Obama Don't Care - Declared Unconstitutional

[gdogslim]

I was being tongue in cheek. Sesame Street IS tax subsidized and does have an agenda.
Check it out - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/ma...=2&oref=slogin

Makes one wonder how mankind ever survived without hmo's, insurance companies and the government.
Now people will be FORCED to cough up via IRS enforcement.

I agree with all that there has to be something done, massive overhaul, but this is NOT the answer at all.

[oladub]

"The current revival of the HMO movement should come as no surprise. HMOs have proven themselves again and again to be effective and efficient mechanisms for delivering health care of the highest quality. HMOs cut hospital utilization by an average of 20 to 25 percent compared to the fee-for-service sector. They cut the total cost of health care by anywhere from 10 to 30 percent. And they accomplish these savings without compromising the quality of care they provide their members."
-Senator Ted Kennedy 3-3-1978

By 2001, Teddy had changed his mind but his damage was done. Maybe Obamacare will work out better.

[Detroitej72]

If the healthcare bill is scrapped, hopefully it will be because a single payer system has replaced it. Then, the for-profit companies that drop people when they become ill and need them most can become as extinct as the passenger pigeon.

[maxx]

In defense of the new health care law

http://www.openforum.com/idea-hub/to...oming-Outbrain

"

• Only 49 percent of businesses with three to nine employees [[most small businesses) offered any type of health insurance to their employees in 2008, down from 58 percent 10 years before.
  

• At small businesses with 25 employees or fewer, 29 percent offered no insurance at allin 2007; a number that is definitely higher today.
  

So, when you talk about the uninsured, you are talking about people who work for small businesses. Why? Premium increases make insuring employees increasingly difficult..."

[maxx]

gdog:
Please explain Sesame Street's agenda as per the article you posted.

[gdogslim]

This health care democrat made disaster will only hurt the poor, kill jobs, stop or slow private investment, stop people from entering the health care field and lower standards and quality of care.

Look at Cuba, their health care system is a total disaster. The fat pig anti capitalist michael moore was shown the best of the best, like where the top gov't commies go.
Cuban doctors flee to other countries if they get a chance.

[maxx]

"Judge Hudson wrote that the law’s central requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution."

Yes, but there is this in Article 1:
The Congress shall have power [...] To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

[maxx]

Gdog:
Citations, please?

Cuba has been under siege from the U.S. for decades which made them dependent on the USSR. They ration practically everything to survive and still turn out doctors from their medical schools who go on to serve the sick people of the third world.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...free-ride.html

gdog: I agree with all that there has to be something done, massive overhaul, but this is NOT the answer at all.

So what is the answer?

[gdogslim]

That's like saying, GM closed a plant in Pontiac and hundreds of jobs were lost, so the people had to sell drugs and steal to survive or they would die.

The answer is a free market health care system. The government involvement only increases costs, fraud, waste and abuse, but that's the way the scammer's and organized criminals like it.
Get the government out of the way, with SOME oversight and regulation, not total control.
But Obama's mindset is that the government is the solution.

[maxx]

We just went through a near depression based on free market principles. To paraphrase James Madison, because angels do not govern men we need regulations.

http://www.facebook.com/publiccitizen#!/photo.php?fbid=190453920980127&set=a.1168986083356 59.16274.108038612554992

Rightwingers like to talk about a "constitutionally limited government", but the Constitution does not limit the government's powers to deal with the issues the founders deemed necessary to maintain the security of the nation.

from Welfare and the Constitution p. 48
http://books.google.com/books?id=hEt...ern%22&f=false

"...Federalist No.23...Powers essential to the common defense ...ought to exist without limitation... This is not a hedge for military emergencies ... for later in the same paper he applies this principle to "commerce and to every other matter" within the jurisdiction of the proposed government {23.149}... The fear of government must not be greater than the fear of private power...Establishing a government would be irrational where government is feared as much as or more than the private power the government is to suppress and displace...

[maxx]

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcr...ryId=111173038
"...the defenders of the private insurance industry will say, no, we do add value, we manage costs better, we actually provide oversight. My answer to that is: prove it. And how do you prove it? You prove it by having a level playing field in which they compete with a simple plan offered by the federal government that people can buy into that does not involve the private insurers..."

gdog: That's like saying, GM closed a plant in Pontiac and hundreds of jobs were lost, so the people had to sell drugs and steal to survive or they would die.

My description of what the people of Cuba have been doing had nothing to do with selling drugs.

[firstandten]

The answer is a free market health care system. The government involvement only increases costs, fraud, waste and abuse, but that's the way the scammer's and organized criminals like it.
Get the government out of the way, with SOME oversight and regulation, not total control.
But Obama's mindset is that the government is the solution.

Contrary to what you might believe the free market system is not the cure-all to all of our economic problems. The free market system works best when you have many buyers and many sellers and there is good information flowing back and forth between the parties.

That way supply, demand and prices can stay at or near equilibrium and everybody is happy.
When you have monopolies or oligopolies [[ of which I consider the health care industry) if there is not some regulation, gov't or otherwise what you have is a run-a-way freight train. That freight train will rain havoc over the common man because we see it time and time again. The abuses the health care industry has done to people in the name of profits cannot be justified. So unless you believe in social Darwinism your statement doesn't hold water. BTW gov't total control, please, hell the industry practically wrote the damn legislation

[jiminnm]

Cuba has been under siege from the U.S. for decades which made them dependent on the USSR. They ration practically everything to survive and still turn out doctors from their medical schools who go on to serve the sick people of the third world.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...free-ride.html

So what is the answer?

Under siege? I don't think so. Last time I checked, 85-90 other nations trade with Cuba. You can't lay their failure as nation on the US.

By the way, James Madison also said:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
That sure sounds like he didn't favor much in the way of welfare spending.

[oladub]

maxx: "We just went through a near depression based on free market principles. To paraphrase James Madison, because angels do not govern men we need regulations."

More from James Madison:

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

Rightwingers like to talk about a "constitutionally limited government", but the Constitution does not limit the government's powers to deal with the issues the founders deemed necessary to maintain the security of the nation

maxx As you know, the Constitution supersedes the range of thoughts found in the Federalist papers. Madison was an Anti-federalist. Where exactly in the Constitution does it say that "the Constitution does not limit the government's powers to deal with the issues the founders deemed necessary to maintain the security of the nation." Are you sure you didn't read that in Article 2 of the Enabling Act?

Article 2

"Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed."

Sounds pretty reasonable and it was only temporary just like your imaginary take on the Constitution. Imagine all the security and protection the government could afford you with just such a interpretational tweak to the Constitution.

Neo-cons, if that is your definition of 'rightwingers', are as guilty as liberals of trashing the concept of "constitutionally protected government'. Consider Bush & Cheney and the alleged reference to the Constitution as a "g- d- piece of paper" which was never denied by Bush.

[Danny]

Obamacare is CONSTITUTIONAL and its LAW. There's nothing you and the republicans can do to stop it. Now stop accusing PRESIDENT OBAMA for being to black to run the free world.

[oladub]

Obamacare is CONSTITUTIONAL and its LAW. There's nothing you and the republicans can do to stop it. Now stop accusing PRESIDENT OBAMA for being to black to run the free world.

1. Read the 10th Amendment and then show us where providing health care is a delegated power found in the Constitution. If a judge says that corporations are legal persons, that Obamacare is a previously delegated power, or that 2+2=5, you would probably agree. I don't, although until a judge with glasses comes along to correct such errors, such rulings do have government police powers supporting them so they are, as you say, LAW. Neo-cons and liberals, by definition, are big on police power. It goes with authoritarianism.
2. I am not a Republican and have only voted for Republican presidential candidates in 2 of the last six elections.
3. You brought up race. Perhaps, President Obama is performing poorly because of his mother's genes. Don't forget he has some common ancestry with Cheney and Bush on his mother's side. Don't assume his black genes are at fault or that race is even an issue. I've had my differences with Bush and Clinton too.

[gdogslim]

Federal judge tosses out sweeping health care reform act
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/...tional/?hpt=T2
Aw jeez, not again, "A federal judge in Florida has ruled unconstitutional the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama, setting up what is likely to be a contentious Supreme Court challenge over the legislation in coming months."

Just as I predicted, and I think that, the Supreme Court will concur with the decision and throw out ObamaDontCare with the bath water.
Did I mention that Medicare has about a 38 TRILLION unfunded mandates, aka it's broke, like the government. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...unded-mandate/

[maxx]

I wonder how many of these federal judges were appointed by Reagan or the Bushes. As I recall, the 1997-1999 Congress failed to ratify a whole lot of federal court appointees made by Clinton.

[firstandten]

Federal judge tosses out sweeping health care reform act
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/...tional/?hpt=T2
Aw jeez, not again, "A federal judge in Florida has ruled unconstitutional the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama, setting up what is likely to be a contentious Supreme Court challenge over the legislation in coming months."

Just as I predicted, and I think that, the Supreme Court will concur with the decision and throw out ObamaDontCare with the bath water.
Did I mention that Medicare has about a 38 TRILLION unfunded mandates, aka it's broke, like the government. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...unded-mandate/

Again, don't jump up and down just yet the Affordable Care Act [[not Obamacare) just like other landmark pieces of legislation in our history faced politically oriented challenges from the lower courts yet was struck down by SCOTUS.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/20...-lower-courts/


My only concern is that the five right wing activist on the court may decide to do what liberals are always accuse of doing and thats making law and not interpreting the law

[gibran]

I still believe that it is a moral issue that has skirted by for decades...now we have a chance to do the right thing .. but of course those "moral" people feel that since this would increase taxes they shouldnt care.. the party of "values" need only to read the sermon on the mount.. or the hippocratic oath...to find out that people are dying or at the minimum letting their health decline... people should find a compromise and a health care system that is not run by profiteers... you may survive the stroke but good luck getting rehab...

[mjs]

In Canada, the last I heard, doctors are largely shielded from law suits so they don't even deem it necessary to take out liability insurance. In turn, doctors can charge lower charges to patients. Patients do not have as great of a need to sue anyway since some mistakes doctors make will be rectified by other 'free' government care. Doctors do not find it necessary to require as much testing to protect themselves from negligence charges so fewer procedures are ordered and billed. Since most medical costs are born by the province, there is little need for patients to purchase insurance. Since relatively few medical liability or personal health insurance policies are purchased, the insurance companies have fewer sales. Since lawyers are almost not in the picture, the need for large policies is decreased.

Insurance companies like to point out to the smaller amount that actually changes hand in court. The practical reality included the cost of liability insurance, personal health insurance to help pay for doctors, hospital, etc. liability costs, , unnecessary procedures to avoid liability claims, hospital wings full of paper workers processing legal and insurance claims, and government agencies regulating everything previously mentioned. by getting rid of these non medical personnel from health care more money is freed up to instead provide affordable and universal medical care. It's a choice. Lawyers and insurance companies vs. inexpensive and universal health care. Take a side.

We can get the same result if we make medical malpractice strict liability without punitives. Essentially, require a lifetime warranty on the service. Almost all of the litigation costs come from the expert witnesses trying to convince the jury that either the doctor did something wrong or that it was just the inherent risk in the operation. Have the Doc be required to fix it either way and there's nothing to litigate. If there's something wrong with the operation, the doctor has to pay to fix it and nothing more. If the doctor defaults, the hospital pays. The cost will get written into the procedure with the least error prone doctor's needing the least and the hospital's with the best doctor oversight paying, thus charging, the least. The rest of the premium is essentially insurance to protect everyone undergoing the surgery against the odds. Nobody knows if they'll be the one in a thousand case that goes wrong for no reason. Then, if you think the extra written into the cost is too high, don't get the surgery. Nobody will be forced to buy insurance that doesn't benefit them.

Each state also controls its own tort laws so thats where reality can be seperated from myth. For example, in Michigan, you can never ever under any egregious circumstance, ever sue a pharmaceutical for damages caused by an FDA approved drug. Does Michigan have the lowest pharmaceutical costs? In Texas, they enacted medical tort reform that would make the most heartless Republican's blush? Do Texas doctor's pay lower premiums? Not based on any legitimate studies I've ever heard of.

Personally, when my quality of life is at risk, I rather hear the doctor say, "just to be safe . . ." rather than "its usually not that". I'm willing to pay extra to hear that but have no issue with others getting a cheaper rate if they have a more agressive appetite for risk.

[mjs]

We just went through a near depression based on free market principles. To paraphrase James Madison, because angels do not govern men we need regulations.

http://www.facebook.com/publiccitizen#!/photo.php?fbid=190453920980127&set=a.1168986083356 59.16274.108038612554992

Rightwingers like to talk about a "constitutionally limited government", but the Constitution does not limit the government's powers to deal with the issues the founders deemed necessary to maintain the security of the nation.

from Welfare and the Constitution p. 48
http://books.google.com/books?id=hEt...ern%22&f=false

"...Federalist No.23...Powers essential to the common defense ...ought to exist without limitation... This is not a hedge for military emergencies ... " Later in the same paper he applies this principle to "commerce and to every other matter" within the jurisdiction of the proposed government {23.149}... The fear of government must not be greater than the fear of private power...Establishing a government would be irrational where government is feared as much as or more than the private power the government is to suppress and displace...

That all needs to be read in its entirety and context. First, at the time of the Federalist papers, they were arguing things like whether each state should have its own currency, could charge tariff's on each other's goods, and whether we even needed any national military, let alone one larger than state militias. Second, you even quoted "within the jurisdiction of the proposed government". They mean legal jurisdiction, not physical jurisdiction. They wrote the Tenth Amendment to ensure it would be a limited government the author speaks of operating within the jurisdiction of its limited powers. Third, the Federalist papers were written before the Constitution. They do not supercede it because their ideas are incorporated into it. The Constitution was a document written to limit the Federal government. And the founding fathers did foresee it would need changes over time so they actually did write a way to deal with that. They call it an amendment process and before FDR, it was how the Costitution was changed. Prohibition was an amendment, not a law, because it wasn't mentioned in the rest of the Constitution so was specifcally excluded from Federal jurisdiction under the Tenth Amendment.

I really do like your Madison paraphrase, but I don't see where anyone is asking for no regulation. Its an argument of amount of regulation and how and who. Companies have no morality because they are not people. They have no feelings or fears or guilt. They only do what will benefit them financially. I agree that some regulation is needed because Free market does have its limitations in making doing the right thing have financial consequences for these entities, but free market comes from people who do have morality. Free market is a democratic idea where the participants get their say and vote with their money. Forcing someone to buy a product that is not beneficial to them goes against the very free market democratic principles that make it work. Democracy is not broken here, capitalism is not broken here. Don't break them because fixing our health is a challenge.

[mjs]

I agree with this. The elephant in the room is health care costs. Why do Americans pay per capita $7200 a year, with an average of 1 visit a year, and a life expectancy of 78 years while Japanese do it for $2500 a year, with 10+ visits and live 5 years longer?? Why do I smell an immense cabal of interests united among the insurers, health care providers and health care suppliers?

At a minimum all health care providers and suppliers should be required to post their prices in very plain view at offices and online. The big problem is that no one has any idea what anything costs. They can tell you the price of gasoline, cars or tv's in a heartbeat, but the prices of a dental crown, getting a broken ankle treated? The fog ascends.

I agree. Like I posted earlier, its all about what's the proper level of regulation. Requiring information be made available is an example of excellent regulation. It supports the free market idea that the system needs all participants to have full market knowledge. It supports the democratic idea outlined in the First Amendment that all participants need to have access to the free flow of information.

I'm very curious to see x-ray costs comparisons and visit costs for the common cold. I can't find any studies on it in this legislation's congressional record. I'm also curious as to other health cost factors. What's our distribution of BMI scores compared to theirs? Cholesterol? Blood pressure? Ave fat, salt, and fruit consumption? Hours worked per year? Average debt? Hours of TV? Hours of exercise? Time devoted to physical and emotional well being? No interest in that in this legislation's record either. We like our Big Macs, TIVO, and McMansion lifestyles. For better or worse, it does have its consequences and if we can't acknowledge and address that, any other efforts to be cost and health competitive is just spinning our wheels.

[gdogslim]

What a great decision, even better because it was by a Reagan appointed judge.
I especially like Judge Vinson used Obama's own words against him in his ruling.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
And Now -
The White House — which is attempting to take over the health care industry, Constitution-be damned — called the ruling “judicial over-reaching.” They do love their over-reaching activist judges… unless it doesn’t go their way. The Obama administration accusing somebody of “over-reaching” is like Charlie Sheen saying you’re overdoing it on the partying.

[gdogslim]

Obama, the great liar, and the dems tried to sell FascistCare as health reform, to lower costs, not a tax. Now, Obama's peeps want to argue that ObamaDontCare is really a tax. Well what is it?
Is Obama lying saying it is a tax or is Obama lying saying it isn't a tax. Who's really lying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UcxU...layer_embedded

They can argue that way, but they will lose if they try to. per case Bailey v. Drexel Furniture [[1922)

In the 1920s, when Congress wanted to prohibit activity that was then deemed to be solely within the police power of states, it tried to penalize the activity using its tax power. In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture [[1922) the Supreme Court struck down such a penalty saying, “there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.”