Unconstitutional

[Panjandrum]

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.

[Panjandrum]

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.

[Jeffy]

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.

[Rage Against the McKee]

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 

Oh, and since we are wishing, I would also like anyone that voted for it and didn't read it, to go to jail.   

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 .

[Jeffy]

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.

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[Panjandrum]

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.

[Jeffy]

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.

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[Panjandrum]

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.

[Jeffy]

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.

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

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.

[Stupid Fitz]

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.

[wetwillie]

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.

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

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.

[Rage Against the McKee]

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

[Dirty Sanchez]

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)

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[Kat Kid]

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.

[Panjandrum]

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.   

[sonofdaxjones]

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.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

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.   

How many billion did the postal service lose last year?

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.   

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.