goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Jeffy on January 31, 2011, 02:36:03 PM
-
Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional
A U.S. district judge ruled Monday that the health care law unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause.
Judge Roger Vinson said as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be thrown out.
"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here," Vinson wrote.
"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void," he wrote.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/
-
Health care bill sinking faster than KSU q@s bball
-
Please let them start over and do it right. :popcorn:
-
Please let them start over and do it right. :popcorn:
Not happening, then they would have to admit they were dumbasses and it was a crap plan from the start.
-
Please let them start over and do it right. :popcorn:
What would you like to see reformed?
-
Please let them start over and do it right. :popcorn:
What would you like to see reformed?
I would like to see 2 things done immediately:
Limits on malpractice lawsuits.
Interstate medical insurance sales.
This should make insurance much more affordable.
-
Please let them start over and do it right. :popcorn:
What would you like to see reformed?
I would like to see 2 things done immediately:
Limits on malpractice lawsuits.
Interstate medical insurance sales.
This should make insurance much more affordable.
This
-
Please let them start over and do it right. :popcorn:
What would you like to see reformed?
I would like to see 2 things done immediately:
Limits on malpractice lawsuits.
Interstate medical insurance sales.
This should make insurance much more affordable.
This
Yup. Immediately creates increased competition and lower prices.
Along with that, separating insurance from company benefits, so that the policy is portable between jobs. This would keep people from being tied to a job just because of the insurance and eliminate much of the "pre-existing condition" problem. Companies could offer something like an insurance voucher that could be used by the employee to purchase insurance.
-
Please let them start over and do it right. :popcorn:
What would you like to see reformed?
I would like to see 2 things done immediately:
Limits on malpractice lawsuits.
Interstate medical insurance sales.
This should make insurance much more affordable.
This
Yup. Immediately creates increased competition and lower prices.
Along with that, separating insurance from company benefits, so that the policy is portable between jobs. This would keep people from being tied to a job just because of the insurance and eliminate much of the "pre-existing condition" problem. Companies could offer something like an insurance voucher that could be used by the employee to purchase insurance.
A couple of things...
I need someone to explain to me how mandating people have health insurance is different than mandating people have car insurance. The premise of both is simple; if you don't have it, and you require it's services, you're costing all of us because your uncovered ass is causing all of our premiums to go up. Case in point: Hospitals are required, by law, to treat everyone that comes into the ED. So, if you don't have health insurance, and you don't have a doctor, and you go to the ED, the hospital eats that. Therefore, they raise their prices, and the insurance company has to pay more, which in turn causes your rates to go up. It's pretty simple economics. Uninsured drivers cause the same problem, so the government mandated people have auto insurance. I don't see any courts overturning that, but of course, apparently, that isn't unconstitutional Socialism Commie Nazism for people who want to defile the baby Jesus.
Second, I believe in malpractice reform. Duh. Anyone with a brain would. However, do the folks in this thread believe we should scrap the mandates for preexisting conditions and lifetime limits for insurance? Just wondering.
-
Please let them start over and do it right. :popcorn:
What would you like to see reformed?
I would like to see 2 things done immediately:
Limits on malpractice lawsuits.
Interstate medical insurance sales.
This should make insurance much more affordable.
This
Yup. Immediately creates increased competition and lower prices.
Along with that, separating insurance from company benefits, so that the policy is portable between jobs. This would keep people from being tied to a job just because of the insurance and eliminate much of the "pre-existing condition" problem. Companies could offer something like an insurance voucher that could be used by the employee to purchase insurance.
A couple of things...
I need someone to explain to me how mandating people have health insurance is different than mandating people have car insurance. The premise of both is simple; if you don't have it, and you require it's services, you're costing all of us because your uncovered ass is causing all of our premiums to go up. Case in point: Hospitals are required, by law, to treat everyone that comes into the ED. So, if you don't have health insurance, and you don't have a doctor, and you go to the ED, the hospital eats that. Therefore, they raise their prices, and the insurance company has to pay more, which in turn causes your rates to go up. It's pretty simple economics. Uninsured drivers cause the same problem, so the government mandated people have auto insurance. I don't see any courts overturning that, but of course, apparently, that isn't unconstitutional Socialism Commie Nazism for people who want to defile the baby Jesus.
Second, I believe in malpractice reform. Duh. Anyone with a brain would. However, do the folks in this thread believe we should scrap the mandates for preexisting conditions and lifetime limits for insurance? Just wondering.
Nobody forces you to own a car. It is a privilege. If you choose to have a car, then there is a minimum amount of insurance you must carry. Many people choose to carry more. With health insurance, it is essentially "if you choose to be alive," then you have to have insurance.
As the judge's decision says,
"At issue here, as in the other cases decided so far, is the assertion that the
Commerce Clause can only reach individuals and entities engaged in an “activity”;
and because the plaintiffs maintain that an individual’s failure to purchase health
insurance is, almost by definition, “inactivity,” the individual mandate goes beyond
the Commere Clause and is unconstitutional. The defendants contend that activity
is not required before Congress can exercise its Commerce Clause power, but that,
even if it is required, not having insurance constitutes activity. The defendants also
claim that the individual mandate is sustainable for the “second reason” that it falls
within the Necessary and Proper Clause."
-
Please let them start over and do it right. :popcorn:
What would you like to see reformed?
I would like to see 2 things done immediately:
Limits on malpractice lawsuits.
Interstate medical insurance sales.
This should make insurance much more affordable.
This
Yup. Immediately creates increased competition and lower prices.
Along with that, separating insurance from company benefits, so that the policy is portable between jobs. This would keep people from being tied to a job just because of the insurance and eliminate much of the "pre-existing condition" problem. Companies could offer something like an insurance voucher that could be used by the employee to purchase insurance.
A couple of things...
I need someone to explain to me how mandating people have health insurance is different than mandating people have car insurance. The premise of both is simple; if you don't have it, and you require it's services, you're costing all of us because your uncovered ass is causing all of our premiums to go up. Case in point: Hospitals are required, by law, to treat everyone that comes into the ED. So, if you don't have health insurance, and you don't have a doctor, and you go to the ED, the hospital eats that. Therefore, they raise their prices, and the insurance company has to pay more, which in turn causes your rates to go up. It's pretty simple economics. Uninsured drivers cause the same problem, so the government mandated people have auto insurance. I don't see any courts overturning that, but of course, apparently, that isn't unconstitutional Socialism Commie Nazism for people who want to defile the baby Jesus.
Second, I believe in malpractice reform. Duh. Anyone with a brain would. However, do the folks in this thread believe we should scrap the mandates for preexisting conditions and lifetime limits for insurance? Just wondering.
Nobody forces you to own a car. It is a privilege. If you choose to have a car, then there is a minimum amount of insurance you must carry. Many people choose to carry more. With health insurance, it is essentially "if you choose to be alive," then you have to have insurance.
As the judge's decision says,
"At issue here, as in the other cases decided so far, is the assertion that the
Commerce Clause can only reach individuals and entities engaged in an “activity”;
and because the plaintiffs maintain that an individual’s failure to purchase health
insurance is, almost by definition, “inactivity,” the individual mandate goes beyond
the Commere Clause and is unconstitutional. The defendants contend that activity
is not required before Congress can exercise its Commerce Clause power, but that,
even if it is required, not having insurance constitutes activity. The defendants also
claim that the individual mandate is sustainable for the “second reason” that it falls
within the Necessary and Proper Clause."
It doesn't answer my main assertion which is that the uninsured who do seek treatment end up costing us all more as a result like the uninsured drivers cost us more as a result. This is the whole point.
If you don't want to buy insurance, and you want to die at home, fine. Die at home.
However, if you don't want to buy insurance, but you show up to the hospital looking for help that you can't pay for, and the hospital is required, by law, to treat you, well, you're costing all of us. In that sense, it's even more critical than auto insurance because no one says that if you don't have a car, but you need to go somewhere, a car will be provided for you by law. And if you hit someone, well, that person and their insurance company is SOL because even though the government mandated a car must be provided for you if you needed it and you asked for one, they didn't require you to have a means to pay for it.
Look, there's a pretty simple solution here. If people don't want the government to mandate that citizens have health insurance, they should simply say that hospitals can turn you away if you don't have it. Problem solved. Right?
-
Please let them start over and do it right. :popcorn:
What would you like to see reformed?
I would like to see 2 things done immediately:
Limits on malpractice lawsuits.
Interstate medical insurance sales.
This should make insurance much more affordable.
This
Yup. Immediately creates increased competition and lower prices.
Along with that, separating insurance from company benefits, so that the policy is portable between jobs. This would keep people from being tied to a job just because of the insurance and eliminate much of the "pre-existing condition" problem. Companies could offer something like an insurance voucher that could be used by the employee to purchase insurance.
A couple of things...
I need someone to explain to me how mandating people have health insurance is different than mandating people have car insurance. The premise of both is simple; if you don't have it, and you require it's services, you're costing all of us because your uncovered ass is causing all of our premiums to go up. Case in point: Hospitals are required, by law, to treat everyone that comes into the ED. So, if you don't have health insurance, and you don't have a doctor, and you go to the ED, the hospital eats that. Therefore, they raise their prices, and the insurance company has to pay more, which in turn causes your rates to go up. It's pretty simple economics. Uninsured drivers cause the same problem, so the government mandated people have auto insurance. I don't see any courts overturning that, but of course, apparently, that isn't unconstitutional Socialism Commie Nazism for people who want to defile the baby Jesus.
Second, I believe in malpractice reform. Duh. Anyone with a brain would. However, do the folks in this thread believe we should scrap the mandates for preexisting conditions and lifetime limits for insurance? Just wondering.
Making insurance affordable means more people have insurance. Eliminates much of the ER expense, except the problem along the border.
Honestly, not knowing the numbers of people that are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions, I don't have an answer, but I'm sure there is a workable solution. Maybe each insurance company would take a portion based on revenues, or a national pool to cover a percentage. I bet if it was debated on the floor of the house, they could come up with something.
-
So how much do you think the added cost of further layers of government would add compared to a couple million uninsureds coming in?
-
Making insurance affordable means more people have insurance. Eliminates much of the ER expense, except the problem along the border.
Honestly, not knowing the numbers of people that are mensurable due to pre-existing conditions, I don't have an answer, but I'm sure there is a workable solution. Maybe each insurance company would take a portion based on revenues, or a national pool to cover a percentage. I bet if it was debated on the floor of the house, they could come up with something.
But you aren't mandating that they purchase a health care product for a service, by law, that hospitals have to provide for you if you need it.
The flaw in this entire debate, especially from the Republican side, is that the assumption is that if you make health insurance affordable, people would buy it. You're assuming people are that intelligent and cognizant of how it benefits them, and society, by purchasing health insurance.
Considering how most Americans handle their money, this is a very dangerous assumption. Especially in the younger demographic. A lot of them have never seen an ER bill, so they don't realize how quickly that visit goes from $0 to $3000. Therefore, you're looking at putting younger folks in serious financial trouble if they need to go to the ER, and if you're the kind of person who can't afford even the most basic insurance, you're not going to be able to handle a bill of that magnitude. And even if the hospitals put you on a payment plan, they will send you to collections if you can't pay.
To say that this isn't a big problem in non-border states is ridiculous. Go to a county hospital in a major metropolitan area and sit in an ER for a couple of hours (I have. Many times.). Then, tell me if a lot of the people who are receiving treatment they can't pay for are undocumented immigrants.
As far as pre-existing conditions are concerned, I don't want the House to debate anything regarding this. Republicans and Democrats couldn't find the right solution for anything if the correct answer was sitting there, naked, in the middle of the chamber, with a gigantic neon sign over it that said, "Hey, jackasses, I'm right here." You're better off with a simple mandate that can't be corrupted by loopholes. Besides, if everyone supposedly has the "right" to healthcare,which is mandated by law already, and we all agree that the more people who have insurance is better for the whole, it's best to make the insurance companies pay for it. We're all paying for it anyway when the diabetic goes into cardiac arrest and goes to the ER for a long acute care stay that they'll never be able to pay for (since they couldn't get coverage because, hey, who wants to insure someone in their thirties with Type 2 diabetes?), and at least if the person had insurance, the insurance company would be able to work with the hospital to negotiate a lower rate for the stay.
The simplest way to break this problem down is to decide whether or not health care is a "right". And, depending on how you interpret the Constitution, you'd say that the government mandated that we're all entitled to "Life", hence why a hospital can't turn anyone away if they need it. So, if we all agree that hospitals shouldn't turn anyone away, regardless of whether or not they can pay for it, and we're all better off, financially, if people pay for it, then somehow, logically, you need to address that gap. And if the government tries to mandate people buy health insurance to fill that gap so we all benefit as a whole, I don't see how that's unconstitutional since one person's decision NOT to buy health insurance impacts you, me, and every other taxpayer out there. Especially when the retort to this mandate is to simply lower the cost of insurance so people can buy it. Well, yeah, that would be great, but even if you do that, there is no guarantee that A) people would buy it because, let's face it, most people aren't blessed with the brains God gave a piss ant, B) if you don't make it illegal to refuse someone based on pre-existing conditions, and C) you eliminate the cap limits that some of the folks with chronic conditions will ultimately encounter due to the cost of treating their illness over the course of many years.
I'm all about ways to reduce the cost of insurance. I'll listen to all sorts of ideas. However, I absolutely believe in a mandate for citizens to purchase it. There is absolutely no harm in telling someone to do something when their inability to do so costs all of us.
-
So how much do you think the added cost of further layers of government would add compared to a couple million uninsureds coming in?
How much does it cost the government to check your insurance card when you go get your driver's license?
You go to the hospital without insurance, you get a fine. In fact, you could even make it as simple as adding a mandatory charge for all folks who self-pay without insurance. That data could be stored and sent the the state with all of the other stuff that hospitals already send. It really wouldn't be hard at all.
-
You type a lot (where's that "did not read" thing?), but you are missing a single point which nullifies all your claptrap.
IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL
-
Car insurance comparison is so freaking stupid. I can't believe people keep bringing it up. As Dax said, driving is a privilege, and you don't have to drive, so therefore you don't have to buy insurance. What do you think would happen if the state of NY required all of their citizens to buy car insurance? There would be a freaking riot in the streets.
As far as fixing the bill, I like the ideas posted, but would also like all of the crap that has nothing to do with healthcare taken out. It seems stupid to have to ask for that, but :dunno:
Oh, and since we are wishing, I would also like anyone that voted for it and didn't read it, to go to jail. :pray:
-
So how much do you think the added cost of further layers of government would add compared to a couple million uninsureds coming in?
How much does it cost the government to check your insurance card when you go get your driver's license?
You go to the hospital without insurance, you get a fine. In fact, you could even make it as simple as adding a mandatory charge for all folks who self-pay without insurance. That data could be stored and sent the the state with all of the other stuff that hospitals already send. It really wouldn't be hard at all.
So you are saying there are no administrative costs with it at all, both at the hospital and within the government?
A brief thought would be fine, since what Sanchez said about it being Unconstitutional pretty much sums it up. If you wish to ignore the Constitution, then you are ignoring the law and all this country was founded on and for which millions have died defending.
-
So how much do you think the added cost of further layers of government would add compared to a couple million uninsureds coming in?
How much does it cost the government to check your insurance card when you go get your driver's license?
You go to the hospital without insurance, you get a fine. In fact, you could even make it as simple as adding a mandatory charge for all folks who self-pay without insurance. That data could be stored and sent the the state with all of the other stuff that hospitals already send. It really wouldn't be hard at all.
So you are saying there are no administrative costs with it at all, both at the hospital and within the government?
A brief thought would be fine, since what Sanchez said about it being Unconstitutional pretty much sums it up. If you wish to ignore the Constitution, then you are ignoring the law and all this country was founded on and for which millions have died defending.
I'm pretty sure that as this goes higher in the court system, it will not be ruled as such.
Just a hunch.
And please, spare me the whole romanticism around the Constitution, people dying for it, etc. It's a document, it's subjective to interpretation, and the courts (if necessary, the Supreme Court) will ultimately rule on it's validity.
But, hey, we shouldn't let those activist judges determine policy in this country, right? Right?
As far as administrative costs, as the EMR becomes more a part of this system, it won't be as difficult to do this, and the government has already set that in motion. You would be shocked at how much a hospital already has to report to your individual states right now. This would simply be another line item on a claim that's tracked in a system.
-
You type a lot (where's that "did not read" thing?), but you are missing a single point which nullifies all your claptrap.
IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Yeah...it's all over now that District Court judge in Florida ruled it as such.
It's not going to get appealed. Yep, it's all over now.
-
Car insurance comparison is so freaking stupid. I can't believe people keep bringing it up. As Dax said, driving is a privilege, and you don't have to drive, so therefore you don't have to buy insurance. What do you think would happen if the state of NY required all of their citizens to buy car insurance? There would be a freaking riot in the streets.
As far as fixing the bill, I like the ideas posted, but would also like all of the crap that has nothing to do with healthcare taken out. It seems stupid to have to ask for that, but :dunno:
Oh, and since we are wishing, I would also like anyone that voted for it and didn't read it, to go to jail. :pray:
If you own a car in the state of New York, you must buy car insurance, at the very least, it must be liability insurance.
Again, my point is simple. If you can't own a car without some form of insurance in every state of the Union, then you shouldn't be able to use a hospital if you don't have insurance. Because, ultimately, the point of both is to protect someone else's property, and if you go to the hospital without insurance, and it causes my rates to go up as a result, you're taking away my money due to your irresponsibility (if you can afford it). If you can't afford it, well, I guess we should just continue to let those people use the ER as their primary care physician. That's obviously a sustainable policy in the long-term.
-
Car insurance comparison is so freaking stupid. I can't believe people keep bringing it up. As Dax said, driving is a privilege, and you don't have to drive, so therefore you don't have to buy insurance. What do you think would happen if the state of NY required all of their citizens to buy car insurance? There would be a freaking riot in the streets.
As far as fixing the bill, I like the ideas posted, but would also like all of the crap that has nothing to do with healthcare taken out. It seems stupid to have to ask for that, but :dunno:
Oh, and since we are wishing, I would also like anyone that voted for it and didn't read it, to go to jail. :pray:
If you own a car in the state of New York, you must buy car insurance, at the very least, it must be liability insurance.
Again, my point is simple. If you can't own a car without some form of insurance in every state of the Union, then you shouldn't be able to use a hospital if you don't have insurance. Because, ultimately, the point of both is to protect someone else's property, and if you go to the hospital without insurance, and it causes my rates to go up as a result, you're taking away my money due to your irresponsibility (if you can afford it). If you can't afford it, well, I guess we should just continue to let those people use the ER as their primary care physician. That's obviously a sustainable policy in the long-term.
But there are many that choose not to get insurance. In the interest of fairness, it's not fair to force them to buy insurance.
-
Pretty sure the people that live in Manhattan NY without cars would be pretty pissed if they were forced to purchase auto insurance. Also, that is a state law.
-
Car insurance comparison is so freaking stupid. I can't believe people keep bringing it up. As Dax said, driving is a privilege, and you don't have to drive, so therefore you don't have to buy insurance. What do you think would happen if the state of NY required all of their citizens to buy car insurance? There would be a freaking riot in the streets.
As far as fixing the bill, I like the ideas posted, but would also like all of the crap that has nothing to do with healthcare taken out. It seems stupid to have to ask for that, but :dunno:
Oh, and since we are wishing, I would also like anyone that voted for it and didn't read it, to go to jail. :pray:
If you own a car in the state of New York, you must buy car insurance, at the very least, it must be liability insurance.
Again, my point is simple. If you can't own a car without some form of insurance in every state of the Union, then you shouldn't be able to use a hospital if you don't have insurance. Because, ultimately, the point of both is to protect someone else's property, and if you go to the hospital without insurance, and it causes my rates to go up as a result, you're taking away my money due to your irresponsibility (if you can afford it). If you can't afford it, well, I guess we should just continue to let those people use the ER as their primary care physician. That's obviously a sustainable policy in the long-term.
But there are many that choose not to get insurance. In the interest of fairness, it's not fair to force them to buy insurance.
Then they shouldn't have the privilege of going to a hospital since their irresponsibility is costing us all money.
This isn't rocket science. If it's not "fair" for them to not buy insurance (when they can afford it), it's not "fair" to me to see my rates rise as a result.
-
Pretty sure the people that live in Manhattan NY without cars would be pretty pissed if they were forced to purchase auto insurance. Also, that is a state law.
State laws have to be constitutional, just like Federal laws. You are right, though. I don't agree with making people who can afford insurance purchase it. Minimal health care should be provided to people who cannot afford it (status quo), and those who can afford it but choose not to purchase it should just be refused service and left to die.
-
Pretty sure the people that live in Manhattan NY without cars would be pretty pissed if they were forced to purchase auto insurance. Also, that is a state law.
Yes, they would. Of course, if you don't own a car, why buy auto insurance? You can guarantee that you won't be driving a car (legally), so this is a pretty weak analogy.
Of course, you can't guarantee you won't come down with cancer this year or get into a debilitating accident. That's the whole point of insurance.
For the life of me, I don't understand why irresponsible behavior is being promoted and defended.
-
Pretty sure the people that live in Manhattan NY without cars would be pretty pissed if they were forced to purchase auto insurance. Also, that is a state law.
State laws have to be constitutional, just like Federal laws. You are right, though. I don't agree with making people who can afford insurance purchase it. Minimal health care should be provided to people who cannot afford it (status quo), and those who can afford it but choose not to purchase it should just be refused service and left to die.
NK gets it.
-
So how much do you think the added cost of further layers of government would add compared to a couple million uninsureds coming in?
How much does it cost the government to check your insurance card when you go get your driver's license?
You go to the hospital without insurance, you get a fine. In fact, you could even make it as simple as adding a mandatory charge for all folks who self-pay without insurance. That data could be stored and sent the the state with all of the other stuff that hospitals already send. It really wouldn't be hard at all.
So you are saying there are no administrative costs with it at all, both at the hospital and within the government?
A brief thought would be fine, since what Sanchez said about it being Unconstitutional pretty much sums it up. If you wish to ignore the Constitution, then you are ignoring the law and all this country was founded on and for which millions have died defending.
I'm pretty sure that as this goes higher in the court system, it will not be ruled as such.
Just a hunch.
And please, spare me the whole romanticism around the Constitution, people dying for it, etc. It's a document, it's subjective to interpretation, and the courts (if necessary, the Supreme Court) will ultimately rule on it's validity.
But, hey, we shouldn't let those activist judges determine policy in this country, right? Right?
As far as administrative costs, as the EMR becomes more a part of this system, it won't be as difficult to do this, and the government has already set that in motion. You would be shocked at how much a hospital already has to report to your individual states right now. This would simply be another line item on a claim that's tracked in a system.
Just a hunch, but the Supreme Court will likely side with this decision 5-4.
And it's hardly an activist judge when he repeatedly cites the Federalist papers, which gives tremendous insight into the intended meaning of various parts of the Constitution. While the Constitution is open for interpretation, but not near as many as statists may think. Understanding original intent is vital to understanding the document itself. For that purpose, I have included a link to the Federalist Papers for you to study: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
And it is not just a piece of paper. It is that which this entire country was built. It focused on freedom, which includes the freedom of choice. It in no way says everyone is the same, has to receive exactly the same thing, and must share everything equally.
-
Car insurance comparison is so freaking stupid. I can't believe people keep bringing it up. As Dax said, driving is a privilege, and you don't have to drive, so therefore you don't have to buy insurance. What do you think would happen if the state of NY required all of their citizens to buy car insurance? There would be a freaking riot in the streets.
As far as fixing the bill, I like the ideas posted, but would also like all of the crap that has nothing to do with healthcare taken out. It seems stupid to have to ask for that, but :dunno:
Oh, and since we are wishing, I would also like anyone that voted for it and didn't read it, to go to jail. :pray:
If you own a car in the state of New York, you must buy car insurance, at the very least, it must be liability insurance.
Again, my point is simple. If you can't own a car without some form of insurance in every state of the Union, then you shouldn't be able to use a hospital if you don't have insurance. Because, ultimately, the point of both is to protect someone else's property, and if you go to the hospital without insurance, and it causes my rates to go up as a result, you're taking away my money due to your irresponsibility (if you can afford it). If you can't afford it, well, I guess we should just continue to let those people use the ER as their primary care physician. That's obviously a sustainable policy in the long-term.
But there are many that choose not to get insurance. In the interest of fairness, it's not fair to force them to buy insurance.
We should set up a panel to investigate those who do not have insurance but want medical service. The panel would look at how much the individual makes, how many kids he/she has, and what type of purchases he/she makes. Then, the panel would decide whether the person lives or dies. Death panels, ftw :thumbsup:.
-
Pretty sure the people that live in Manhattan NY without cars would be pretty pissed if they were forced to purchase auto insurance. Also, that is a state law.
Yes, they would. Of course, if you don't own a car, why buy auto insurance? You can guarantee that you won't be driving a car (legally), so this is a pretty weak analogy.
Of course, you can't guarantee you won't come down with cancer this year or get into a debilitating accident. That's the whole point of insurance.
For the life of me, I don't understand why irresponsible behavior is being promoted and defended.
Whose view of irresponsible are you using? Freedom to make your own choices is awesome and it's not something that should be taken lightly.
-
Pretty sure the people that live in Manhattan NY without cars would be pretty pissed if they were forced to purchase auto insurance. Also, that is a state law.
Yes, they would. Of course, if you don't own a car, why buy auto insurance? You can guarantee that you won't be driving a car (legally), so this is a pretty weak analogy.
Of course, you can't guarantee you won't come down with cancer this year or get into a debilitating accident. That's the whole point of insurance.
For the life of me, I don't understand why irresponsible behavior is being promoted and defended.
Whose view of irresponsible are you using? Freedom to make your own choices is awesome and it's not something that should be taken lightly.
Yeah, being a bum who chooses to leach off of others sure is awesome.
-
Pretty sure the people that live in Manhattan NY without cars would be pretty pissed if they were forced to purchase auto insurance. Also, that is a state law.
Yes, they would. Of course, if you don't own a car, why buy auto insurance? You can guarantee that you won't be driving a car (legally), so this is a pretty weak analogy.
Of course, you can't guarantee you won't come down with cancer this year or get into a debilitating accident. That's the whole point of insurance.
For the life of me, I don't understand why irresponsible behavior is being promoted and defended.
Whose view of irresponsible are you using? Freedom to make your own choices is awesome and it's not something that should be taken lightly.
Yeah, being a bum who chooses to leach off of others sure is awesome.
It's what America was founded on.
Well, that and only letting a certain portion of the citizenry actually have freedom to vote, freedom to choose, freedom to not be owned by another person, etc.
-
Pretty sure the people that live in Manhattan NY without cars would be pretty pissed if they were forced to purchase auto insurance. Also, that is a state law.
Yes, they would. Of course, if you don't own a car, why buy auto insurance? You can guarantee that you won't be driving a car (legally), so this is a pretty weak analogy.
Of course, you can't guarantee you won't come down with cancer this year or get into a debilitating accident. That's the whole point of insurance.
For the life of me, I don't understand why irresponsible behavior is being promoted and defended.
Whose view of irresponsible are you using? Freedom to make your own choices is awesome and it's not something that should be taken lightly.
Yeah, being a bum who chooses to leach off of others sure is awesome.
Hence the reason why the American taxpayer shouldn't be forced to take care of people like you as a general rule.
-
Pretty sure the people that live in Manhattan NY without cars would be pretty pissed if they were forced to purchase auto insurance. Also, that is a state law.
Yes, they would. Of course, if you don't own a car, why buy auto insurance? You can guarantee that you won't be driving a car (legally), so this is a pretty weak analogy.
Of course, you can't guarantee you won't come down with cancer this year or get into a debilitating accident. That's the whole point of insurance.
For the life of me, I don't understand why irresponsible behavior is being promoted and defended.
Whose view of irresponsible are you using? Freedom to make your own choices is awesome and it's not something that should be taken lightly.
Yeah, being a bum who chooses to leach off of others sure is awesome.
Hence the reason why the American taxpayer shouldn't be forced to take care of people like you as a general rule.
Oh, I make a nice enough living. No need to worry about me. Maybe if the American taxpayer would pay higher wages, there wouldn't be a need to subsidize their employees with money from the government.
-
So how much do you think the added cost of further layers of government would add compared to a couple million uninsureds coming in?
How much does it cost the government to check your insurance card when you go get your driver's license?
You go to the hospital without insurance, you get a fine. In fact, you could even make it as simple as adding a mandatory charge for all folks who self-pay without insurance. That data could be stored and sent the the state with all of the other stuff that hospitals already send. It really wouldn't be hard at all.
So you are saying there are no administrative costs with it at all, both at the hospital and within the government?
A brief thought would be fine, since what Sanchez said about it being Unconstitutional pretty much sums it up. If you wish to ignore the Constitution, then you are ignoring the law and all this country was founded on and for which millions have died defending.
I'm pretty sure that as this goes higher in the court system, it will not be ruled as such.
Just a hunch.
And please, spare me the whole romanticism around the Constitution, people dying for it, etc. It's a document, it's subjective to interpretation, and the courts (if necessary, the Supreme Court) will ultimately rule on it's validity.
But, hey, we shouldn't let those activist judges determine policy in this country, right? Right?
As far as administrative costs, as the EMR becomes more a part of this system, it won't be as difficult to do this, and the government has already set that in motion. You would be shocked at how much a hospital already has to report to your individual states right now. This would simply be another line item on a claim that's tracked in a system.
Just a hunch, but the Supreme Court will likely side with this decision 5-4.
And it's hardly an activist judge when he repeatedly cites the Federalist papers, which gives tremendous insight into the intended meaning of various parts of the Constitution. While the Constitution is open for interpretation, but not near as many as statists may think. Understanding original intent is vital to understanding the document itself. For that purpose, I have included a link to the Federalist Papers for you to study: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
And it is not just a piece of paper. It is that which this entire country was built. It focused on freedom, which includes the freedom of choice. It in no way says everyone is the same, has to receive exactly the same thing, and must share everything equally.
I'm aware of what the Federalist papers are. And I'm aware of what they say.
People are entitled to "Life". I get that. So, I agree that no one should be turned away. However, the gap between who gets treated and who gets covered needs to be addressed. It HAS to. To hide behind the Constitution and say, "Well, we are all entitled to life and medical treatment, but we are not required to have a means to pay for it since freedom not to do so is our right, and furthermore, the government shouldn't be involved in the payment of said medical care because we can't afford it and need to cut deficits," is completely illogical.
How are you going to account for the gap?
Folks can talk about freedom and free market solutions to insurance, but they aren't addressing the one major factor in here that seems to make all of this necessary: People who can afford it need to buy it because not doing so offers financial and (indirectly) social consequences.
This should not be a big deal. It simply shouldn't.
-
Pretty sure the people that live in Manhattan NY without cars would be pretty pissed if they were forced to purchase auto insurance. Also, that is a state law.
Yes, they would. Of course, if you don't own a car, why buy auto insurance? You can guarantee that you won't be driving a car (legally), so this is a pretty weak analogy.
Of course, you can't guarantee you won't come down with cancer this year or get into a debilitating accident. That's the whole point of insurance.
For the life of me, I don't understand why irresponsible behavior is being promoted and defended.
Whose view of irresponsible are you using? Freedom to make your own choices is awesome and it's not something that should be taken lightly.
Yeah, being a bum who chooses to leach off of others sure is awesome.
Hence the reason why the American taxpayer shouldn't be forced to take care of people like you as a general rule.
Oh, I make a nice enough living. No need to worry about me. Maybe if the American taxpayer would pay higher wages, there wouldn't be a need to subsidize their employees with money from the government.
So do you cheerfully give 10% of your income to charity? It's wonderfully freeing in heart, mind, and spirit and it helps many people in need. It's also good to teach them how to fish, so that they aren't limited to eating the fish you gave them.
-
I'm aware of what the Federalist papers are. And I'm aware of what they say.
People are entitled to "Life". I get that. So, I agree that no one should be turned away. However, the gap between who gets treated and who gets covered needs to be addressed. It HAS to. To hide behind the Constitution and say, "Well, we are all entitled to life and medical treatment, but we are not required to have a means to pay for it since freedom not to do so is our right, and furthermore, the government shouldn't be involved in the payment of said medical care because we can't afford it and need to cut deficits," is completely illogical.
How are you going to account for the gap?
Folks can talk about freedom and free market solutions to insurance, but they aren't addressing the one major factor in here that seems to make all of this necessary: People who can afford it need to buy it because not doing so offers financial and (indirectly) social consequences.
This should not be a big deal. It simply shouldn't.
You are entitled to life by your government. You are not entitled to receive anything from any individual or business. If the government was really interested in following the constitution, we would have socialized health care just like the rest of the world.
-
So how much do you think the added cost of further layers of government would add compared to a couple million uninsureds coming in?
How much does it cost the government to check your insurance card when you go get your driver's license?
You go to the hospital without insurance, you get a fine. In fact, you could even make it as simple as adding a mandatory charge for all folks who self-pay without insurance. That data could be stored and sent the the state with all of the other stuff that hospitals already send. It really wouldn't be hard at all.
So you are saying there are no administrative costs with it at all, both at the hospital and within the government?
A brief thought would be fine, since what Sanchez said about it being Unconstitutional pretty much sums it up. If you wish to ignore the Constitution, then you are ignoring the law and all this country was founded on and for which millions have died defending.
I'm pretty sure that as this goes higher in the court system, it will not be ruled as such.
Just a hunch.
And please, spare me the whole romanticism around the Constitution, people dying for it, etc. It's a document, it's subjective to interpretation, and the courts (if necessary, the Supreme Court) will ultimately rule on it's validity.
But, hey, we shouldn't let those activist judges determine policy in this country, right? Right?
As far as administrative costs, as the EMR becomes more a part of this system, it won't be as difficult to do this, and the government has already set that in motion. You would be shocked at how much a hospital already has to report to your individual states right now. This would simply be another line item on a claim that's tracked in a system.
Just a hunch, but the Supreme Court will likely side with this decision 5-4.
And it's hardly an activist judge when he repeatedly cites the Federalist papers, which gives tremendous insight into the intended meaning of various parts of the Constitution. While the Constitution is open for interpretation, but not near as many as statists may think. Understanding original intent is vital to understanding the document itself. For that purpose, I have included a link to the Federalist Papers for you to study: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
And it is not just a piece of paper. It is that which this entire country was built. It focused on freedom, which includes the freedom of choice. It in no way says everyone is the same, has to receive exactly the same thing, and must share everything equally.
I'm aware of what the Federalist papers are. And I'm aware of what they say.
People are entitled to "Life". I get that. So, I agree that no one should be turned away. However, the gap between who gets treated and who gets covered needs to be addressed. It HAS to. To hide behind the Constitution and say, "Well, we are all entitled to life and medical treatment, but we are not required to have a means to pay for it since freedom not to do so is our right, and furthermore, the government shouldn't be involved in the payment of said medical care because we can't afford it and need to cut deficits," is completely illogical.
How are you going to account for the gap?
Folks can talk about freedom and free market solutions to insurance, but they aren't addressing the one major factor in here that seems to make all of this necessary: People who can afford it need to buy it because not doing so offers financial and (indirectly) social consequences.
This should not be a big deal. It simply shouldn't.
Most European countries have already tried to give everybody "free" health care. It is not working and they have begun scaling back the level of care.
The problem is that once the genie is out of the bottle, there is no putting him back. That is why this knee-jerk 2800 page bill is going to be a problem for decades, if the USA, as we know it, lasts that long. We need to think this thing through and look at what has already been tried and failed, not put a bunch of liberal lawyers in a back room just pounding away at circular logic. Same with Cap and Trade, which is now in effect in Spain, Greece, Portugal, etc.
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
-
I don't care about the legality of the bill, I just have concerns about what is trying to be fixed. Health insurance is just a symptom of rising health care costs. We need to focus on ways to reduce the cost of administering of health care and focus less on reforming how we insure it. I don't know how to correct it but our food supply seems to be a great place to start in regards to keeping people out of health care facilities for avoidable reasons such as non genetic diabetes, heart disease from obesity, etc. Maybe we should appoint 'clams to a position in the government to smite overconsumption of salt.
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
FBI
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
FBI
Did a bang up job with 9/11 (shut it pike/dax)
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
FBI
Did a bang up job with 9/11 (shut it pike/dax)
Yeah, well their job is pretty hard. For the most part, the FBI is an efficient and effective government operation.
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
Rural Electrification went pretty well.
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
Rural Electrification went pretty well.
The postal service delivered my mail today in a blizzard. :dunno:
-
There's now huge inefficency in the realm of DHS, now employing nearly 1 million people, and encompassing scads of government agencies and the military.
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
Rural Electrification went pretty well.
The postal service delivered my mail today in a blizzard. :dunno:
How many billion did the postal service lose last year?
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
Rural Electrification went pretty well.
The postal service delivered my mail today in a blizzard. :dunno:
How many billion did the postal service lose last year?
It's hard to not operate at a loss when it's illegal to operate at a profit.
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
Rural Electrification went pretty well.
The postal service delivered my mail today in a blizzard. :dunno:
How many billion did the postal service lose last year?
It's hard to not operate at a loss when it's illegal to operate at a profit.
LOL. The post office lost $8,500,000,000 last year and has unfunded pension and health benefit liabilities of $90,000,000,000. Just imagine what our government can do with your health care!
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
Rural Electrification went pretty well.
The postal service delivered my mail today in a blizzard. :dunno:
Lol, the post office??? Pretty much bankrupt. Also, not even kidding, they have lost (temporarily) the last 2 packages I was supposed to get. :D
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
Rural Electrification went pretty well.
The beauty of this program is that there was an end in sight at all times, and was eventually taken over by private companies.
-
I think I'm going to submit a few reimbursements for OTC meds to my flex spending plan tomorrow, since the bill is no longer in effect.
-
If the government was really interested in following the constitution, we would have socialized health care just like the rest of the world.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi80.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj161%2FGoldbrick%2F1278098552910.png%3Ft%3D1296605537&hash=d02086eb279a8def6917fbdd39dccc80f1d292a4)
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
Rural Electrification went pretty well.
The postal service delivered my mail today in a blizzard. :dunno:
How many billion did the postal service lose last year?
It's hard to not operate at a loss when it's illegal to operate at a profit.
LOL. The post office lost $8,500,000,000 last year and has unfunded pension and health benefit liabilities of $90,000,000,000. Just imagine what our government can do with your health care!
What does the internet destroying the USPS have to do with health care?
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
Rural Electrification went pretty well.
The postal service delivered my mail today in a blizzard. :dunno:
How many billion did the postal service lose last year?
It's hard to not operate at a loss when it's illegal to operate at a profit.
LOL. The post office lost $8,500,000,000 last year and has unfunded pension and health benefit liabilities of $90,000,000,000. Just imagine what our government can do with your health care!
What does the internet destroying the USPS have to do with health care?
The internet could have been the salvation of the post office had they been forward thinking and nimble enough to team up with all of the largest online retailers early in the game with an API, but they allowed UPS and FedEx to get the jump on them. They have made some steps in the right direction, but pensions and benefits are going to kill them. Priority mail is great, by the way.
This is the kind of leadership I do not want running my health care.
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
Rural Electrification went pretty well.
The postal service delivered my mail today in a blizzard. :dunno:
How many billion did the postal service lose last year?
It's hard to not operate at a loss when it's illegal to operate at a profit.
LOL. The post office lost $8,500,000,000 last year and has unfunded pension and health benefit liabilities of $90,000,000,000. Just imagine what our government can do with your health care!
What does the internet destroying the USPS have to do with health care?
The internet could have been the salvation of the post office had they been forward thinking and nimble enough to team up with all of the largest online retailers early in the game with an API, but they allowed UPS and FedEx to get the jump on them. They have made some steps in the right direction, but pensions and benefits are going to kill them. Priority mail is great, by the way.
This is the kind of leadership I do not want running my health care.
Don't worry. Government health care would most assuredly have different leadership than the USPS.
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
Rural Electrification went pretty well.
The postal service delivered my mail today in a blizzard. :dunno:
How many billion did the postal service lose last year?
It's hard to not operate at a loss when it's illegal to operate at a profit.
LOL. The post office lost $8,500,000,000 last year and has unfunded pension and health benefit liabilities of $90,000,000,000. Just imagine what our government can do with your health care!
What does the internet destroying the USPS have to do with health care?
The internet could have been the salvation of the post office had they been forward thinking and nimble enough to team up with all of the largest online retailers early in the game with an API, but they allowed UPS and FedEx to get the jump on them. They have made some steps in the right direction, but pensions and benefits are going to kill them. Priority mail is great, by the way.
This is the kind of leadership I do not want running my health care.
Don't worry. Government health care would most assuredly have different leadership than the USPS.
Kathleen Sebelius? :facepalm:
-
What I really just can't understand is how anyone liberal, conserv, Indy, can think it is a good idea for the government run a program of this magnitude. I can see negatives for it being private too, but no way do I have any faith whatsoever that a bunch of career politicians (rich career politicians) can run a healthcare system.
Politicians are not in charge of running any government programs. The health care system would be run similarly to the fire and police systems (those other services you get when you dial 911). Doctors would earn less money, but they'd still make a pretty good living.
I would challenge anyone to come up with a program run by our government that is both efficient and effective.
Rural Electrification went pretty well.
The postal service delivered my mail today in a blizzard. :dunno:
How many billion did the postal service lose last year?
It's hard to not operate at a loss when it's illegal to operate at a profit.
LOL. The post office lost $8,500,000,000 last year and has unfunded pension and health benefit liabilities of $90,000,000,000. Just imagine what our government can do with your health care!
What does the internet destroying the USPS have to do with health care?
The internet could have been the salvation of the post office had they been forward thinking and nimble enough to team up with all of the largest online retailers early in the game with an API, but they allowed UPS and FedEx to get the jump on them. They have made some steps in the right direction, but pensions and benefits are going to kill them. Priority mail is great, by the way.
This is the kind of leadership I do not want running my health care.
It worked for 200 years, and it ultimately failed because of a technological revolution that changed the way the entire world communicates.
If we could get a health care system in place that would work for 200 years, I think we'd do okay.
-
Also, for the record, I said earlier in the thread that I'm not for a single payer system. I just want people to buy rough ridin' insurance if they can afford it and penalize them if they choose not to.
As I said, how we lower insurance costs...I'm open to ideas. But make people buy insurance.
Sorry. Now we can get back to pointless bitching about how the Government can't run anything and whatever standard rant people on political message boards like to mindlessly discuss.
-
Also, for the record, I said earlier in the thread that I'm not for a single payer system. I just want people to buy rough ridin' insurance if they can afford it and penalize them if they choose not to.
As I said, how we lower insurance costs...I'm open to ideas. But make people buy insurance.
Sorry. Now we can get back to pointless bitching about how the Government can't run anything and whatever standard rant people on political message boards like to mindlessly discuss.
For the record, the combination of forcing people to buy insurance and forcing insurance companies to insure everybody will lead to a single payer system, which is no longer working around the world.
-
Also, for the record, I said earlier in the thread that I'm not for a single payer system. I just want people to buy effing insurance if they can afford it and penalize them if they choose not to.
As I said, how we lower insurance costs...I'm open to ideas. But make people buy insurance.
Sorry. Now we can get back to pointless bitching about how the Government can't run anything and whatever standard rant people on political message boards like to mindlessly discuss.
For the record, the combination of forcing people to buy insurance and forcing insurance companies to insure everybody will lead to a single payer system, which is no longer working around the world.
That is an assumption, and it may happen, but it's still an assumption.
Personally, I like a combined plan where you mandate everyone have insurance, you open up the market to increase competition and drive down costs, and we see what happens from there.
But...that would require compromise.
-
For the record, the combination of forcing people to buy insurance and forcing insurance companies to insure everybody will lead to a single payer system, which is no longer working around the world.
Is this really true?
-
Also, for the record, I said earlier in the thread that I'm not for a single payer system. I just want people to buy effing insurance if they can afford it and penalize them if they choose not to.
As I said, how we lower insurance costs...I'm open to ideas. But make people buy insurance.
Sorry. Now we can get back to pointless bitching about how the Government can't run anything and whatever standard rant people on political message boards like to mindlessly discuss.
For the record, the combination of forcing people to buy insurance and forcing insurance companies to insure everybody will lead to a single payer system, which is no longer working around the world.
That is an assumption, and it may happen, but it's still an assumption.
Personally, I like a combined plan where you mandate everyone have insurance, you open up the market to increase competition and drive down costs, and we see what happens from there.
But...that would require compromise.
That's still unconstitutional. Forcing citizens to enter into a contract.
-
Also, for the record, I said earlier in the thread that I'm not for a single payer system. I just want people to buy rough ridin' insurance if they can afford it and penalize them if they choose not to.
As I said, how we lower insurance costs...I'm open to ideas. But make people buy insurance.
Sorry. Now we can get back to pointless bitching about how the Government can't run anything and whatever standard rant people on political message boards like to mindlessly discuss.
NO. If we are going to force people into things how about this. Instead of forcing people to buy insurance, why don't we just force people to eat healthy, stop smoking, and stop doing drugs??? This would lower costs the fastest. Better yet, lets close down all McDonald's and Wendy's.
-
Also, for the record, I said earlier in the thread that I'm not for a single payer system. I just want people to buy effing insurance if they can afford it and penalize them if they choose not to.
As I said, how we lower insurance costs...I'm open to ideas. But make people buy insurance.
Sorry. Now we can get back to pointless bitching about how the Government can't run anything and whatever standard rant people on political message boards like to mindlessly discuss.
For the record, the combination of forcing people to buy insurance and forcing insurance companies to insure everybody will lead to a single payer system, which is no longer working around the world.
That is an assumption, and it may happen, but it's still an assumption.
Personally, I like a combined plan where you mandate everyone have insurance, you open up the market to increase competition and drive down costs, and we see what happens from there.
But...that would require compromise.
That's still unconstitutional. Forcing citizens to enter into a contract.
What does the government do to the hospitals that still have to treat those people?
-
Also, for the record, I said earlier in the thread that I'm not for a single payer system. I just want people to buy effing insurance if they can afford it and penalize them if they choose not to.
As I said, how we lower insurance costs...I'm open to ideas. But make people buy insurance.
Sorry. Now we can get back to pointless bitching about how the Government can't run anything and whatever standard rant people on political message boards like to mindlessly discuss.
For the record, the combination of forcing people to buy insurance and forcing insurance companies to insure everybody will lead to a single payer system, which is no longer working around the world.
That is an assumption, and it may happen, but it's still an assumption.
Personally, I like a combined plan where you mandate everyone have insurance, you open up the market to increase competition and drive down costs, and we see what happens from there.
But...that would require compromise.
That's still unconstitutional. Forcing citizens to enter into a contract.
What does the government do to the hospitals that still have to treat those people?
Something within the realm of the Constitution. You know, a pesky little thing.
You seem to be an advocate of do whatever because it sounds good. If you do that, you have no law and anyone, including the government, can do anything to you or anyone else.
-
Also, for the record, I said earlier in the thread that I'm not for a single payer system. I just want people to buy effing insurance if they can afford it and penalize them if they choose not to.
As I said, how we lower insurance costs...I'm open to ideas. But make people buy insurance.
Sorry. Now we can get back to pointless bitching about how the Government can't run anything and whatever standard rant people on political message boards like to mindlessly discuss.
For the record, the combination of forcing people to buy insurance and forcing insurance companies to insure everybody will lead to a single payer system, which is no longer working around the world.
That is an assumption, and it may happen, but it's still an assumption.
Personally, I like a combined plan where you mandate everyone have insurance, you open up the market to increase competition and drive down costs, and we see what happens from there.
But...that would require compromise.
That's still unconstitutional. Forcing citizens to enter into a contract.
What does the government do to the hospitals that still have to treat those people?
Something within the realm of the Constitution. You know, a pesky little thing.
You seem to be an advocate of do whatever because it sounds good. If you do that, you have no law and anyone, including the government, can do anything to you or anyone else.
So it is constitutional to force those people into a contract? Seems pretty discriminatory to me.
-
Unconsitutional! The Government needs to stop all actions on this bill immediately or they are breaking the law. Without a stay of appeal this law can not be innacted any further at this time.
-
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/31/florida-court-rules-mandated-insurance-unconstitutional-so-what/ (http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/31/florida-court-rules-mandated-insurance-unconstitutional-so-what/)
pretty much sums up how I feel about it :users:
-
Hey, look, the regime isn't ignoring courts over just healthcare
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html
Maybe that's because they, like chucklehead shoe-mer, don't believe the court is an official branch of government (unless it suits their interests).
-
Hey, look, the regime isn't ignoring courts over just healthcare
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html
Maybe that's because they, like chucklehead shoe-mer, don't believe the court is an official branch of government (unless it suits their interests).
Why don't they just call the courts racist and get it over with?
-
Hey, look, the regime isn't ignoring courts over just healthcare
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html
Maybe that's because they, like chucklehead shoe-mer, don't believe the court is an official branch of government (unless it suits their interests).
Why don't they just call the courts racist and get it over with?
I have been thinking about this. Every generation gets a title. I was part of the Me Generation, which the symbol was a Mercedes icon, kind of reverse Hippie peace sign. We have had the Baby Boomers, Hippies, Generation-X, etc.
I am thinking this generation should be the Generation Race Card. Anytime anyone disagrees with you they are a racist, etc. I think it would be a fitting generation title.
So here we go.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.darkdawnstudios.com%2Fpictures%2FGenerationRaceCard.jpg&hash=1dc852ae11d00eaa26143d2fb963d611b59efcc2)
-
Sorry I put a picture of Bush on the card, it was totally consequential, but kind of of does look like him though.
-
Hey, look, the regime isn't ignoring courts over just healthcare
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html
Maybe that's because they, like chucklehead shoe-mer, don't believe the court is an official branch of government (unless it suits their interests).
Why don't they just call the courts racist and get it over with?
I have been thinking about this. Every generation gets a title. I was part of the Me Generation, which the symbol was a Mercedes icon, kind of reverse Hippie peace sign. We have had the Baby Boomers, Hippies, Generation-X, etc.
I am thinking this generation should be the Generation Race Card. Anytime anyone disagrees with you they are a racist, etc. I think it would be a fitting generation title.
So here we go.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.darkdawnstudios.com%2Fpictures%2FGenerationRaceCard.jpg&hash=1dc852ae11d00eaa26143d2fb963d611b59efcc2)
Except the libs have been playing the false race card a lot longer than this generation.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.creators.com%2Feditorial_cartoons%2F13%2F18538_thumb.gif&hash=a4cfb50d1ef9af32ece60edd8d2bbbabe3d4c5f0)
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/03/federal-judges-order-epa-to-implement-obama-era-methane-regulation.html
I am getting concerned about activist judges appointed by the law trying to make decisions that are reserved for the executive branch. First, the travel ban, and now a Federal panel of judges are saying that Trump has to implement EPA regulations on methane put into place by executive action by Obama, Inc. Why can't executive orders be used to rescind them? Apparently because squirrel lover judges want them.