I just can’t believe how ass backwards this country is when one side can base their entire argument against something on dislike for something completely different, and win over half the public. But considering the entire South still votes based on racism I guess it’s par for the course…
Lol, you have both issues down here… whites NOT voting… and more brotherly love in the less diverse areas… i drive 10 miles north and count more obama stickers in 10 minutes than i do if i drive south for 2 hours.
Oh absolutely. The Southern racism is on both sides. The minorities will only vote for one guy, and the whites vote for the other one. There are still more whites right now so the Republican wins.
didnt you drive through fort pierce that one night?!?!?! lol
As fast as the Taurus would let me :lol:
If issues like voting habits and districting interest you, click around on this website for a bit:
I could go on for hours about reapportionment, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Help America Vote Act of 2002 or any voter rights court case in the last 60 years.
Who wants to learn about modified at-large voting systems?
you are so wrong on so many levels it makes me sick to my stomach. No right to privacy? 3rd 4th and 5th amendent give us our right to privacy and thats just in the bill of rights. Also the first ammendment to a certain extent. Ron paul is against FEDERAL tort reform legislation, he believes it should be left to the states and not decided by the federal government. As a doctor he knows a lot about what tort reform would do andis probably likes some of the ideas regarding lawsuits and injured patients but not all of them.
Enough with the hyperbole. If you really are ill, maybe you should see a doctor…
Now, you must not have read what you quoted because I cannot make my point any more simply. No where in the Constitution nor in the 27 amendments do you find the explicit statement to a citizens “right to privacy”. It is an assumed or implied right. It is a constitutional issue that has been defined by the SCOTUS.
I don’t expect everyone I meet to have the level of familiarity I’ve have with these issues, but please try to educate yourself at least to the extent that you can understand what I write.
As for Ron Paul, your point on tort reform is invalid. Subordination to government authority is what we’re talking about here. The level of government is moot. On your assumptions as to what the man thinks, that speaks for itself. On his doctor credentials, the man has been in politics since the 1970’s and I doubt has practiced medicine concurrently with that career. If you find otherwise and show me something empirical that would suggest he has the slightest idea of what modern health providers deal with day-in and day-out, I’ll listen.
He finished his residency as he won his seat for his first term. Even if he didnt practice medicine concurrently with his congressional carer, would that really make a difference at all? How the hell would that matter. Of course it doesnt say “right to privacy” lmao it doesnt need to say that in order for it to be true. Each person has the right to be “secure in their persons houses papers and effects” pretty sure that means right to privacy. Not to mention all of the essays written by the federalists and antifederalists alike stating that government stay out of peoples affairs. The federal government is there to uphold contracts between individuals and regulate interstate commerce. Congress also only has 18 enumerated powers, let me know if any of them give them power to infringe on our right to privacy. I know for a fact that he was practicing medicine at least up until 1995. Not to mention many doctors who arent in politics have been interviewed by him personally and agree with him and virtually everything. He was a doctor when nixon switches over to the hmo system and made insurance a necessity for every little thing in healthcare and he saw what it did to the healthcare system in this country.
So…are we keeping it AWD?
Couple thoughts -
all patients are charged the same up front. To not do so is price fixing and is something the government can go after under antitrust laws. That being said, however, isn’t the same as what is a “negotiated settlement” between insurance and the providers. Typically, private insurance negotiates a higher rate than Medicare. Medicaid is a different animal entirely - facilities (e.g. hospitals) are paid near Medicare rates. Providers (e.g. docs) under Medicaid are paid about 15% of Medicare rates, which is why so few doctors take Medicaid.
Universal insurance is something most doctors agree with. However, this plan just voted on ISN’T that. It’s in essence a shell-game, getting more people “covered”, which isn’t the same as “cared for”. Note that insurance != healthcare - just ask those folks in Massachusetts how their near-universal insurance has helpled them find a primary care doc in less than 6 months.
This bill, also as written, is a CBO fantasy. Even a previous CBO director said so recently in the NY Times. (Link) The CBO is mandated to look at the legislation currently before them, and not make any additional assumptions. One of the assumptions that they were not able to make is the fact that under the Balanced Budget Act, Medicare reimbursements to doctors is due to be cut 21%. (It was due in March, but was extended to April 1 to coddle the AMA). The CBO didn’t calculate in the cost of that fix which would be another $240 Billion hole in the “savings” this plan has. It also didn’t factor in the additional State mandates for Medicaid (it’s typically 50:50 State/Federal funded) beyond 2019, where States with budget shortfalls would be able to opt-out of the program. That being said, it’s already known that California will have a persistent shortfall given their perverse tax laws created from their “Proposition 8” which functionally limits tax increases.
Reading closely into the bill - and this is a big issue - any citizen will be required to pay for healthcare insurance, with an opt-out under hardship rules. The problem is, the arbiter of that will be the IRS. It would take an audit to determine “hardship”, at which point, government assessments can get “invasive”. And yes, Congress, under the Constitution, has a right to regulate interstate commerce, which can arguably be applied to healthcare insurance. However, a person intending NOT to buy healthcare insurance is arguably NOT engaging in interstate commerce, and yet is regulated/penalized. That right there might raise a serious Constitutional issue.
IMHO, the Dems went at this 100% the wrong way. To finance Healthcare Reform, we need several things.
single-administrator (if not single-payor). That can be delegated to insurance companies such as what happens with Medicare Advantage. This will cut down on some of the overhead costs with directives on what is covered and what is not.
Financing Healthcare Reform (and Tax Reform at that) is best done via a Value-Added Tax - sort of like a glorified sales tax. Drop income taxes entirely, and use the VAT to pay for everything. People call VAT’s “regressive”, saying the rich pay less in proportion. Conversely, I say the rich buy more, so they pay more in taxes - and these taxes can be tailored so someone buying food pays almost nothing, while someone paying for a new Porsche is paying ~15% tax on it.
Tort reform and medical best-practice protocols need to be in place. We should also have a standing committee to determine liability and handle payouts, much like the one we have for vaccines. Take the legal system out of it - and let the patient keep more of the reimbursement (legal fees easily top 50-60% of any award won in malpractice cases).
Unfortunately, none of these came to pass. And you can kiss bipartisanship goodbye, as even the few options that Obama said were Republican “good ideas” were in essence nixed (only one made it in the final bill - adjusting payment to increase reimbursement to primary-care doctors).
And if you don’t know what I do for a living, you won’t understand my perspective on it.
The first two of these were killed by conservatives. Obama’s preference on the campaign trail was for single-payer, which would achieve both cost control and universal coverage. The right screamed socialism so loud that Lenin rolled in his grave.
I’m not going to debate the right to privacy with you. We both agree on its presence and use, you are just demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to understand my point.
As for Ron Paul’s street-cred, yes, it matters. You made it matter when you claimed it as evidence to support his opinion. It’s like a witness examination, once you point to his character, I can attack it. Anyone can talk to doctors. I’ve done it too.
Back to the point,
Section 8 clause 1
Section 8 clause 3
Section 8 clause 18
As for enumerated powers to government to infringe on a citizens right to privacy, that’s a huge question. Basically, think laws and enforcement.
Traumadog, thanks for your thoughts. I was waiting to see you weigh in on this.
That could be the most informative and well written thing I’ve ever read on here. Thank you for that.
Coincidentally, I read an article in the New England Journal of Medicine a month or two ago that basically said the same things about single payer and tort reform. Let me know if you ever run for public office. No, really…
^True, well written. That being said I still think people are not seeing the forest for the trees. This bill was a success on so many levels for the “powers that be” but I won’t go into details because I know none of you see it and won’t see it regardless of what I type. Be a good American citizen and keep arguing left and right kiddies.
I wonder how much money was made yesterday in the market.
I see traumadog holds the patent on logic and thought in this thread so I’ll just leave it with a +1 to him.
THE AGE OF AQUARIUS!
i skimmed through most of this thread… this post made me go back and read.
sectio 8 clause 1 has to do with taxing citizens and coining money. This is notan invation of privacy i dont know what you are getting at. Section 3, regulating interstate commerce. This was done in order to stop states from putting unreasonable tarrifs and taxes on goods that werent manufactured in their own state. Dont really know what you are getting at again. Clause 18 notice the words “powers vested by this constitution”, that means they have to follow the rule of law when making laws and can under no circumstance create laws that violate the bill of rights. I understand your point but its wrong. Our founders wrote very much about natural law, and natural law in a fuckin nutshell is, the right to be left alone, and do to oneself what he or she wishes.
When does this take affect? Im looking to hop on my fathers family health plan and save some loot since im under 26