Discussion: Healthcare

[BlackLantern]

I do, and it really wasn't nearly as black and white and extreme as you put it. Both sports lost out barely, with softball needing only one vote to make it to the second vote. A large part of that was belief that baseball professionals would not put their season on hold for the Olympics, which is sort of almost absolutely necessary. Neither sport is as big, or as well watched as Basketball or Soccer.

You could look at it from the time side. The Olympics last for only two weeks, and is packed with sports. Sometimes sports don't make it in for several reasons. And it generally isn't because, "Those pigs in America like it." And for the record, baseball and softball are recognized sports by the Olympics, they were simply not put into the games formal.

Or, you can look at it from the financial side. The Olympics is a brand name that sells things. They spend no money on the actual hosting, but rake in all the profits.

The fact of the matter is, and I've said it before, I'm sure many countries aren't the biggest fans of America, but I doubt they really go out of their way collectively and in secret to spite America in games they also want to play.

it is exactly like that....and when the opportunity presents itself, yes they do

 

[dnno1]

pardon me if I don't want to participate in a healthcare program that is going to provide a substandard level of care and insufficiently trained medical care

my doctors office is considering going to direct billing because they know once this new plan kicks in, they aren't going to get paid

a few offices here in CT have already done so

What health care program is that one? You can't be talking about Medicare since they are just a payer (they really don't offer heath care).

 

[BlackLantern]

any government run or government subsidized healthcare will eventually have an abysmal level of care due to abuse and overload

 

[dnno1]

any government run or government subsidized healthcare will eventually have an abysmal level of care due to abuse and overload

Got any proof of that?

 

[BlackLantern]

actually there is a hospital right in the town where I live that is a prime example....Griffin Hospital in Derby, CT.....horrid reputation, horrid standard of care, and then was taken private back in the 90's......it is now one of the premiere cancer treatment hospitals in the northeast

 

[hippie_hunter]

I do, and it really wasn't nearly as black and white and extreme as you put it. Both sports lost out barely, with softball needing only one vote to make it to the second vote. A large part of that was belief that baseball professionals would not put their season on hold for the Olympics, which is sort of almost absolutely necessary. Neither sport is as big, or as well watched as Basketball or Soccer.

You could look at it from the time side. The Olympics last for only two weeks, and is packed with sports. Sometimes sports don't make it in for several reasons. And it generally isn't because, "Those pigs in America like it." And for the record, baseball and softball are recognized sports by the Olympics, they were simply not put into the games formal.

Or, you can look at it from the financial side. The Olympics is a brand name that sells things. They spend no money on the actual hosting, but rake in all the profits.

The fact of the matter is, and I've said it before, I'm sure many countries aren't the biggest fans of America, but I doubt they really go out of their way collectively and in secret to spite America in games they also want to play.

Actually the IOC tends to stick it to the United States as much as possible due to the IOC believes that it should get more money from the USOC and doesn't approve of things the USOC does such as partnering with Comcast/NBC Universal to create an Olympics Channel on cable.

 

[Kelly]

Yeah, the IOC doesn't like anything that will take money out of their pockets...

 

[BlackLantern]

but they loooooove USA Basketball

 

[The Interpreter]

actually there is a hospital right in the town where I live that is a prime example....Griffin Hospital in Derby, CT.....horrid reputation, horrid standard of care, and then was taken private back in the 90's......it is now one of the premiere cancer treatment hospitals in the northeast

The Puget Sound hospital was shut shut down for substandard care and security a few years back. A for profit hospital. One hospital, even three hospitals don't make the general curve.

Actually the IOC tends to stick it to the United States as much as possible due to the IOC believes that it should get more money from the USOC and doesn't approve of things the USOC does such as partnering with Comcast/NBC Universal to create an Olympics Channel on cable.

I don't think they "stick it" to the United States as much as possible due to funding. That sort of "sticking it" tends to come in the form of, "You can't host the Olympics," for the most part. Most of the countries participating have spent MILLIONS of dollars on teams participating in a wide variety of events before they're even brought to vote for eligible competition within the Olympic cycle. I doubt all of them get up there, and somehow secretly altogether vote against Americans on that without any form of pre-meeting after blowing that sort of money. And I double doubt they DO have meetings for it. However, they do definitely have animosity for revenue issues. I won't say the US is really paid any favors, but a lot of the IOC DO look to their own countries in effort and balancing of potential victories. They're not immediate to the, "America wants soccer, ban it," mentality. If anything, they're more than likely to try to balance out events so no one country has a ton of advantage.

Yeah, the IOC doesn't like anything that will take money out of their pockets...

Does anybody? The IOC doesn't even have to really pay for anything, and they rake in pretty much all the profits as well. Greedy jerks.

but they loooooove USA Basketball

Yeppers. A lot of the professionals work with them very well. Unlike the baseball guys, who are like, "We're not halting our season for you."

 

[StorminNorman]

I did not say that, I said that the three branches of goverment allow for the checks and balances and the three braches are comprised of a ferderation of representatives from various (if not each of the) states. This is allowed for by the Constituion so you really can't say that this is not the way it was meant to work either.

When the Founders were debating the Constitution they considered a structure of government that would have both the Senate and the House be offices "of the people" rather than the Senate being the voice of State government. They decided for the latter. You can't claim that an outright contradiction was the way it was meant to work.

What does that matter when the state is being represented by someone elected by the people of that state? Furthermore, the Constitution allows for it self to be ammended (see Article V), so it must mean that irrespective of what the framers feelings were about the Constitution or it's intent, they themselves were open to allowing the document and its meaning to change.

It certainly allows for the Constitution to be changed, which is why I do now cry foul at the direct election of Senators (just mourn the unfortunate consequences of it). My bigger problem with Progressive policy regarding the Constitution is when they alter the abilities of the Federal Government without amendment.

A lot of the decisions made by the Federal government is reactive. They respond to a problem that is already out there in society. They respond to recomendations and requests from normal citizens of this country. To act tyrannically as you say would mean that they would be acting oppressively and that is doubtful if the actions were for the common good. It is not like the goverment speaks in one voice, since it is comprised of many who are supposed to speak in favor of their constituents. I still don't see how that is tyranny and I think you are quite mistaken and misinformed.

History is full of well intended democracies led by well intentioned people that destroyed themselves due to faulty philosophy and poor conceptions of history.

The Temperance Movement had been in existence more almost 150 years before the 18th Amendement was adopted.

Yes, and the Temperance Movement was not relevant on the Federal level until they went to the Amendment Process.

While, in principal, I am opposed to any Temperance Movement, as a Constitutionalist I have less of a problem when local communities enact idiotic laws like banning alcohol than when the Federal government does it.

That is a matter of opinion. Those who were in the Temperance Movement felt that alcohol was injurious to your physical and phycological health. To tell you the truth if there were scientific evidence linking alcohol to major health problems in humans, they would certainly prohibit its use not ulike the way they have been treating tobacco over the last 40 years.

The government has no right to tell you that you cannot ingest a dangerous substance. Period.

This just prooves how much you don't know about the Constitution. The law you claim to be unconstitutional is the Controled Substances Act of 1970. This law was found to be Constitutional by the SCOTUS in 2005 (see Gonzales v. Raich). The CSA is in direct compliance with international treaties through the World Healt Organization (see the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances). Per Article VI of the Constitution, this would make the CSA supreme.

lolz

While the aspect of an International Treaty makes the topic more interesting than most cases, the fact the SCOTUS found it Constitutional has little sway with me because the Court's history is not that good.

The CSA may be in compliance with international treaties, but it is not in compliance with the Constitution nor the intent of it's creators. The Federal Government has a right to regulate interstate commerce, not innerstate commerce.

I, and many Constitutional scholars hold, that treaties have no more the right to contradict the Constitution than any other act of Congress. Therefore a treaty that expands the power of the Federal Government at the expense of the State (or the Individual) is no more valid than a rogue piece of legislature.

Under HCR, citizens will have to pay a fine (i.e. a tax) if they fail to proove that they have adequate health care. That is justified under the General Welafare clause (I am pretty sure I said that before). Furthermore, HCR under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a law not policy. I don't know where you get off trying to call it that. The Interstate Commerce Clause is in effect because many of the health insurers and health care providers operate and do business accross state lines (leaving them subject to federal regulation).

You have said that before, you are simply wrong (as before). It's amusing to watch you defend the indefensible.

If a State can regulate it's own domestic commerce in a manner that does not interfere with interstate commerce, then they are within their right to do so. In any case, if the type of commerce is national in character (like health care and health insurance is) then the power of Congress to regulate it is absolute or even exclusive (see this link).

What makes Healthcare and Health Insurance national in character?

 

[BlackLantern]

because dnno wants something for nothing and he can wrap in in the "general welfare" argument

 

[StorminNorman]

Did you really just make the statement that women having the right to vote is a tragedy? I'm pretty sure this was also the decade which pushed state senators to be voted in by the population vote rather than the legislation vote, as well as giving them term limits and setting the number of senators per state at two. (This might have been actually made earlier, or later than the 1910's, I'm not 100% sure) And this one WAS a good one, because it prevented problems like NOT having any senators, which sometimes happened in the 1800's.

Though, I'm sort of with you on the whole 16th amendment.

But what I'm saying is, if any decade deserved to be called a "constitutional tragedy", it was the 20's with Prohibition.

Do you really think I made the statement that women having the right to vote is a tragedy?

Read about Wilson's Presidency (and if you want to get even darker, his ideology). Wilson's Progressivism was a dark plague on the American Presidency. He brought back the Sedition Acts, we had American citizens being spied on by their government for opposing the President, a director was jailed for 10 years because he made a REVOLUTIONARY WAR movie that painted (our allies) the British in a bad light.

The direct election of Senators that you mentioned was one of the unfortunate products of the movement.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Yeppers. A lot of the professionals work with them very well. Unlike the baseball guys, who are like, "We're not halting our season for you."

Take a look at it this way. Why should one of the largest sports organizations in the world halt their season for the Olympics when at the time Olympics ratings were in the decline and brought little benefit to MLB?

 

[The Interpreter]

Do you really think I made the statement that women having the right to vote is a tragedy?

Read about Wilson's Presidency (and if you want to get even darker, his ideology). Wilson's Progressivism was a dark plague on the American Presidency. He brought back the Sedition Acts, we had American citizens being spied on by their government for opposing the President, a director was jailed for 10 years because he made a REVOLUTIONARY WAR movie that painted (our allies) the British in a bad light.

The direct election of Senators that you mentioned was one of the unfortunate products of the movement.

You did state the 1910's was a decade of constitutional hell. Women Suffrage was a huge part of the 1910's, especially with the three actions over the course of the decade to get it. It was definitely constitutional hell for women, as they'd barely get the right to vote.

If we're talking about the actual presidency of President Wilson, he had a lot more going for him. Such as relief of tariffs to encourage trade and money flow. In 1914-1915, he pushed the Clayton Antitrust Act, which banned certain selling behaviors such as discrimination. (And I'm fairly sure discrimination against the black population is universally considered bad around here. I hope. To be fair, Wilson was willing to sacrifice rights of the black population to quell problems with the southern states who might have still felt blacks should be slaves.) Child labor was signed unlawful by him, but was unfortunately overturned a couple years later against his wishes. He forced companies to put lifeboats on their ships after the sinking of the Titanic to make sure people might more readily survive such disasters. Instilled the 8-hour workday with overtime for any time worked over 8 hours, because the workers were tired of being forced to work 12 hour days over and over and over at the abuse of the management. And I'm absolutely sure I'm missing other parts of what he did.

I will say the powers he took during, and just before, the first great war were beyond tyrannical. But to paint his entire presidency as something god awful, when a lot of the worse (but not the worst) parts were more or less a president faced with managers, racists, and immigrants who wouldn't budge, he had to basically meet a lot of people in the middle. Especially the managers and racists. He obviously had not as much reason to always please immigrants, as he still marched America into war despite a lot of the new Americans being from those countries, or hating the countries America allied with.

But to say that direct voting of a senator over legislation choice being a bad thing? I hate to say it, but I doubt you've ever been in a state or country which lacked a senator because the legislation simply wouldn't come to an agreement. The law put the power into the voter's hands to allow them to choose their own representation, rather than simply allow what becomes ideological petty fights and corruption rule them outright. Thank the powers that be I've never had to live in a situation where I didn't have a say in how my government is going to work by representative. The real problem that comes from this is when they end up NOT having a senator, or a standard of senators, because then states are either regulated unfairly, or just don't have a say in regulation, and the government can make demands on a state which simply cannot stand up for itself because the state's own legislative body is much more concerned with smaller problems that they simply won't vote senators. You may say, "Well, they can just vote in senators at any time then." And yeah, you would probably have a point. But it's not like this never happened. In the mid to late 1800's, several states simply just went months without a senator, and thus were not present for country deciding problems. In this point in time, the people who were subject to state and federal laws, simply either suffered from not having senators to defend them from the federal government, or were subject to whatever the senator put in charge above them felt the state wanted at the time. (The feelings of what the state "wanted" tended to actually be the feelings of the senator himself.)

At any rate, Woodrow did feel it was in fact the governments job to make sure the people of the United States were both guaranteed protection from enemies and the government itself, as well as more equal footing (though this did fall through as he ended up making compromises for the white, powerful majority of the time.) If he really didn't, and just went off on some crazy "it's all about me and my racist, backwards views" he'd probably have enforced segregation rather than allowed it to make compromise, making segregation far worse, blacks wouldn't be allowed to buy anything, companies would be able to make crazy freaking rules, the corrupt or absent senators (which I'm just going to assume you enjoy due to the lack of love for the 17th) would probably be totally cool with raising tariffs on the farms you can barely pay for because low rate, long term loans wouldn't be available to you, forcing you into poverty, and possibly your wife into prostitution due to some minor bad weather, and other things I'm positively sure I'm missing out on remembering.

Take a look at it this way. Why should one of the largest sports organizations in the world halt their season for the Olympics when at the time Olympics ratings were in the decline and brought little benefit to MLB?

I can easily agree with that. The answer is, the IOC just don't know how baseball players would enjoy being interrupted in their major league games to fly to other countries back and forth continuously over a two week period just to make sure they make ALL their games for both the American team, and whatever team they're contracted to. I doubt the IOC felt this was a very positive trait to put forward by the professionals. And given the fact every other sport was very lenient with the idea, baseball was the only one to say it was more interested in making money, than playing a game for their home country. The IOC is meant to allegedly foster the spirit of competition and peace between nations, not make money for the teams that play under their flags.

I actually didn't think about this reason until today: A lot of the world has a large lack of strict following for the sport to reach Olympic level. It's not that it isn't played all over the world, there's just not really a ton of countries with professional national teams to compete with it.

 

[dnno1]

When the Founders were debating the Constitution they considered a structure of government that would have both the Senate and the House be offices "of the people" rather than the Senate being the voice of State government. They decided for the latter. You can't claim that an outright contradiction was the way it was meant to work.

I don't know exactly what was debated (nor am I that concerned about it). What we do know is that the first sentence in the Constitution starts with "We the People of the United States..." and in Federalist No. 46, Alexander Hamilton stated of the State and Federal governments that they "[FONT=arial, helvetica][SIZE=-1]must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other.[/SIZE][/FONT]" Based on this, I would have to assume that the framers would have been alright with the 17th Amendment.

It certainly allows for the Constitution to be changed, which is why I do now cry foul at the direct election of Senators (just mourn the unfortunate consequences of it). My bigger problem with Progressive policy regarding the Constitution is when they alter the abilities of the Federal Government without amendment.

Well, that is you. By the way, I have to applaud The Interpreter on his post on this issue (great post guy). As far as I am concerned, the Constitution can be changed through the Amendment process and the Federal government can also write laws through the Congress that gives them the ability to execute their Constitutional powers.

History is full of well intended democracies led by well intentioned people that destroyed themselves due to faulty philosophy and poor conceptions of history.

Most of those are African or Asian Nations who have corrupt governments or none at all (i.e. Somalia, which is the number 1 failed state according to The Fund for Peace), and you are kidding about the well intentioned thing aren't you? There are 37 of those vs 140 who haven't failed. Are you trying to say that the U.S. is a failed state? They are not even close.

Yes, and the Temperance Movement was not relevant on the Federal level until they went to the Amendment Process.

That doesn't mean that the Temperance Movement just came around at the time of the 18th Amendment as you are implying.

While, in principal, I am opposed to any Temperance Movement, as a Constitutionalist I have less of a problem when local communities enact idiotic laws like banning alcohol than when the Federal government does it.

Yet you later say this:

The government has no right to tell you that you cannot ingest a dangerous substance. Period.

I would have to join you in saying this:

lolz

'cause you've got to be joking.

While the aspect of an International Treaty makes the topic more interesting than most cases, the fact the SCOTUS found it Constitutional has little sway with me because the Court's history is not that good.

The CSA may be in compliance with international treaties, but it is not in compliance with the Constitution nor the intent of it's creators. The Federal Government has a right to regulate interstate commerce, not innerstate commerce.

I, and many Constitutional scholars hold, that treaties have no more the right to contradict the Constitution than any other act of Congress. Therefore a treaty that expands the power of the Federal Government at the expense of the State (or the Individual) is no more valid than a rogue piece of legislature.

I really don't know who you are even though you claim to be a Constitutionalists and associate yourself with Constitutional scholars. I have found errors in things you have said, so I have very little credibility in you at all. The CSA is in Compliance with the Constitution since it has stood up in the highest court. Even though it is in compliance with an international treaty, the law in no way establishes any rule, concept or governmental power that is outside the Constitution. If it did, then it would be unconstitutional.

You have said that before, you are simply wrong (as before). It's amusing to watch you defend the indefensible.

So are you trying to tell me that people won't pay a fine if they do not show that they have adequate health care? Are you trying to tell me that law and policy are the same thing even though a law is binding and policy is not? Or are you trying that the Federal government can not tax its citizens to promote the general welfare (in this case ensuring that almost everyone has access to affordable health care) of the United State? I am sorry guy, but none of those things are wrong.

What makes Healthcare and Health Insurance national in character?

The fact that it is driven by a framework for health public policy starting at the top with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and flowing down to State and local heath departments. They truly are national in character since the health of the people is a major concern of the Federal government, who's responsibility is to protect its people. You trying to slip me up with that question?

 

[BlackLantern]

so its ok to fine people if they choose NOT to have health coverage?

 

[chaseter]

The government should also fine people that do not have retirement funds or savings accounts.

 

[dnno1]

so its ok to fine people if they choose NOT to have health coverage?

They do it to folks who choose not to finance a home, so why not?

 

[BlackLantern]

They do it to folks who choose not to finance a home, so why not?

because most likely these are people who have to choose between groceries and paying bills vs. health coverage they barely use or isn't worth it

how is any logical person ok with that?

 

[dnno1]

The government should also fine people that do not have retirement funds or savings accounts.

They actually do.

 

[BlackLantern]

they just get you in taxes....if you own a home you get a tax credit, if you get married you get a tax credit

being single in America is expensive because apparently your money isn't as important

 

[chaseter]

They actually do.

And they should fine us for not getting our daily recommended amount of exercise.

Oh and fine us for not being 100% environmentally friendly.

 

[dnno1]

And they should fine us for not getting our daily recommended amount of exercise.

Oh and fine us for not being 100% environmentally friendly.

Maybe not 100%, but you do get a tax credit for installing energy efficient windows.

 

[chaseter]

No credits, we need fines. That will show people how to properly live.

 

[Marx]

POLL: VOTERS MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES WHO SUPPORTED HEALTH CARE REFORM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/05/poll-health-care-reform-back-candidates_n_750802.html

It looks like the GOP might want to rethink their campaigning on 'Obamacare' repeal.