Why do you have a problem with free Americans choosing to cause demand-pull? Do you hate personal freedom to choose? And why are you dead set on destroying all those great paying healthcare jobs that you want to label as "spiraling costs"? Why do you hate America's fastest growing economic engine? Do you like the currently high unemployment? If you don't then you'd get out of the way and allow free Americans to flow towards the areas there services are wanted the most.
Too Bad
- Thread starter PearlWatson
- Start date
Why do you have a problem with free Americans choosing to cause demand-pull? Do you hate personal freedom to choose? And why are you dead set on destroying all those great paying healthcare jobs that you want to label as "spiraling costs"? Why do you hate America's fastest growing economic engine? Do you like the currently high unemployment? If you don't then you'd get out of the way and allow free Americans to flow towards the areas there services are wanted the most.
Not one line of the Obama bill prevents any American from paying for all the health care procedures they can afford, regardless of whether it is covered by insurance.
Your support of the attempts to allow insurance companies to bepass state laws is curious. Every top health insurance company already offers policies in multiple states. The only reason to insist on cross-state policies is to allow them to bypass local regulations.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
If costs are what you are worrying about, government mandates on what insurance must cover, improved technology, having a middle man (insurance or government), an open border, an increasingly older population, a litigious society, and risky lifestyle choices all contribute to increased health care costs. Change any/some of those things and you can reduce costs.
I've found that most people want 21st century health care @ 19th century prices, though.
Honestly, I wouldn't know. The bill is too big for me to put under a microscope.
Yes, you caught me. I support some Federal regulations to the expense of local control of not local merchants. For example, I fully support a company in McCain's Arizona selling an insurance product in Obama's Illinois. I also fully support an Illinois local's free rights to purchase a product outside of local control without overly burdensome local control that not only limits, but denies this freedom. Isn't that what the whole interstate clause was all about? That's rhetorical. Everyone knows I own interpretation rights to the US Constitution.
Anyway, I know you miss my salvos, One Brow, so I'll continue asking why you hate free choices of Americans and prefer 2nd-best policy that seeks to limit those free choices?
Improved technology has consistently raised prices, not lower them. Hence you're 21st century @ 19th century prices conclusion. More technology will likely raise costs higher. It costs a lot to try and cure everything. Nothing government or the market does will change that anytime soon. Government never. The market has a shot, but I'd bet on another century or better.
Allow doctors to use "stone age" 1990's technology and you'll find clinics that are pretty damned cheap popping up left and right.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Clearly elucidated? Hardly.
LOPEZ: Judge Garwood made clear that if Congress had simply mentioned interstate commerce, there would have been no question as to the Act's constitutionality...But for the incredible sloppiness of Congress's bill drafting and Judge Garwood's willingness to take advantage of it, this exciting event would not have occurred.
MORRISON: The Violence Against Women Act similarly regulated conduct that was non-economic, had no express jurisdictional element (in that it applied to all gender-motivated violence against women), and had an attenuated connection with interstate commerce. Surely the most significant aspect of Morrison, distinguishing it from Lopez, was that this time Congress played the game of pretending to be concerned with interstate commerce. Congress held extensive hearings about the effects of gender-motivated violence against women on interstate commerce and found that such violence affects interstate commerce "by deterring potential victims from traveling interstate, from engaging in employment in interstate business.... diminishing national productivity, increasing medical and other costs, and decreasing the supply of and demand for interstate products." (88) These findings did not save the statute, however, because the asserted effects were too "attenuated." (89) Were such findings--of diminishing national productivity, for example--accepted as sufficient, Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed out, Congress could "regulate any crime" so long as the nationwide, aggregated impact of that crime has substantial effects on "employment, production, transit, or consumption." (90) Congress would even be able to regulate family law and other areas of traditional state regulation. (91)
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lope...federalism+in+the+Rehnquist+Court-a0179033117
Here's the reality: Liberals don't love the constitution as it was intended. They have sapped its foundations little by little so that anything that congress wants to do is acceptable by precedent (<---one judge got away with it in the past). "To reinterpret the constitution to mirror our devolving society corrupts the document and it ceases to be one."
Thomas Jefferson said:
On every question of construction, carry yourself back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past.
What was the founders' purpose for including the commerce clause? I'm sure it was never intended as a tool to force individuals to buy a specific product, but to overcome obstacles to free trade between states.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Yes I know. That is why I included it in the list of things that "all contribute to increased health care costs."
As I stated in my little rhetorical exercise, it is "those of you who do not believe in freedom" who I feel are missing the boat. Nothing personal. Most progressives personally think they believe in freedom, but for some reason also believe there is some need for the government to disallow specific freedoms as I've enumerated.
If there are challenges we face as a world, a nation, or as people in general, we need to clarify our reasons for thinking "the government" is the answer.
I have followed Lyndon LaRouche whom most democrats won't give room for on their primary ballots. In Utah I tried to get him on the democratic primary ballot about ten years ago, and was told by the state dem party chief that the Democratic Party is a private organization and they just won't allow him on the ticket. His supoorters are in majority blacks, and include some prominent civil rights names, and he consideres FDR the "true" example of leadership we should emulate.
After seeing that go down, I decided the democratic party is a sellout on human rights. I've been forced to just hope we can curtail the fascists in both major parties and get people more interested in taking care of themselves.
In regard to the FDA, I could say a whole lot more. But for now, just consider my point that the Federal government should not be in the business of establishing medical protocols any more than it should be in the business of prescribing the correct religion.
No offense babe, but LaRouche is no human rights advocate. I see him more of a cult leader than anything. You may have a grip on sanity but a solid chunk of his following does not. They are a following in every sense of the word. I'm curious why you chose to state you "have followed Lyndon LaRouche".
It's a good thing you were unsuccessful. The far right also tries to get Bircher types on the ballot and are rightfully turned away all-the-same. LaRouche is just the leftist version. No thank you.
It's a good thing you were unsuccessful. The far right also tries to get Bircher types on the ballot and are rightfully turned away all-the-same. LaRouche is just the leftist version. No thank you.
If the residents of Illinois want some feature of Arizona policies that are not available in Illinois, they can make that clear to their legislators. The reverse of your rhetoric would be saying that I'll keep asking why you hate self-determination and the rights of citizens to decide collectively how to run their society.
There was no single intention. Even among the founding fathers, interpretations of various passages differed.
Also, conservatives, Tea Partiers, etc. are no more enraptured of the "original intentions" than liberals. They just re-interpret different parts.
Medical protocols can be based on scientifically collected evidence. Religion can't. They are very different things.