Doc Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Okay...is it unconstitutional?...yes, but does that matter anymore?...most likely not...our government has been sidestepping the constitution for a very long time... The difference is, this will be out of the hands of the legislative and executive branches of government and subject to the ruling of the judiciary branch.
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 That's a great point actually. I've been making a few like that repeatedly, which no one's paid attention to. Dedicated homeopaths and naturopaths as well - the seriously nutty one's who don't partake in health care resources. They're required to buy insurance and not use it, now? Or are insurers going to be required to cover it? Which would mean that such "oogie-boogie medicine" either 1) needs to be vetted by the legislatively-mandated panel that evaluates the effectiveness of and recommends treatments, or 2) there will need to be exceptions to what can be considered by said panel. That's just one example demonstrating where my oppisition to this law lies (or at least most of it). It's no secret or surprise that I'm against socialized medicine - I don't believe it's a "civilized nation's" responsibility to take care of the citizens, I believe it's the nation's responsibility to get the hell out of the way and let the citizens take care of themselves. But this abortion of a law is so poorly considered and constructed that even I have to admit that a true socialized system would be a better solution than what was just passed.
Adam Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 The private sector has no ability to control your life, that you don't give it. The government OTOH, is increasingly trying to control your life. So again, why stop at mandating health care? If what will truly make costs go down is eating right, exercising more, sleeping well, avoiding high risk activities, etc., why shouldn't the government mandate that you do these? They should mandate that everyone to buy health club memberships, and then check on them to make sure they're going and doing the appropriate exercise. They can tell you how many servings of fruits and veggies you have to eat each day. Maybe hook you up to an ECG to make sure you were actually sleeping those 8 hours you should be getting. Where does it end? If health insurance is a major problem for you, maybe being in a country where medicine is socialized is the best place? Ah, but you want to be in a country where everything else is a free market. Hmmmm. So you are saying to stop trying to improve on things? I am not saying to change styles of government (Although I am not sure what style we have had for the last few decades). What I am saying is that we should not discount any argument.
LeviF Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I've been making a few like that repeatedly, which no one's paid attention to. Dedicated homeopaths and naturopaths as well - the seriously nutty one's who don't partake in health care resources. They're required to buy insurance and not use it, now? Or are insurers going to be required to cover it? Which would mean that such "oogie-boogie medicine" either 1) needs to be vetted by the legislatively-mandated panel that evaluates the effectiveness of and recommends treatments, or 2) there will need to be exceptions to what can be considered by said panel. That's just one example demonstrating where my oppisition to this law lies (or at least most of it). It's no secret or surprise that I'm against socialized medicine - I don't believe it's a "civilized nation's" responsibility to take care of the citizens, I believe it's the nation's responsibility to get the hell out of the way and let the citizens take care of themselves. But this abortion of a law is so poorly considered and constructed that even I have to admit that a true socialized system would be a better solution than what was just passed. I don't know about the homeopaths and naturopaths, but can't Scientific Christians, in this bill, be exempt if they have religious objections to it?
Doc Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 So you are saying to stop trying to improve on things? I am not saying to change styles of government (Although I am not sure what style we have had for the last few decades). What I am saying is that we should not discount any argument. I'm all for improving things. This isn't accomplishing that. The ONLY way to reduce health care costs is for people to take better care of themselves AND to have some skin in the game. They still have no incentive to do that. Maybe that should have been the mandate, instead of requiring people to buy health insurance?
Celtic_soulja Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 The difference is, this will be out of the hands of the legislative and executive branches of government and subject to the ruling of the judiciary branch. So I've heard...I am anxious to see how this plays out to...I mean Obama thrashed the Supreme Court publicly just recently...not saying they will act on that, but studying FDR and his horrible relationship with the SC, 40% of FDR's policy initiatives were killed by the SC...so while the Dems and the White House are downplaying this development of going to the SC, I can see this actually being stopped in the SC...I am not saying it will, but I sure as heck would laugh my azz off and wouldn't be surprised.
Doc Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 So I've heard...I am anxious to see how this plays out to...I mean Obama thrashed the Supreme Court publicly just recently...not saying they will act on that, but studying FDR and his horrible relationship with the SC, 40% of FDR's policy initiatives were killed by the SC...so while the Dems and the White House are downplaying this development of going to the SC, I can see this actually being stopped in the SC...I am not saying it will, but I sure as heck would laugh my azz off and wouldn't be surprised. I'm sure that will play a role, but the SC wouldn't want to set the precedent of the government dictating what people should and shouldn't purchase. Because again, it's not regulating commerce, it's forcing it.
manateefan Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 I'm all for improving things. This isn't accomplishing that. The ONLY way to reduce health care costs is for people to take better care of themselves AND to have some skin in the game. They still have no incentive to do that. Maybe that should have been the mandate, instead of requiring people to buy health insurance? I already work for a company that mandates how you take care of yourself. If you smoke you have to go to smoking cessation classes annually (which don't seem to work as the same people take them over and over), if you are considered overweight, you have to join a program, diabetics (who most know how to control it) have to go to classes annually, they have age required tests. I have a doctor and I have an annual physical, but I feel it should be up to the doctor to decide which tests are needed and not some paper pusher.
Alaska Darin Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 They are for a reason. It's good civilized government that takes care of its citizens, way better than this Republic of the United States does. I'm going to ask you to explain that further before I slam the living crap out of you.
Thirdborn Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 I'm going to ask you to explain that further before I slam the living crap out of you. LoL
bills_fan Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 I already work for a company that mandates how you take care of yourself. If you smoke you have to go to smoking cessation classes annually (which don't seem to work as the same people take them over and over), if you are considered overweight, you have to join a program, diabetics (who most know how to control it) have to go to classes annually, they have age required tests. I have a doctor and I have an annual physical, but I feel it should be up to the doctor to decide which tests are needed and not some paper pusher. Yes, but your company is a for-profit private enetrprise requiring its employees to do something as an employment condition. Its no different than a company scheduling diversity classes for all its employees. If you don't like it, you can go work elsewhere. No big deal. That is totally different from this bill.
Doc Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 I already work for a company that mandates how you take care of yourself. If you smoke you have to go to smoking cessation classes annually (which don't seem to work as the same people take them over and over), if you are considered overweight, you have to join a program, diabetics (who most know how to control it) have to go to classes annually, they have age required tests. That's good that your company is trying. I recently set-up an exercise room (or "wellness center," as my insurance rep proposed we call it) at my surgery center and have been encouraging people to use it. No mandates, though. I have a doctor and I have an annual physical, but I feel it should be up to the doctor to decide which tests are needed and not some paper pusher. I agree. But pencil pushers and non-MD's are the ones making health policy these days.
manateefan Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 Yes, but your company is a for-profit private enetrprise requiring its employees to do something as an employment condition. Its no different than a company scheduling diversity classes for all its employees. If you don't like it, you can go work elsewhere. No big deal. That is totally different from this bill. No it is not a for-profit enterprise. I work for a local government, just didn't want to say that because of how people feel about government.
bills_fan Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 No it is not a for-profit enterprise. I work for a local government, just didn't want to say that because of how people feel about government. Local governments are far more empowered to look out for the general health and welfare of residents (and employees) than is the Federal government. The system was designed that way for a reason.
IDBillzFan Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 I'm going to ask you to explain that further before I slam the living crap out of you. He won't...because he can't.
Chef Jim Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 I've been making a few like that repeatedly, which no one's paid attention to. Dedicated homeopaths and naturopaths as well - the seriously nutty one's who don't partake in health care resources. They're required to buy insurance and not use it, now? Or are insurers going to be required to cover it? Which would mean that such "oogie-boogie medicine" either 1) needs to be vetted by the legislatively-mandated panel that evaluates the effectiveness of and recommends treatments, or 2) there will need to be exceptions to what can be considered by said panel. That's just one example demonstrating where my oppisition to this law lies (or at least most of it). It's no secret or surprise that I'm against socialized medicine - I don't believe it's a "civilized nation's" responsibility to take care of the citizens, I believe it's the nation's responsibility to get the hell out of the way and let the citizens take care of themselves. But this abortion of a law is so poorly considered and constructed that even I have to admit that a true socialized system would be a better solution than what was just passed. I actually brought up the Christian Science thing a long time ago seeing my Mother in Law is one.
finknottle Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 No it is not a for-profit enterprise. I work for a local government, just didn't want to say that because of how people feel about government. I assume you mean things like "they are divorced from financial responsibility, and so can readily implement all kinds of employment policies for the workforce which would drive a business bankrupt. It's only taxpayer money, after all."
Fan in San Diego Posted March 24, 2010 Author Posted March 24, 2010 Okay...is it unconstitutional?...yes, but does that matter anymore?...most likely not...our government has been sidestepping the constitution for a very long time...and lets quit with the comparisons with auto insurance... Number one, car insurance, like home owners insurance, is something that is connected with a choice...for example, I dont NEED to own a home, I can rent...I don't NEED to drive a car, I can use public transportation or walk...so therefore I don't NEED homeowner or car insurance...this is much different...and has a much larger dynamic... Estimated cost to the clients...you're looking at 6,000 dollars about in healthcare costs mandated...then you add on the other insurances and you're looking at about 10,000 dollars in insurances per year...considering most people make about 35,000 per year...and take home around 22,000 or so...you're looking at 12,000 dollars to pay for everything else...super job...and btw Taxes on income ARE unconstitutional as well...but we won't even get into THAT discussion... My point is simply this...after getting completely abused by the bankers...abused by globalist transnational companies and layoffs...abused by the government mandates...we are left with 415 bucks to pay for utilities and rent/mortgage per month...if you thought we were broke before????...you've got a REALLY broke future to look forward to... it is absolutely unconstitutional to tell us how to spend our money... Not driving a car is unrealistic for the vast majority of Americans. How many people do you know that dont own a car or dont drive period? Even if it is to have a license and rent a car when needed. I only know one person that fits that description and it is because he is a mongoloid. So I feel it is a good comparison.
Magox Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 So I feel it is a good comparison. Ya, well, it's not.
bills_fan Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 Not driving a car is unrealistic for the vast majority of Americans. How many people do you know that dont own a car or dont drive period? Even if it is to have a license and rent a car when needed. I only know one person that fits that description and it is because he is a mongoloid. So I feel it is a good comparison. I know many who do not have cars. In NYC having a car is a pain in the a$$. You can have a license without a car or car insurance.
Recommended Posts