Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 11:37 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10760
Substitute2 wrote:
We could disagree forever but the issue is still in front of us. We continue to shrink in comparison to other countries in health care, but pay far more for this lousy system.

I'm not sure why you deem the pre-2009 system "lousy," and I am curious as to how many other systems you have encountered for health care.

Substitute2 wrote:
Again and again, I ask-- what is the alternative? The cost to all of us for this system is what is unsustainable not the medicare part of it.

I spent a lot of time setting forth specific changes to the current system, but in brief summary:

  • Implement changes to medical insurance policies that require coverage for pre-existing illnesses and disease after a 15-day waiting period. (Most poliicies now, by the way, have a 6-month waiting period and it is a lie that such policies "never" cover pre-existing conditions.)
  • Make insurance conveyable/portable from employer to employer, to the extent an employer provides such coverage.
  • Make insurance more competitive by allowing intra-state sale of medical insurance.
  • For Medicare, implement a savings-account approach option that allows retirees to earn credits and a return if they don't burn through the insurance premium. Simply moving forward with the current system is a guaranteed path to bankruptcy.

P.S. An inconvenient fact is that Obamacare does not make Medicare solvent. Further, the idea that the Fed can cut $700 billion in reimbursements to the providers, and see no change in the number of providers, is beyond stupid. It is dangerously stupid.

What will happen is that physicians will tell Medicare to @#%* themselves. Patients literally have no doctor they can see. Medicare will then enter into "premium" payment agreements with providers, and the care cost 5 times as much per visit as budgeted.

The ONLY reason the annual expenditure does not wind up 5x as much as budgeted is that patients have to wait so long for care that the number of visits is artificially reduced (rationing), such that the actual expenditure is "only" 3x as much as was budgeted.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:16 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5708
Bucfan wrote:
  • Make insurance more competitive by allowing intra-state sale of medical insurance.


Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm pretty uneducated and maybe I'm just whistling dixie, but doesn't giving more power to states solve like 90% of America's problems?

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
NSMaster56 wrote:
Bucfan wrote:
  • Make insurance more competitive by allowing intra-state sale of medical insurance.


Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm pretty uneducated and maybe I'm just whistling dixie, but doesn't giving more power to states solve like 90% of America's problems?

Depends on what you identify as a "problem".

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:21 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5708
Willton wrote:
NSMaster56 wrote:
Bucfan wrote:
  • Make insurance more competitive by allowing intra-state sale of medical insurance.


Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm pretty uneducated and maybe I'm just whistling dixie, but doesn't giving more power to states solve like 90% of America's problems?

Depends on what you identify as a "problem".


'Conflicts'.

Social and economic hurdles/issues which divide the nation.

America's problem, no matter what the issue, seems to be trying to create a 'one size fits all' solution... pretty dumb if you ask me.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:14 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6301
As an educator, I can tell you, one size never fits all....JMHO... 8-) 8-) 8-)


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:01 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:18 am
Posts: 723
Location: The Hinterlands of Northwestern PA
It's a fine line. It's true that you can't impose the same cookie-cutter approach to governing Connecticut and governing Louisiana. So giving more power to the states to let them do as they see fit sounds like a great idea ... until you consider, for example, what would happen to minorities/gays/non-Christians in the South if we did that. A balance needs to be struck. And whatever conclusion you come to is sure to enrage someone.

_________________
Judge Landis
Chairman, UPPMB Pink Polo Shirt Brigade
President, Lacee Collins Fan Club


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:12 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5708
Judge Landis wrote:
It's a fine line. It's true that you can't impose the same cookie-cutter approach to governing Connecticut and governing Louisiana. So giving more power to the states to let them do as they see fit sounds like a great idea ... until you consider, for example, what would happen to minorities/gays/non-Christians in the South if we did that. A balance needs to be struck. And whatever conclusion you come to is sure to enrage someone.


I suppose I always thought of the system as (for the most part), 'the state can add to, but not take away from, federal law'.

So basically, for cheap example, the US could dictate that the legal drinking was 18 and if any state wanted to make it higher they could, but not lower. States could add to laws, but not take away from (as is [supposed to be] the case in military regulations).

Now, as I'm not a legal eagle, I wouldn't know how more complex laws would work then (gambling, wages, any number or criminal laws, etc.), but I always just assumed that the federal government's role was more mediator than 'my way or the highway' authoritarian.

Perhaps my memory of and/or public education concerning federal government was less than stellar, but I just thought that the federal government was supposed to maintain, not mandate.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:18 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Not a legel eagle either but some knowledge of constitution.
The very word federal means a sharing of power between state and national government. As you know, they first constitution was the Articles of Confederation. It had a very weak central government and almost all power was in state gov't. It didn't work because there was no way to keep all the colonies working together.
The founding fathers wrote a sharing of power constitution but in truth the national government has slowly taken more power and limited states ability to counter it. The 9th Amendment reserves all powers not listed for the states but the elastic clause has been interpreted to mean that anything necessary to enforce legel national laws was also a national gov't power.

The argument over who should have governing power in the US continues.

NB-- John C Calhoun and South Carolina tried nullification to cancel national law they didn't like just before the civil war. Points to the fact that where there is conflict, the national law must take precedance in order to preserve the union.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:24 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10760
Substitute2 wrote:
The founding fathers wrote a sharing of power constitution but in truth the national government has slowly taken more power and limited states ability to counter it. The 9th Amendment reserves all powers not listed for the states but the elastic clause has been interpreted to mean that anything necessary to enforce legel national laws was also a national gov't power.

The argument over who should have governing power in the US continues.

Your theory of a "battle" between the Federal government and states as to the power to be exercised by each may have been worthy of discussion 50 years ago.

With all due respect, Sub, the Federal government now has virtually unlimited authority to tax, spend and regulate every commercial activity. That is most definitely NOT what the founders intended when implementing the Constitution nor what they believed was in the best interests of the nation. For example:

Federalist #45:

On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members. The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp.

Federalist #14:

In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction 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. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity. Were it proposed by the plan of the convention to abolish the governments of the particular States, its adversaries would have some ground for their objection; though it would not be difficult to show that if they were abolished the general government would be compelled, by the principle of self-preservation, to reinstate them in their proper jurisdiction.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa14.htm

We had just finished a 9-year war with England, at a cost of thousands of lives and ten of millions of dollars, to extricate ourselves from a centralized government. The theory that we followed for more than 150 years was that a Federal government of very limited powers was far less likely to result in intrusion into personal affairs, commerce, and religion than were the state governments, mainly because citizens had the option of leaving a state that adopted punitive tax or social policies.

That effect is still in existence, even with a Federal government that is the 8000 lb. gorilla for legislation and taxation. California, New York, Illinois, Rhode Island, and Michigan have slower population growth than do Texas, Florida, Utah, and Alaska.

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's testitimony to Congress in 1964 regarding the Civil Rights Act, and the scope of Federal power under the commerce clause, made clear that the Federal government was supreme and that the concept of "state's rights" was quaint.

Kennedy testified that the commerce clause empowered Congress to regulate economic activity of tiny, isolated businesses that had no legitimate involvement with interstate commerce. (The Civil Rights Act could not be implemented pursuant to the 13th, 14th or 15th amendments. The 14th amendment, in particular, does not effect individual action. It provides in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The "state power" dispute is no longer. The Federal government now legislates and basically runs food, housing, education, student loans, home loans, and medical care. This power is as far removed from what Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson envisioned as can be imagined.

"So what?", you ask. This what:

Our government derives its authority from the consent of the public, based on the promises made in the Constitution. That is our "contract."

If the Federal government is free to ignore the contract and do whatever it wants, why the hell am I forced to honor the contract??


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:55 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
I don't disagee with the notion that the national government has taken over in almost all phases of power and states have been greatly diminished. To prevent 50 countries from being created, the consolidation of power is a natural evolution of our federal system. Don't see any viable option outside of dissolving our country.

One area that is especially offensive to me is "exectutive orders" from the President. It makes the executive branch have legislative powers that surely weren't intended in the constitution. When did anyone give them power to enforce or not enforce parts of laws they don't like? And why has the SC not dealt with that issue?

Here's another: The War powers Act was passed to limit the executive branch from conducting long wars without congress declaring them as wars. It, of course came after Vietnam (a police action) was never a declared war. So, why hasn't this law been before the SC for validation yet?

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10760
Substitute2 wrote:
I don't disagee with the notion that the national government has taken over in almost all phases of power and states have been greatly diminished. To prevent 50 countries from being created, the consolidation of power is a natural evolution of our federal system. Don't see any viable option outside of dissolving our country.

How about this: Follow the Constitution.

Substitute2 wrote:
One area that is especially offensive to me is "exectutive orders" from the President. It makes the executive branch have legislative powers that surely weren't intended in the constitution. When did anyone give them power to enforce or not enforce parts of laws they don't like? And why has the SC not dealt with that issue?

The Supreme Court has struck down executive orders just twice in more than 225 years. The reason for this is respect between the branches of government, as the Supreme Court does not like to countermand the fashion in which the President executes his functions.

Or so they say. I suspect that the real reason the Supreme Court is hesitant to challenge Executive orders can be explained by Stalin's comment about the Pope's criticisms: "How many divisions does he have?"

The Supreme Court relies on the Executive branch to enforce its orders. The Supreme Court therefore is going to avoid a fight with the executive branch, whenever possible.

Substitute2 wrote:
Here's another: The War powers Act was passed to limit the executive branch from conducting long wars without congress declaring them as wars. It, of course came after Vietnam (a police action) was never a declared war. So, why hasn't this law been before the SC for validation yet?

The War Powers Act is almost certainly unconstitutional. The Constitution prevents Congress from granting the executive branch authority, while retaining the right to take away that power or dictate how the power is used. Doing so is termed a "legislative veto."

If Congress grants the Executive branch the authority to conduct a war, then Congress may take away that authority only by passing a new law and presenting it to the President for signature. If the President vetoes it, then Congress needs to override the veto.

I therefore suspect that potential litigants are dissuaded from taking the War Powers Act to the Federal Court of Appeals or Supreme Court because they have been advised that it will likely be deemed unconstitutional.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits