This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Appeals Court Finds Obamacare Mandate For Individual Health Insurance Unconstitutional
Another constitutional slap in the face for the constitutional scholar. Just out from Reuters: the 11th Circuit Court of "Appeals court rules that Obama's healthcare law's individual mandate to own health insurance unconstitutional." It has thus found in favor of the 26 states that challeneged a requirement that Americans should purchase health insurance. What next: Obama takes Obamacare to the Supreme Court? And just when the summer seemed like it may finally get boring for a change...
From Reuters:
A U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.
The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.
The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.
»
- 6049 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
If Ron Paul does NOT get the nomination from the Republican Party (at least ~75% chance he will not right now), I hope he starts a new party (the Liberty Party or somethnig).
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Ron Paul has been the nominee from the Libertarian party for the past several presidential cycles. So long as the contest (funny how the media refers elections as "contests", not matches or battles, but "contests") remains within an American league/National league, NFL/AFL, framework, I fear that throwing off the yoke of tyranny under which we all labor is a lost cause. Paul handily beat all comers in the FOX online poll, yet don't be surprised when he becomes the Barry Goldwater of our age. An unelectable candidate (character assassination by the media will play a large and pivotal role) whose core ideas will seem eerily prescient some 50 years hence.
Mugabe-O; toss the f*cker out.
But but but ..... I am a constitutional law expert!
true and like every testifying expert, youre just a paid mouthpiece
I'd gladly cough up 2-3 silver maples to see Barry's constitutional law expertise under examination by Mark Levin.
Oooh, time to short insurers? Or is that illegal?
He will still go on vacation. Last night I thought to myself, I wonder if he feels overwhelmed by the frieght train coming at him? I look forward to those interviews years from now, when he might be humble like Nixon became. What a tool.
He will not feel overwhelmed until the teleprompter tells him he's overwhelmed.
exactly. his job is/was to deliver speeches, not to think.
+ a Whole bunch...
NumberNine,
I get a real kick out of it when they breakdown, and the real oratory (lack) of skills show.
Friggin Howdy Doody look alike.
Geez, what fun it would be if Sac could wire ZH directly to the Teleprompter in Chief and have O start reading his fan mail from the comments here, live on the MainScream Media. And someone here mentioned legacy? Please let it be that he resigns as a colossal failure and repeals all of his Executive Orders and any legislation passed thus far. Then of course, we'll have to deal with the next stuffed Sock Puppet in Chief, but hey, we get the best money can buy...
I wondered that, too. Somehow, I think not. Enroute to vacation time, he stopped by NYC yesterday for a $40,000/plate fundraiser. the cops I spoke two just laughed and speculated the funds raised wouldn’t be enough to pay for all the special protection details.
You have no idea. You should have seen how ridiculous it was. The NYPD should send him a Thank You card. I am guessing the amount of overtime to secure Bleecker Street and Greenwich Avenue was astronomical. It was pathetic. To see cops sleeping in a van sure made me feel safe.
The vacations and parties were promised him as part of his payment for being the Fall Guy.
I think you may be right about that.
The deal is take the flak and get the benefits. When people start asking him to cut his benefits, he probably thinks, "But that is the whole point! Why else would I take this stupid puppet job?"
His familes genetics/health history suggest to me he's not long for this world.
The man ,imo, won.t see 60 yrs. old.
prolly not...
‘Well, the big difference here ['10] and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’
Pretty much common since that this is unconstitutional though the judges some times lack common since. As many have said if this was to pass muster then what next, a 1 GM car per family mandate?
Thats the big thing..Give em an inch..No telling where it would go..
Sure there is. Read the dissent:
The majority "has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy," Marcus wrote.
Allow me to translate. "We have been given inch after for inch for 200 years so sure, hell, whatever."
"The majority has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' abuse of commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy," Marcus wrote.
Fixed it.
thank you your honor and while were on that subject, could you go over this list of twenty other items. Most of them involve the same corporate characters and their strawmen
If it isn't good enough for congress, it isn't good enough for your kids.
Yes, you are right and and who is responsible? The TP selfishly takes it's gold plated health care yet blocks any effort to provide it for your children... "Obama Care" is the result of TP obstruction... and if you support them you own the problem.
Are you caught in some kind of temporal loop?
The TP is a protest against the Dems dictatorial facism.
Yep. 10:1 bet this fellow ain't ready for that truth.
As an aside, too bad the neo-TP doesn't protest the Republocrats global facism..
Many do. I am all in favor of reducing ALL government expenditures back to their 1812 level. I'm in favor of cancelling obongocare, social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, dept of education, national endowments for arts, humanities, etc... Cancel the standing army and if they aren't actually protecting American interests abroad (i.e., declared war), bring them home. Close the bases in Europe, Asia (I will agree to maintaining Korea since technically still at war. But only on condition that Congress does its job and recognizes the war as such), Africa, S America. Institute a flat tax of 10-15% with NO DEDUCTIONS/LOOPHOLES, etc and with the exception of DIRE NATIONAL emergencies, no deficit spending, at all. If the government can't survive on 15% of GDP, it is too damn large by degrees. Maintain our national borders. And, finally abolish the unions. If any bloodsucking leeches remain, let's get rid of those as well. I read alot here about how the scum sucking rich bankster class STEALS from the rest of us, but I maintain, it is the lower and underclass of this country who are robbing you blind and over the years to a much greater aggregate degree than TARP/TALF/QEn ever have. If you don't want to work for someone else, take a risk and work for yourself. If you can't do that, seriously, FUCK OFF AND DIE. And I'm tired of hearing about the "disabled" and the "children" and the "elderly." What kind of disability do you have that you can't find gainful employment somewhere? Fuck, I can get fined into oblivion for NOT hiring your disabled ass.
You realize your truth is high treason in this empire of lies, do you not..? ;)
Nice rant, well said. And, well met.
If you cut all that, there is no need for a flat tax. Try no tax. Do free men send all their private financial information to a central state? NO! Eliminating the income tax also eliminates a supporter for fiat currency and effectively neuters the Fed.
I simply come down in favor of a flat tax (btw, the smaller, the better) because I do believe that there are certain functions for which only government can, or should, be responsible. Defense of both borders and interests, the court system, transportation (coastal, intra-costal, and highway) spring to mind. There may be others. I do fervently believe that 70-95% of what the governments (federal, state, local) are currently responsible for, are none of their business and further that they have shown a propensity for actually doing a piss poor job of it in general. So, no, not no tax, but limited and finite government. The smaller, the better. Let men be free by all means. Let men keep the vast majority of the product of their labors. This nation did not become great because of the largess of government. This nation become great because of the enormity of the dreams of its men and women. Men and women who built this nation up from the wild. It was only after the greatness had been created, did the government begin to grow and consume and take credit for the greatness that had sprouted until we reach the stage, now, that the greatness of the nation can no longer support the absolute and total leeching of the government. I've heard that the original income tax was a postcard. TPTB love to say that the maximum tax rate is 35%. CNN Money puts the figure at 40%. Try doing an actual budget and you will find that the combined federal, state, local, misc (all the other fees, licenses, sales tax, FICA, unemployment, small business, AMT, etc...) is closer to 70-80%. You want to know why the middle class is disappearing? It's not the job outsourcing. If that was the case, riddle me this, how is it that 40 years ago, a family of five could be supported by a single salary, whereas today, a family of four REQUIRES dual earners. It is because every year (administration) you are being allowed to keep a smaller and smaller piece of the income that you generate.
How did we ever manage 120 years (minus the Civil War) without an income tax?
Granted, no income tax. But there were still taxes. And they borrowed heavily to support the war. There will be taxes. I am simply coming down in favor of a flat tax as the smallest and most equitable method of collection. A flat tax with no deductions. No mortgage deductions. No 30 kid deductions. You make $1000 this year, you pay $100 into the kitty. I make $100,000, I pay $10,000. Bruce makes $1,000,000, he pays $100,000. GE makes $5,000,000,000, GE pays $500,000,000. The problem of the commons, everybody benefits, everybody pays, no free riders. The current system has way too many free riders. Timmah said that the treasury sends out 80 million checks per month. 80 million???? In a country of 350 million. Way too many free riders and notice that I include the corporate overlords.
Constitution provides for federal government funding. It's called excise taxes.
I agree with you on most points except there are a few not fully baked arguments in my head that I am working on. First, I agree with the flat tax. Just that alone would do mountains to solving our problems. I also agree that it needs to be small.
As far as the middle class being lost not because of jobs being outsourced. I disagree with that. So long as you have free trade everyone is in competition with the rest of the world (i.e. our labor force must compete with the dollar a day workers in China or the sub-minimum wage itinerant farmers that we allow in the country so that owners can lower their labor costs, not transfer the savings to the consumer and pad their bonuses. A trade agreement is nothing more than a transfer of wealth.
As far as this country being made great by the enormity of men's dreams I kind of doubt that. It could simply be that this country was made great by simply timing and opportunity. We had the Monroe Doctrine and manifest destiny to fuel the growth and it appeared that a capitalist system was the right system at the time to feed the greed (desire) to fullfill our objectives. To compare today with history is not really practical. We have populated this country East to West and bounced back to fill in the middle. The last century was ours. It could just be that this next century is theirs (China, India, etc.) as they try to move their country into modern economic times. To cut it short on this point it comes down simply to the law of large numbers. Eventually growth must slow once the country has been developed. Once fully developed the country doesn't grow three percent a year -- why should the economy? To get ahead in this environment becomes a zero sum game. That means one persons gains is anothers loss. This combined with nepotism (letting men keep the fruits of their labor -- which in principal I'm not against) means that fewer and fewer people end up owning everything and fewer and fewer people influence the course of the country. We become less and less a democratic republic. At a point the system gets strained and one of two things can happen. We can either become a banana republic where very few rich land owners (job creators?) own everything and provide the peasants with a living or adopt more socialist ideas. Either way there will eventually need to be a reset. Do you think Europe was born with socialistic ideals or did they evolve into this out of necessity (remember WWI and WWII)? Do you think the enormity of dreams was held more by Americans than by Europeans or was it more the enormity of opportunity in an undeveloped nation. Anyway, when it comes down to it and basically we have come down to it now we either allow a banana republic complete with cous d'etats, overthrows, dictatorships, etc.. or we will accept a less violent transition into more socialistic ideals to allow people to keep a greater share of wealth. I don't even know if socialist is the right word but basically there has to be an orderly maintenance of equal distribution of wealth or several periodic violent resets or re-distributions of wealth. It just will not work to allow fewer and fewer people to hold all the wealth. Remember Rome and the periodic Plebian revolts in Roman history?
As far as healthcare this is one industry I can't see how it practically fits into a capitalistic model. It's such a complex purchase the end buyer will never know as much as the providers to make an informed intelligent decision. There will never be a price list available to shop services. There will never be time in cases of emergency (i.e. heart attack, car accident, etc...). Under a capitalistic system there is no incentive to find real cures (i.e. 50 yrs. of chemo treatment and counting). There is only incentive to provide profitable solutions. In a capitalist model 60% of all R&D is done for marketing purposes, not for finding cures. Ultimately, we are responsible for our own health. I am a firm believer in that, however, in a capitalist system it is to the benefit of the servicers to not see us healthy (price x units sold = sales). For example, it is in their interest to promote the notion that there is nothing you can do for obesity. It is born in you and if healthcare providers can isolate the fat gene, they can eliminate your obesity with treatment. It is in healthcares' interest to never find a cure for AIDS but rather a treatment program to manage the symptoms that you will have to be on for life. I will say that if we eliminated the employer mandate and eliminated that mass of funds available to healthcare, people would probably shop services more and prices would come down but it would not fix all. Practically speaking though I don't see that happening any time soon. I wish it would though. But that said under a capitalist system we are currently spending 5% more as a percent of GDP than the next cloest nation, Great Britain (a socialized medical system). As it is we would have people believe that there is no one coming between us and our doctors but there is - our insurer and they come btn us in a big way. They tell us what treatments we can have, what pills to take, which doctors we can see. We are paying 5% more GDP and getting less effective results and everyone is paying for it (in every loaf of bread, pound of butter, car, television, etc.. that we buy). I really doubt that this mandatory insurance requirement was Obama's idea. I think it was more a Max Baucus idea (in the pockets of insurers) and Obama made the dumbas decision to adopt just so he could declare a victory. He should have walked away from something that so bastardized the original concept. It was a major strategic mistake and something I'm not at all for.
South Korea has had plenty of time to build up their own national defense, therefore there is no need to keep our troops there, bring them home and let the South Koreans defend their own country.
If you want to cut out social security that's fine but first pay everyone back the money they put into it or seperate it and only allow people to draw out what they put into it plus a reasonable interest.
You think your money went into some sort of lock box and then you expect to receive interest on top of it. Laughable. Once when I was 16 I gave a friend of a friend some money to buy a dime bag of weed. Never saw him again. Maybe I should get that money back with interest too. Social security is a ponzi scheme. It was always a ponzi scheme. It was developed as a ponzi scheme. Your money NEVER went into a bank account with your name on it. Your money was sent to your next door neighbor's grandmother who most likely paid into the entire system over the course of her working years a fraction of what she received in return in the course of a year. Your money doesn't exist. It is gone. Get over it. The sooner you and I and the rest of us wake up and realize that we've been lied to and stolen from and admit it, the sooner the ponzi can be shot, beheaded and a stake driven through its heart never to resurrect. Kill it and stop collect money for it.
Social security will die when America dies ...which isn't far off now.
And no, you won't get your money back.
I don't know if Americans either possess unnaturally low intelligence or are extremely lazy or some deadly combination thereof. Let's do some basic back of the envelope math shall we.
The current FICA rate is 6.2% for the first $107K of your wages. This percentage has risen over the years.
In addition, your employer is also obligated to match your "contribution."
The earliest you can collect as "retired" is currently 62. Again, this number has risen over the years.
Let's assume that you began collecting social security this year, 2011, at age 62, at the earliest possible age. Let's us further assume that you began working at age 20. You were born in 1949. You began full time employment in 1969.
Beginning in Jan 2011, the AVERAGE retired monthly benefit was $1177. Monthly. (This number has also risen over the years). That's a $14,124 annual benefit ON AVERAGE.
Let's recap a bit. Your contribution was 6.2% of your annual salary, your employer contributed another 6.2% for a total 12.4% annual contribution.
I'm ignoring actuarial anaylsis, and overgeneralizing a bit by looking at averages. But in order for you to take one dollar out of the system each month for every dollar you put in would mean that your average annual salary over your 41 years of work would have to be $113,903. ($113903*0.124/12=$1177.
In case you wish to argue that, "wait I worked for 41 years, I'm only 62 now, I'll never collect for another 41 years, I'll be 106!" OK. Let's assume you WILL collect for another 20 (half your working life). You'll be dead at 82. I find that pretty reasonable. So, cut the number in half. Your average salary then would have to be only $57K. Ok, but in 2010, "According to the US Census Bureau, the median household income is about $51,425, and median income per person is about $27,041."
I call bullshit. I call bullshit that the AVERAGE annual salary from 1969 to 2010 was $114K, in excess of the current SS max. Or $54K, more than the 2010 median household income of $51K and twice the 2010 median personal income of $27K. I call bullshit that the AVERAGE Social Security recipient is collecting $1200 per month and actually believes that they are only receiving back what they put in. I CALL BULLSHIT.
Can you define TP?
pods
You are truly an idiot. The TP as a party (and I use that loosely) was elected in the 2010 congressional elections, that would be in November. Obongocare was enacted in Dec 2009. I'm aghast that you could spell "www" to get on the web.
ooh, I want to join the political name calling circle-jerk party too.
I bet you like to say the made up words (by Satan) Dems (or more likily Dims) and sheepie too.
Woo-hoo, what did I win and do I ever want to sit in your shit again?
Where in my post do I refer to either political party by snarky derogatory terms? I specifically refer to the poster as an idiot for not being astute enough to actually educate himself to the FACT that the TP came after the fact. Given your smarmy reply devoid of facts or serious refutation of my post, I would have to conclude that you too are in fact an idiot. In fact, I conclude that you are the same idiot with multiple id's.
If one chooses to persist in this left/right nonsense it would tell me that they were given by mistake the 750 mg "Red pill". You were not given proper dosage which is 1000mg.
Report to your doctor immediately for further dosage
nothing super CONgress can't fix! all these judges should make it known, that they have no suicidal tendancies!
State's powers still have a pulse, can it fookin' be??
so? Health Care for the Poor is to, too expensive? but we have Trillions for Wall Street Corporate Welfare? we have money to give Corporate America to move 7 million manufacturing jobs to China? we have subsidies money for big oil? so the fact is that if you have a billion dollar lobby! then money will flow.. but help for the poor people? NOPE! Trillions for Wall Street the Job Creators who do NOTHING but lay people off? Hell Yes! Lots of Tax Money for them fuckers!
1. No one should be bailed out, and subsidies should be chopped by 75% across the board.
2. This issue has to do with it being unconstitutional to force people to buy a product from a for profit company under threat of fine or imprisonment.
Should you be fined or sent to jail for not buying GE products? The healthcare bill sets that precedent.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/02/politics/politico/main5130173.shtml
60% of ALL dollars coming out of Washington DC for the Healthcare / obamacare law will be spent with Private Corporations.. yes are correct.
$5 billion PLUS! PLUS!! PLUS!!! Lobby Dollars were spent pushing the Healthcare reform bill thru..
Poor People did not pass the hat and raise $5 Billion Plus! Dollars to Lobby the Lobby Whores within the Beltway.
Big Insurance Companies / Pharma and so on.. did raise $5 Billion PlUS!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html
http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/index.php?q=healthcare+&sa=Search&cx=010677907462955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID%3A11#1650
Given how much I HATE the Lobby.. I still think that something for the poor people is better than nothing and given the amount of monies wasted on wall street this far?
I think that it should not be mandatory for people to carry coverage.
BUT! Healthcare should be made available for ALL Workers! Part time or Full time!
the costs can be paid for, for the next 100 years with the TARP Monies for all I give a Fuck!
I am sick and fucking tiered of Washington DC taking from "We the People" and Giving ONLY to Wall Street!
So is the program flawed? Yes!
Is there anything else that has been put aside to help improve the quality of life for all Americans? Large and Small?? FUCK! NO!!
so fix the mandatory whatever and give the nation something back after ALL of the taking by Washington DC!
I think your heart is in the right place. If we hand out money, why not give it to the poor? Ultimately, we will progress the fastest and the vast majority will benefit the most if we have a free market with sound money and fairly enforced contractual law. Taking money/printing money and giving it away would not be part of that ideal system.
If all I get back from D.C. is a steaming pile of bullshit - no thanks. Just read one reason "O" wants to kill SS is his "healthcare"takes 348 billion from SS.
Healthcare should be made available for ALL Workers! Part time or Full time!
the costs can be paid for, for the next 100 years with the TARP Monies for all I give a Fuck!
OK. TARP was $700 billion. That's only BILLION, with a "B".
By 2008, spendng on Medicare and just Medicare alone was $599 billion. You better be willing to bail out a lot more banks for a lot longer time if you think TARP will pay ALL NATIONAL HEALTHCARE COSTS FOR 100 YEARS.
Here's a novel approach. Try taking some damn personal responsibility for your own damn self for a change. You obviously know many retired living in Florida, why the hell should I subsidize their lifestyle choices simply because they didn't plan for their future and expect me, via my proxy the goverment, to pick up the tab?
You know what? I don't give a shit about your medical problems. I don't give a shit about your spouse's problems. And don't kid yourself because you don't give a shit about mine either. Your problems aren't and shouldn't be my responsibility and vice-a-versa.
good questions unfortunately remember how the "health care" bill started to gain steam- the now chicago mayor takes drug and insurance (the very people who have screwed up healthcare) into his den and promises them (1) they will be paid off with mandates if they come on board and (2) He will protect their national and state monopolies. This piece of legislation (like every other) had little to do with the little guy and eveything to do with the big
thank you, DJ. TD, please bring back a ratings system.
For the love of all that you hold near and dear, just say no Tyler, just say no.
do you notice how it is only the 1 line Pro Republican Plants who want a ratings system? I did..
one line of drivel, personal attacks and because they are paid plants.. they dont have time to really enter into a conversation.
I hope you're not including me in that statement.
JW doesn't care HOW many bystanders get taken out with his eyes closed, double-barrel buckshot blaamos! We are ALL expendable.. ;)
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things that have neither been said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse ...you are, after all, anonymous.
Yes, Davey. The Dems cared more about being able to say the passed healthcare "reform" than actually reforming the problems. Did anything in that monstrosity of a bill address tort reform or rising costs? Of course not. Similar to the way that Dodd-Frank does absolutely nothing to address reducing systemic derivative risk.
Texas passed tort reform.
We now have an abundance doctors.
What the ObamaCare liars fail to mention is that health care insurance does not necessarily lead to health care.
Every state passed tort reform... and many have had reform measures on the books for 25+ years... granted, there have been some additional pushes when the insurance companies lost their asses in the dot com bust (e.g. punitive damages caps), but in general, tort reform is something of a bygone era. Further, the standard for finding malpractice is ridiculously biased in favor of practitioners... needless to say, rarely do the cases go to trial given it's either a gut lock on liability (and the insurance company ponies up the cash) or liability is questionable and the thing langishes until the statute of limtitations has run or the plaintiff takes a hail mary at a de minimis settlement (less than the cost of trial).
PS, in general, malpractice cases have more to do with a doctor's bad bedside manner than anything... when you have to see people every 6-8 minutes, you tend to leave some questions unanswered and miss a thing or two... the trade off is obvious and doctors can't eat their cake and have it too.
Thank God the Corporations DO NOT!! have to pay "We the People" Large sums of Money!!
The Profits shall stablize hence forth! and Bonuses will NOT have to suffer!
of course dividens to common stock share holders will not improve, ever.
These corporation, WHERE do they get their FRNs? Check your premises.
Huh? I know an ambulance chaser. He seems very confident in his ability to acquire settlements from insurance companies. Makes a very good living doing it.
A med mal plaintiff is a very limited sub set of ambulance chaser, given the latter can literally classify about any tort plaintiff... aside from the fact that tort "reform" does not involve dispensing with all tort liability...
Hey, with a name like yours, I'm driven to believe you. That is very interesting info, thanks.
I'm a doc. Some of what you say is true but MedMal standards should be the same in every state. Thank god this will be determined to be unconsititional.
So, do you think that patient compliance has anything to do with "outcome-based medicine?"
"What the ObamaCare liars fail to mention is that health care insurance does not necessarily lead to health care."
Probably one of the truest statements on ZH.
So-called "health insurance" is THE cause of EVERY problem in the "health care" system.
Even the term "health care" is ridiculous. The system isn't about health. It's about MONEY.
Yeah, how come the Auto Insurance companies refuse to pay for my oil changes? And homeowner's insurance refuses to pay for redecorating too! There oughta be a Law!
that's exactly it. Even though they both serve the same masters, it is more puppet master where each figurine actually thinks the competition matters. Above all else, their team must win. Even worse, they will let the other side blow things up, rape rob and steal as long as they think it gains them votes. Like the last line in War Games, the only winning strategy is not to play. These parties must be destroyed
i agree that all people should have access to health care. but not the corporate monster that we have created in the U.S. with its pathetic drug based focus. our system is literally designed to make people unhealty and suck wealth out. hardly something I would want to inflict on anyone, including the poor. so to be clear I am not just spouting dogma, I stopped going to MD's years ago, take no pharma meds, and would use the main stream system only if i had traumatic injury. for everything else, there are better ways if you do your homework.
Good Stuff. Have you seen the film Food Matters?
Define access.
Do you feel the same about:
food,
water,
shelter,
education,
higher education,
clothing,
electricity,
vacations,
pensions,
and transportation?
Yes to all of the above, and to health care as well, although if you're not paying you pretty much have to accept what you get.
Of course, I also have silly ideas like if you want government housing, you can have it, but that comes with curfews, a social worker who monitors your case, scrutiny of expenditures and employment (including immigration status), mandatory community service, etc. If you can't sustain yourself you don't deserve to be left to die, but you also don't deserve to be treated the same as those who are not depending upon the government to keep body and soul together.
What society in all of human history best represents your ideals?
The only one I can come up with is childhood, when we also have very little liberty. Coincidence?
The economic reality is that liberty is given in proportion to your ability to afford it. The "freedom" to live as you like is worthless if you're starving to death.
There is a moral obligation for societies to help those who cannot make it on their own. At the same time, I think there's a practical obligation for societies to maximize the productivity of their members, and making handouts available without strings attached is a recipe for the creation of a permanent underclass. If the people my tax money is keeping in newer shoes and better cell phones than mine don't want to have their finances scrutinized, and don't want to be required to do community service work if they are otherwise idle, then they should feel free to pay their own damn rent.
I think I might be ok with your definition of access.
Slainte!
There is likely an optimal amount of social risk mitigation. Nobody can control if they are born disabled or lose an arm in a freak accident. If there is no safety net there would be less economic activity because everyone would be scared shitless of taking any risk beyond what is required to feed themselves that day.
This was the original idea behind S.S. People would lose an arm in a mill and have no way of putting food on the table. The retirement thing was just a way to give workers an "atta boy" for staying alive past 55, which was rare.
I do agree that the social safety net has become a hammock but it doesn't mean the original intention isn't worth its cost. There is so much redundancy and waste that a fine disability check could be given to anyone that deserved it and it could easily buy an adequate place to live, food to eat and money for health care at a fraction of the current cost.
>This was the original idea behind S.S. People would lose an arm in a mill and have no way of putting food on the table.
Have you ever heard of private insurance?
Maybe you were born at night, but you weren't born last night, were you?
My God, man, you're advocating personal responsibility! How can you be so "unfair" and "socially unjust?" I'm dropping a dime (more like 50 cents, these days!) on you to the Thought Police... :>D
The economic reality is that liberty is given in proportion to your ability to afford it. The "freedom" to live as you like is worthless if you're starving to death.
What utter bullshit.
Liberty isn't "given" by government. Liberty stems from rights. Those rights pre-exist government.
There's no "degree" of rights. They exist or they don't. It's black or white, not shades of grey, on or off, not partly on.
Yes people have the right to live in poverty, starve to death, even take their own life. It's NOT government's job to prevent any of those three.
Is it, "Here, Here!" or "Hear, Hear!"
If you really are an old geezer, tell me, when did people in this country stop understanding these basic truths? Even here at ZH, I am daily amazed at the number of posters who think that if "ONLY SOMEONE SOMEWHERE" would do SOMETHING, all would be right with the world. I'm not that old but all this Take a Village bullshit really irritates the hell out of me. Whatever happened to personal responsibility. And freedom. And rights. How can someone seriously begin a conversation with, "I believe in freedom of speech, but ...."?
I fear for the future of this nation geezer, truly I do ...
There is a moral obligation?
Excuse me? When the hell did I become morally obligated to care for anyone I do not personally choose to take care of? When did it become my moral obligation to pay 50% of my income to the .gov in order to buy coach bags for baby's mommas and 99 weeks of unemployment to fat fools while having to take a loan to pay for my kid's college education?
Sorry Skippy, I owe you nothing and demand nothing from you. Want to trade with me, great, offer me value and I will trade for value. Send your goons from the .gov to confiscate the fruits of my labor to take care of your poor neighbor and I'll call bullshit on the whole thing.
In other wordz: "Our work, or your (Big Brother's) guns: Choose one, you cannot have both!"
I am curious about what value or metric you use to legitimate moral obligations.
Cuz the Bible tells me so? Funny how most Progressive/Socialists have no use for biblical teachings...wonder where they get their "moral outrage" from...
F'n brilliant! Look how happy they are!
Why is your philosophy so foreign to us? It makes perfect sense.
This is what's wrong with entitlement: the burueucrat dutifuly hands out his government aid no matter how stoned on heroin is the recipient. In old days, such persons would just rot and die so much sooner.
I wish only the best for all humanity and especially my fellow citizens. But those that don't work should not eat, plain and simple.
Take your average US aid recipient, 300+ lbs, can barely stand from a seated position in front of TV. You set up rules in which they starve to death if they don't start getting in shape, like right now.
Starving to death is painful. Their asses are up and moving in no time. Make it so these tattoed gang bangers that they must get with the program and learn honest work in prison, learn to talk, burn off the tattoes, or they will just have to starve to death.
I'd agree with your argument that those fit and able need to be working. So, where are the 15M new jobs coming from?
Last I heard the average length of unemployment had gone up over 40 weeks.
You can't blame the poor and the powerless for not creating the new jobs which are needed. I know a lot of people who would love to work in a full time job right now even if it paid a miserable $10/hr.
Take some damn responsibility for your own damn self grow some damn initiative and START YOUR OWN BUSINESS, CREATE YOUR OWN JOB. How fucking simple can it be that only the fucking simple can't get it.
Why are you sitting around waiting for someone to create a job for you? Do you also sit around and wait for someone to feed you, take a shit for you, wash your feet for you?
"You can't blame the poor and the powerless for not creating the new jobs which are needed."
But there is one entity you can blame. The only one that stands in the way of for profit jobs.
If no one can afford solar panels without taxpayer subsidation, how does one entity, deciding to take from the taxpaying productive, to give to the non-taxpaying unproductive, wind up being blameless in the whole affair?
Magic? Hopium? Pixie dust? Unicorn poo? What? What is it? I need to know!
At the turn of the 20th Century over 40% of the population owned their own businesses, very few people worked for corporations. You've just provided a conclusive indictment for WHY Govt-led Public Education is completely useless!
I'm right there with you john. Back in 2000 I went in for a checkup and the doc found that my cholesterol was elevated. Put me on a statin called Baycol. Being uniformed at the time I did not know that statins have some nasty side effects like DEATH until a few months later I get a call from the doc saying I he had to change my script to a different statin. I asked why and he said because Baycol was being recalled because it was KILLING people. Boy that opened my eyes. Ever since then I have done my own research and found that in general, modern medical practice is all about treating the symptom with drugs and not finding the cause.
Correct. And higher levels of cholesterol are merely a marker of bad health, not a cause. Cholesterol is used when your body is in a state of repair. So you can take a statin (natural or pharma), or you can heal your body and lower your cholesterol.
The muscle weakness side effect of statins is usually your own body breaking down your muscles because it is starved of cholesterol.
pods
Another one that really gets me going is the so called acid reflux "disease ". I put disease in scare quotes because it's not a disease it's a symptom. There is a reason the stomach is pumping out too much acid and just shutting off the pumps is not fixing the problem.
RobD,@13:59
It's not from excess acid, it's from a damaged Gastro-Esophageal flap valve.(GERD)
It fails to close, and allows normal acid to back up into the esophagus,causing reflux.
Yes the valve is damaged but what caused the damage? GERD is the result/symptom not the cause. The cause is diet, we eat food that our ancestors did not and that causes most of the modern "diseases" such as high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, heart disease etc. Eat like a cave man(well palieo man anyway) and those diseases disappear.
It is amazing how much your health will improve if you stick to complicated sugars and balance the macro nutrients. All the low fat high sugar "diet" foods are counter productive and bad for you. And people wonder why they can't lose fat.
Go to a GOOD physical therapist, chiropractor or osteopath, get some mid back manipulation work done, it is sometimes enough to sort out the smooth muscle reflexes which control that closure flap. PS they need to be a practitioner who does this manipulation work all the time. Practice makes perfect you see.
and stay the fuck away from aspartame... that shit will kill you..and I mean that. It just does it a lot slower. Stop drinking soda, now. I lost 20 pounds after axing soda and drinking water a majority of the time. Aww hell, I could go on, suffice it to say that I don't do "low-fat", "low-sugar (aspartame)" garbage. I've never been healthier.
Yep that's some bad stuff along with the other artificial sweeteners such as sugar and corn syrup. Though sucrose(sugar) is available in some plants such as cane and sugar beets neither are plants eaten as food by humans and must be highly refined to produce the end product. High Fructose Corn syrup is even nastier and should be classified as poison IMHO.
so true plus isn't it genetically modified. This guy (Author: Seeds of Deception) has some interesting comments on it and other matters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94d-KVorSHM&playnext=1&list=PL6BC2C253B6822894
this is old news to the tin foil hat crowd but google "rumsfeld" "aspartame".
Nevermind, did a google search.
Anyone taking a statin please Google CoQ10. It's found in many cells of the body but especially the muscle cells, like the heart, and statins tend to strip it. Levels tend to diminish with age. Replacement will make you feel a lot better. Good doctors will tell you this when they prescribe it but most docs don't get much nutrition education.
Spot on john, spot on!
pods
Sold to the Nation as if for the poor, "health care reform" was all about Democrats packing as much lard into a bill as they could and then being able to self-congratulate each other, "brother, we finally did something, we proved ourselves, YAY us."
Even if as Pelosi acknowledged to one knows what is actually in the bill.
Ya think the Supreme Court would be kind to that POS bill?
How many people even noticed that included in ObamaCare was the federal takeover of student loans?
Makes sense to me. I'm upset that the provision that we all get a free ice cream sandwich on Friday wasn't included.
No, I think they will strike it down. And as someone who is in favor of a proper healthcare solution (rather than leading sheep to private insurers for their federally mandated shearing), I will cheer when it happens.
Come off it, JW.
In a free nation nobody should be forced at gunpoint to give a free living to any able bodied adult. (Or any business.) I would argue that it is society's role to take care of the truly disabled. Poor is not a disability.
Poor is a state of mind. Even Christ himself said, "The poor ye shall always have with ye..." If even Christ couldn't fix "poor", what chance does a Govt have?
Before anyone gets the wrong idea, go -- alleviate some suffering: http://www.worldvision.org
Is this the law suit that throws the hole thing out our just the mandate? Because if it is just the mandate that gets thrown out then it is even more of a budget buster. Edit: not that we have a budget.
If one part gets thrown out, the whole thing is thrown out.
I would hope so too, yet severance clauses abound, and even where there isn't one, any court can sever the offending clause and keep the remaining legislation intact. It's almost a red herring in a sense.
In their haste, the writers of the bill forgot that.
It is all or nothing.
soooo unconstitutional
Keep in mind the implications for individual, mandatory requirements pertaining to taxation, law enforcement, immigration etc. in prepping your high school debate logic. What can the national government compel...it doesn't really depend on what we like or don't like politically.
PS: a Supreme Court test was always inevitable. But yes, it won't be boring.
All this points out to me is that the Supreme Court has a lot of backpedaling to do:
"The Dirty Dozen, How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom", ISBN: 978-1-935308-27-0
I seem to remember Obama saying he doesn't care what the courts say about this, it's going to happen regardless. And it will, although some political favorites will continue to be exempted.
How is it that 9 people are deemed to be more intelligent than 300 Million? Is it the robes?
What is this "Constitution" you speak of?
It's that thing where they say we can have a Super Congress.
this could all be pre-planned. if you have no job, you can't afford the insurance, you get sick and die. population control! take away food stamps, more get sick and die. globalists think of everything!
it's win-win!
" take away food stamps"
The lobbyists from Frito Lay and Hostess would never allow this to happen.
Good luck America.
This was a try to circumvent a tax (which the rest of world has).
Now let your people suffer.....they obviously deserve it...(according to you)
How is the grand European experiment with socialism fairing? Last I checked Europe was on the precipice of collapse. Apparently providing everything to people who can't carry their own water brings down the whole society.
Kill yourself
U R so ignorant. U don't even know what U R talking about. Socialism? exactly WHERE in europe is that? UK? Germany? France? Sweden? Finland? Italy? denmark? Polan?....where is it?
U dont know what u r talking about......
Europe has got some very strong social democracies. And they remain very strong. Greece should just default now, they've done it before, the Greek people will just get on with it. They have great community and family links and life will carry on fine. You see, that's what real socialist attitudes - where community interconnectedness and civil society is highly valued - lets you do.
Heh.
Enjoy your health. When if fails, enjoy your wait times.
Did you know doctors under the NHS make more money if their elderly patients die sooner?
BULLSHIT. NHS doctors are paid a salary. That's it.
On the other hand it is certain that US health insurers gain an earnings pop by delaying expensive procedures until their clients die off. In fact, denying expensive treatment is a fundamental part of the successful insurance business model.
Enjoy your health. When if fails, enjoy your wait times.
If you put your health in the hands of doctors, they'll destroy it.
Doctors know nothing about health. ZERO.
They're highly educated DRUG PUSHERS.
In their view every illness is a nail and drugs are the hammer.
Get thee to an Osteopath, stat!
Obama needs to stay focused on his future...lol
From the opinion:
Hard to argue with that.
Most surely, Pelosi will try, though!
There were only about 10 major corporations and some right-wing talkshow hosts that had yet to kiss Obama's ring finger, bribe/contribute to his re-election campaign in order to get exemptions from the healthcare plan. Good riddance.
This ruling appears favorable to Obamacare. If it stands, the individual mandate is severed but the rest of the law remains in force. That means people will wait until they get sick to get insurance, since the no-prior-conditions part is still law. That it turn means socializing the costs because the government is subsidizing the exchanges. In fact at equilibrium it seems like no one will carry health insurance until they have a catastrophic event. While this is a potentially economically inefficient outcome (cheaper to prevent disease than treat after-the-fact), it could also be equivalent to a very high deductible catastrophic insurance plan with socialized costs which could be economically efficient (because a pricing mechanism will be in play for non-catastrophic medical events).
The Obamacare bill was written and passed without a severability clause. Therefore, if one part of the bill is found to be unconstitutional, the whole thing is unconstitutional.
I would gladly contribute to a health care fund for mandatory spaying of members of Congress so they won't reproduce.
"And folks, remember to have your congress critters spayed or neutered."
pods
i will sign up for Obamacare just after Congress and the public unions sign up, until then go Fuck yourself Obama
Maybe now! THE speech. "I will not run for re-election to the office of........."
off topic...talking heads just mocked the austrian school on cnbs...fools