentive to be more cost effective or efficient, because they could cherry-pick and chose who they wanted to cover to mitigate their risk. People that are actually unhealthy have no choice but to pay out the wazoo.
d) Too many Americans have horrible lifestyles that lead to poor health, making you more expensive to insure. You're too damn fat, you drink too much, you smoke too much, and you do too many drugs. Hence, you get sick more. 33.8% of Americans are not simply overweight or out of shape, they are obese (BMI over 30).
The US government spends almost $9000 per person per capita, by far and away higher than any other country in the world, but that only covers 65% of total health care costs. You're overpaying for everything, and spending way too much money on medical services you don't need.
|
The BMI 'obese' thing is really stupid. BMI has been shown again and again to be a terrible indicator of obesity and unhealthy lifestyle. Please don't cite that as an indicator that Americans have horrible lifestyles.
Do you actually have sources for the rest of your claims? Because I don't believe any of that, but I'll be glad to be proven wrong.
|
And actually... the overall $$$ cost of smokers and fatties... is not that bad.
They do a really good job of dying early on.
It's not like they will draw down Social Security, Medicare, Medicad until they are 90.
They pay into everything for 40 years, and drop dead as soon as they start to hit retirement age, and never get to collect.
I mean, you every see sombody 85-90 years old chain smoking? Sombody 85-90 years old that weighs more than 250lbs?
|
On March 30 2012 20:07 DoubleReed wrote:
The BMI 'obese' thing is really stupid. BMI has been shown again and again to be a terrible indicator of obesity and unhealthy lifestyle. Please don't cite that as an indicator that Americans have horrible lifestyles.
Do you actually have sources for the rest of your claims? Because I don't believe any of that, but I'll be glad to be proven wrong.
Statistics all from the OECD.org (Organization for Economic Cooporation Development), an international organization that has been tracking these kind of stats globally since the 1960s. They have a statistics website (http://stats.oecd.org/) where you can compare countries across all kinds of health and economic indicators from as early as 1960.
Of course I didn't collate this information. I'm referencing other people's work.
http://247wallst.com/2012/03/29/countries-that-spend-the-most-on-health-care/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/obesity-rates-rising-developed-fattest-world_n_1294212.html
Oh yes, I'm wrong about smoking. Europeans smoke far more than Americans.
Put down that hamburger for a second and see the obvious .Obesity is an indicator of poor lifestyle, and increases your chances of heart disease, diabetes and even minor issues (like back and foot problems) which can require ongoing medical attention.
Some people are genetically disposed to being fat. But some people just eat way too fucking much and exercise too little. Which is preventable.
Edit: I encourage all of you to check out http://stats.oecd.org/
I'm not a statistician but it's an amazingly cool resource.
|
On March 31 2012 02:51 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 20:07 DoubleReed wrote:
The BMI 'obese' thing is really stupid. BMI has been shown again and again to be a terrible indicator of obesity and unhealthy lifestyle. Please don't cite that as an indicator that Americans have horrible lifestyles.
Do you actually have sources for the rest of your claims? Because I don't believe any of that, but I'll be glad to be proven wrong. Statistics all from the OECD.org (Organization for Economic Cooporation Development), an international organization that has been tracking these kind of stats globally since the 1960s. They have a statistics website (http://stats.oecd.org/) where you can compare countries across all kinds of health and economic indicators from as early as 1960. Of course I didn't collate this information. I'm referencing other people's work. http://247wallst.com/2012/03/29/countries-that-spend-the-most-on-health-care/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/obesity-rates-rising-developed-fattest-world_n_1294212.htmlOh yes, I'm wrong about smoking. Europeans smoke far more than Americans. Put down that hamburger for a second and see the obvious .Obesity is an indicator of poor lifestyle, and increases your chances of heart disease, diabetes and even minor issues (like back and foot problems) which can require ongoing medical attention. Some people are genetically disposed to being fat. But some people just eat way too fucking much and exercise too little. Which is preventable. Edit: I encourage all of you to check out http://stats.oecd.org/
I'm not a statistician but it's an amazingly cool resource.
...my problem with your post wasn't that "obesity is ok, and is not a problem." It was that BMI is a terrible gauge for obesity and being overweight. It's literally just height and weight. There are much better indicators, like % body fat and such. You completely ignored my main criticism of what you said and talked about the issues of obesity.
Oh yeah, and you told me to "put down that hamburger" because you're just such a classy human being.
|
On March 31 2012 06:52 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 02:51 Defacer wrote:On March 30 2012 20:07 DoubleReed wrote:
The BMI 'obese' thing is really stupid. BMI has been shown again and again to be a terrible indicator of obesity and unhealthy lifestyle. Please don't cite that as an indicator that Americans have horrible lifestyles.
Do you actually have sources for the rest of your claims? Because I don't believe any of that, but I'll be glad to be proven wrong. Statistics all from the OECD.org (Organization for Economic Cooporation Development), an international organization that has been tracking these kind of stats globally since the 1960s. They have a statistics website (http://stats.oecd.org/) where you can compare countries across all kinds of health and economic indicators from as early as 1960. Of course I didn't collate this information. I'm referencing other people's work. http://247wallst.com/2012/03/29/countries-that-spend-the-most-on-health-care/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/obesity-rates-rising-developed-fattest-world_n_1294212.htmlOh yes, I'm wrong about smoking. Europeans smoke far more than Americans. Put down that hamburger for a second and see the obvious .Obesity is an indicator of poor lifestyle, and increases your chances of heart disease, diabetes and even minor issues (like back and foot problems) which can require ongoing medical attention. Some people are genetically disposed to being fat. But some people just eat way too fucking much and exercise too little. Which is preventable. Edit: I encourage all of you to check out http://stats.oecd.org/
I'm not a statistician but it's an amazingly cool resource. ...my problem with your post wasn't that "obesity is ok, and is not a problem." It was that BMI is a terrible gauge for obesity and being overweight. It's literally just height and weight. There are much better indicators, like % body fat and such. You completely ignored my main criticism of what you said and talked about the issues of obesity. Oh yeah, and you told me to "put down that hamburger" because you're just such a classy human being.
BMI definitely is not a perfect indicator of what you wish to accomplish, but I see it as a decent enough indicator to work with - and height/weight is as straight forward as it gets and is also easily understandable for the average joe.
If a newer standard/indicator that gives better info by including more factors such as body fat etc. I am all for it however. But discrediting BMI this easily - not sure if serious...
This way you sound like making excuses for "fat" people that will gladly say that being fat - that´s not so bad at all because BMI sucks anyway - we need more and better proof - where is the evidence?( not trying to put you in that category - but that´s quite similar to what climate change deniers us as a line of argument.)
//offtopic out.
|
Obesity is an indicator of poor lifestyle, and increases your chances of heart disease, diabetes and even minor issues (like back and foot problems) which can require ongoing medical attention.
What about obesity caused by diabetes and other genetic causes? It isn't always due to lifestyle choices. Be careful with that 1930's Germany style of thinking.
|
On March 31 2012 06:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh yeah, and you told me to "put down that hamburger" because you're just such a classy human being.
I threw that in there because I'm HILARIOUS.
Seriously though, I thought you meant that being fat didn't necessarily indicate poor health or a health risk. If that's not what you meant than I apologize.
Most people attribute America's abnormally low average life-expectancy (70 years?) to poor lifestyle, not the quality or capability of your healthcare. But it should be considered a factor for why America spends so much on healthcare.
|
On March 29 2012 15:07 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 13:57 sunprince wrote:On March 29 2012 13:17 Danglars wrote:You are born a ward of the state, and you die a ward of the state. That's what I'm seeing when I read about being born into this market and it affecting some government regulation naturally. Health care is not this unique field that is exempt from normal freedom protections guaranteed in the Constitution. You're rich, you can afford to fly to the best doctor in the country and get operated on. You're poor, you get inferior care, but still good care. I also eat better than somebody without a job, and we're both free to buy as we choose. The part you missed is that health care is a unique case. That's because you get emergency care whether or not you paid for it (Reagan's fault, by the way) and because your health impacts others due to the nature of infectious diseases. As soon as you're born, you're entitled to emergency health care, so you're already in the market. I guess it wouldn't be a problem if you opted out of that (think Christian Scientists), but they do have a waiver for it if you do. How can you possibly argue that it is unique because it affects others? Literally everything you do affects others. Everything.
Don't be deliberately obtuse. You understood exactly what I meant, that I'm talking about a direct economic externality which I gave specific examples of, and that by "affect", I mean "directly harm".
On March 29 2012 15:07 liberal wrote:
Driving a car affects the people on the road. The speed and manner you drive affects others.
Yes, and that's why the government regulates driving.
On March 29 2012 15:07 liberal wrote:
Your weight affects others. Your speech affects others. The number of children you choose to have, the place you choose to live, it all affects everyone around you.
These don't normally cause direct harm to others, and when they do, I don't think anyone questions the wisdom of government intervention.
On March 29 2012 15:07 liberal wrote:
When you are born, you need food. Aren't people entitled to food just like emergency care? And so you are born into the food market, just like you are born into the health care market. The food you choose to eat affects others. If you eat food that makes you obese, it has a direct cost on the health care premiums that others have to pay. And so food is unique and they can make you purchase broccoli.
The government does not compel supermarkets to give food to people who can't pay for it, the way that it compels hosptials to provde emergency care to people who can't pay for it.
On March 29 2012 15:07 liberal wrote:
There is no limiting factor in these arguments. There is nothing that uniquely distinguishes health care from everything else. Everything is interconnected. Every action affects another action. Every inaction has consequences.
Obviously false, as I explained above. Health care is unique because the government compels hospitals to provide emergency care even when people can't afford it (thanks Reagan!), and because sick people can infect others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
