I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange
Comments
-
So, if the Healthcare Bill had replaced "individual mandate to purchase insurance" with the one word "tax", then there would be no case to take to the federal courts, I guess. Even though the individual mandate would "function like a tax"......
Curious about something else: Back in the 17 and 1800's, when did individuals landing on North American shores south of the 49th actually become American citizens? Immediately? Was there a waiting period? After all, they all got there the same way! And some of them decided not to stay after all. I kind of think the fact that many of the seamen were born in other countries is immaterial.
-
My father immigrated to the US from Sicily in the 1800's and from what I know they had a certain requirement to have a few dollars on them and maybe a sponsor here. He became an American citizen immediately but never got healthcare. I think that is why I was born at home. Later on after the gov brought in Welfare, people like him and their families were able to get some medical coverage and were given a card to show hospitals. I think it was an earlier form of Medicaid. But even back then, our country made sure any one who needed medical care got it whether they could afford it or not. Things seem to have gotten a lot worse these days since states can't seem to afford to keep up with the financial burden of Medicaid patients. I do hope they work this out soon!
-
The problem with calling the "mandate to purchase insurance" in the health care law a tax is that many of those Democrats who voted for it promised not to impose any new taxes. They don't want to explain how they imposed thousands of dollars in new taxes on so many Americans when they come up for re-election again in 2012. The POTUS also specifically promised the American public that there would be no new taxes as a result of the health care law. He sure doesn't want to have to explain away those new taxes. Unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
-
First, I am so glad someone brought up Tort Reform! This would cure a lot of ills on the financial end of the medical problems.
Second: I don't think this country has Ever made sure any who need medical care, got it, Medigal. I can remember the old joke of "saving my money for my mothers operation". If you didn't have money, you often paid by barter (I know a lawyer who still has to do that sometimes) and docs were paid with chickens and jam. The gov't was not in the medical care business, but docs and hospitals DID provide free care, and couldn't even write it off taxes as a "donation" of any sort. Now, of course, no one offers "free" care, and if you are not part of a system which can negoiate lower costs of care from the doc/group or hospital, you pay the going rate --- and it's hundreds of dollars higher than the groups get to pay.
Of couse in my grandmother's time, one didn't seek a doctor's visit, let alone an emergency room. You treated it at home or 'walked it off". A family home diagnosed measels, whooping cough, chicken pox, most all childhood diseases short of strep throat. I was shocked the first time I saw a chicken pox kid in the ER. Truly not that sick. (yes, I know Some can get very sick)
But with the comming of insurance, people take less responsibility for their own care and the care of their kids, then they sue the pants off anyone they can think of to list on a suit. (please, no flames about the true malpractice cases, I know about those, too, but is a broken toe worth (example only) 23 million dollars? Nah)
I certainly have no ans., sure wish I did. Short of Medicare for all, I am unsure how to treat all that want treatment and to offer care equally
Edit: Forgot about Public Health, which grew out of Marine. However, I don't see that they took care of all of us, since the states did most of that. Medicaid was the first national program for health care. Medicare didn't get going till the late 60's.
-
Is this the line that distinguishes between what Pres. Adams did for/to the soldiers vs. the current healthcare bill? "The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service"
My understanding is that the ruling yesterday struck down the healthcare law on the basis of the fact that the Feds are regulating interstate commerce (which they are not allowed to do). If the health insurance mandate required that Americans buy into insurance that's part of a Federal government operated healthcare program, rather than the current requirement that Americans buy insurance from private companies that operate within the States, I believe that legal issues would dissolve.
Just my thoughts....
-
Beesie ... down here what matters is whether the judge hearing the case was appointed by a republican or democrat. There have also been a couple of cases where the case was thrown out by the high court. I imagine it will go back and forth for awhile.
Bren
-
Bren, I know! It is something that I find totally strange. A legal interpretation of the Constitution shouldn't depend on whether the judge was appointed by a Democrat or a Republican.
I know that there have been rulings on both sides but my understanding is that with this ruling, this thing is going to the Supreme Court no matter what. And then it's likely to be a 5-4 ruling, but at this point nobody can guess which side will have the 5 and which side will have the 4. What I heard today on t.v. is that it probably won't make it to the court until 2012 - right in time for the heat of the election campaign.
I was simply adding a different perspective to the discussion on whether the example that notself brought up can be applied to the current situation. I don't think that example can be used as a precedent because it's different to force someone to pay the government for a government service vs. forcing someone to buy a product from a third party. Plus there's the State vs. Feds issue. The Mass. healthcare law that Romney put into place when he was governor has a similar mandate provision to the Obama healthcare law but according to Romney, the Mass law is constitutional (while the Obama law is not) because States have different rights with regard to commerce than the Feds. And in fact I believe that the actual point of law on which the healthcare bill has been struck down relates to interstate commerce.
It sure will be interesting to see how this one evolves.....
-
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. I don't know the basis on which the ACA was determined unconstitutional.
E
-
I heard on the news tonight that this Healthcare Bill problem is going to be decided by the Supreme Court and it seems it's 2 for and 2 against so the outcome will be interesting. If it is against the Bill, I think the Repubs will have a big price to pay with voters for messing around with it. Why can't politicians just use good common sense when putting these Bills together?? It's like they all act braindead and don't worry about consequences to the voters or themselves.
-
-------------------------AMEN----------------------------------
I'm with you Medigal!!!!! They toss out 4-5 jewels and say, see: it's a great bill--all 6 pounds of it! Yes, some good things are in the bill, and some are astoundingly wrong and costly, no doubt written by the insurance companies and other big lobbyists. I wish, oh, don't we all WISH, that the Lobby was not ---just NOT. Yes, let individuals go up to make a visit to the reps and talk, but not whole armys of people telling the reps that that don't have to get off their duffs and READ the bills.
I'm still gietting over the fact that the Senate hasn't had more than a 4 day week for years. They all DO read the party line and burp it back up on any and all media interviews---and don't have a clear idea of their own, just burp whatever the party is spouting that week. And I DO mean both parties. I figure if I actually listen, all I have to do is reverse what they say and maybe somewhere in the middle I will find something that appears to be truth.
TERM LIMITS! That's what Egypt is going for! Why can we not figure out that it's our protection against these "statesmen" who are writing out laws and putting people in places they should Not be, like the Supreme Court. We have term limits to the presidency, govs, mayors. Why not the dang congress?
-
BarbaraA - can you explain why, once again, Florida has such a huge part in deciding our future? Been there - done that!
-
Alpal: IMO, it's because all the OLD people go there to retire and they are usually the ones with enough time on their hands to send thousands of letters, emails, and phone calls to their congressmen! The young are too busy trying to pay their bills, raise their kids, and figure out why hubby keeps bringing so many bananas to the sexy new neighbor to be concerned with Washington!
BTW, I made "sure" I stopped buying bananas tons of years ago and am in the first group now but not in Florida. Some of us elderly retirees in other states are serious about our government problems too!
-
Exactly, E. The problem isn't with regulating. The question is whether Congress can compel a person to participate in a market.
It's fun to make legal arguments. Personally, I have had my fill of the politics of this. I am sick of having to dodge the pundits so as to get to the facts. Better to speculate from my armchair....
There is no clear legal precedent one way or the other. On that, everyone who knows what they are talking about agrees. Thus, there is no direct answer to the question that will likely go before the high court.
Supporters of the law's repeal argue that a mandate interferes with the free-trade underlying premise of the commerce clause, if you will (or, to use Bork's opinion about privacy, a mandate interferes with what lies in the "penumbra" of the Constitution).
I can envision some strong libertarian arguments to use in defense of that position. I always find that libertarian arguments do best when there is no clear precedent on something. This is a Rand Paul moment, or a Jeffersonian one, IMO, and there are compelling arguments to be made regarding individual rights.
Opponents of repeal say that, since we all need health care, the purchase of a means to it cannot be considered in the same way a normal purchase is, such as that of a car.
The issue of whether we need the mandate in order for the law to work is a politico-economic one - not a legal one, IMO, and I hope repeal opponents do not dwell on that because I don't think the court will be moved, and nor should it be. The way to save the law is by showing that it succeeds on its own logic.
Don't tell me that a house works because the front stoop is balanced by the garden ramp. What if I don't like the stoop or the ramp? Prove to me that either is necessary. Or, tell me that a house works because it has a solid foundation. That is a legal argument I can buy.
The biggest weakness in the argument made by repeal supporters, IMO, is that it claims that congress has mandated something that wouldn't otherwise exist; that a person is being forced to enter into a commercial transaction that he would not otherwise be a part of. And that is simply not true.
Someone always has to purchase healthcare in this country under our current system. If you don't have insurance and are indigent, you may not be made to pay for emergency services, but someone else will. In most cases, that is the hospital.Someone always pays. The problem is that this someone is not necessarily the person who incurred the service. A service is purchased regardless, so a mandate that, you, the ill person, secure your form of payment, is not really creating a new mandate for commerce, IMO.
Libertarians can certainly make a strong argument on individual choice to buy, so repeal opponents, IMO, need to counter that the individual's liberties are already compromised under our current system because a person is already forced to be part of the purchase, gaining or losing by indirect means, whether in the form of higher health care costs, higher insurance premiums or bigger fiscal woes that could turn into taxes. If anything, buying your own insurance is more empowering because it properly directs the liabilities by ensuring that each person pays for his or her own way with government assistance, if need be.
Forced payment --forced participation in a market-- is also already happening because everybody is going to die someday. Even if you live your entire life without seeing a doctor, someone paid for your birth. In order to NOT be in the healthcare market in the United States of America, you would have to live in the wild or seek solace only from soothsayers. You would have to live a life away from commerce. That cannot be the standard by which we judge need and participation, repeal opponents should argue. We cannot say "well, what if someone goes and lives with the bears and the bison" because that is not a reasonable argument, and yet it is the ONLY way I can think of whereby you would not be touched by the health insurance market.
People have spent a lot of time arguing over the specifics of whether something is a tax, a mandate, etc.... That argument is crucial in the political sphere, but, IMO, not so much in the legal one. Taxes are mandates. I have no problem - legal or moral-- arguing that this is a tax. What Obama or the GOP think/do/say or whether anyone is contradicting themselves properly belongs outside the court (I know, I know, the court is politicized). Taxes are things we pay for without there being any guarantee that we will need or use them, just as a 22-year old might end up buying insurance under the mandate when the likelihood is fairly high that she will not use it, at least initially. I have paid taxes for all sorts of things I never use and there has never been any legal complaint against that.
Let the pundits and politicians call the mandate what they like for their purposes. The fact stands that congress is not forcing anyone to enter into anything that s/he is not already entered into in one form or another.
But you can say that of many things, you may say. Yes, and that's the beauty of the argument. It "mainstreams" the idea of collective participation overriding individual choice (for better and for worse) and says that this phenomenon has existed in our country for a long time, and that a mandate to buy insurance is nothing more than a way to better organize existing collective participation in something - health - that not one of us can avoid.
I just hope the DOJ doesn't mess up its argument when it goes before the Supreme Court. I am no friend of this court but I do respect Roberts. He loves intellectual challenges and modes of arguing. I wonder how the eight will rule (I don't count Thomas - he doesn't rule - he just follows). I have no idea what the feds will argue but if they begin to say "please, court, let our law stand, we worked really hard on it and we need the mandate to save money" I don't think they will get --or deserve-- any votes no matter how I might agree with them as a matter of policy. We need this done with a cool head, no intrusive emotional or policy considerations and an argument that takes into account and does not disparage libertarian ideals, because libertarian ideals, too, are in the penumbra of the constitution.
The compelling humanitarian argument in favor of universal healthcare doesn't apply in this case because it is not legally at issue, even if politically it is.
-
Here is the link to the actual Act for the Relief of Sick & Disabled Seamen
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29099806/Act-for-the-Relief-of-Sick-DisabledSeamen-July-1798
As one can see by reading the bill, it covered merchant seamen and ships masters from all American ports. This means the legislation requiring insurance and support of medical facilities crossed State lines. The more I look into this it seems that requiring insurance to prevent individuals from being a burden to their fellow citizens was constitutional. This bill also indicates that the health care was managed by the federal government.
-
In view of all the Sputnik/Spudnuk commentary, I think this quote is quite apt:
In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy.
Fran Lebowitz -
Notself
Fascinating what an exploration of our history as a nation brings to light. It makes me proud to think that our Founders realized the importance of taking care of those who needed help. And they used government funds to do it. This arguments in this case will be interesting. It may all come down to the politics of the Supreme Court justices and that would be a shame.
-
Excellent quote, covertanjou! And sadly true.
-
1Athena: You must be a young person and not around in the earlier years. Your statement "someone paid for your birth" wasn't the way it was when I was born. No one paid for my birth unless you count probably a pot of food that might have been given to the "midwife" to help a bit at the end. Many women, just like my mom, didn't have the facilities of a nice hospital with drugs to counteract any pain. The other older children helped with whatever was necessary and someone called a "Midwife" (who probably did not even have nurses's training) was there I guess to cut the cord. I can never register to run for President because I have no birth certificate! In those days, it seems the most important thing was to keep me alive.
When we got sick, mama was our doctor and I won't post what she gave us to keep us alive but she managed to make due. When she couldn't make "due", and I had to go to a "real" doctor, his payment was "just give me whatever you can afford". That could be just 50 cents! We really felt like big shots when Medicaid came in and we got actual cards to take to the doctor and that's when I guess the taxpayers got stuck with the bills. But people don't choose to be poor. My family lost everything they owned in the depression trying to help others to survive. What goes around comes around and I do not resent my tax dollars now helping someone else get medical help if they can't afford healthcare insurance. The key here is to find a way to help "everyone" be able to afford healthcare. No one should have to die because they are too poor to afford medical care. I also don't think we have too many doctors left who will take care of you for a plate of fried chicken!
-
Morning Everyone!
Medigal .. I sure enjoyed your last note. I really agree with your last couple of sentences.
Bren
-
I wonder, if we as a nation had taken all of the money that has been invested in lobbying for and against this awful law, the money spent trying to "sell" it to the American public, the money spent printing copy after copy that was never read, and the money now being spent in court trying to repeal it and defend it, and spent those millions and billions of wasted dollars on making actual care - not coverage, but actual health care - available to those who need it, would we be in a better situation than we are now?
And yes, no matter how much you might like some of the provisions, the final version is a hastily thrown together, poorly written piece of legislation making it an awful law. One of the issues is that in their haste to get something passed, the lawyer legislators apparently neglected to include a standard phrase of severability that would allow parts of the law to stand even if parts of it are found to be unconstitutional. That means that even if someone could find a way to have the other parts of the law function without the individual mandate, if that mandate is found to be unconstitutional, the entire law will be scrapped because the provision to allow a part of the law to be severed from the rest was left out of the final version that was passed and signed.
Maybe that Republican "grandstanding" to hold a vote to repeal the law isn't such a bad thing. Think of the millions of dollars that could be saved rather than employing an army of lawyers to bring this case to the Supreme Court only to have to start from scratch again anyway.
Oh, then again, maybe that is the Administration's current job creation plan....lots of jobs for lawyers.
-
Pat
Are you talking about theFefderal money that was spent? I thought Republicans were against adding to Federal spending on health care.
-
I'll probably get blocked or defriended but as a liberal Dem Michelle Bachmann really offends me - and the blaming never stops. I support Obama - is he perfect? Of course not but he is brilliant and has made remarkable strides considering the mess W left him with. For a breast cancer patient not to support health care reform to me is tantamount to saying - some people don't deserve tx - because with no insurance I'm pretty sure they won't get the same as an insured person - as one of our sisters says "just saying" -Ellie
-
Ellie .. I'm not going to block or defriend you .. I'm cheering you on!
Bren
-
The thing that bugged me the most about Bachmann was the little talk she gave after the SOTU. She used little charts to plead her case ... the problem is, her charts were inaccurate. Especially the one showing the debt number in the past 8-10 years. She didn't differentiate between the W. debt incurred in 2008 and the debt actually incurred during Obama's time in office. Great way to fudge the numbers though.
I can't wait for a catfight between Bachmann and Palin.
Bren
PS .. I'm not supposed to mention Palin's name throughout February, but I make an exception if Bachmann is included in the sentence!
-
Okay, I did not make any such pledge about mentioning Palin in Feb. Did anyone see Jon Stewart use the Glenn Beck school of deduction to connect Palin to being a soviet spy? It was quite convincing.
-
"School of deduction" -- hahaha! Yes, I saw it!
The lies that come out of Bachmann's mouth - over and over again - are simply astounding. The woman has no shame.
-
Was that on Stewart last night? I watched a little bit and didn't see it. I want to look it up.
Bren
-
Bren, I think it was Monday night - or maybe last week?
-
I found the clip of his show about the "hot Russian spy." Too funny!
Bren
-
Well, I always said to each their own. I support affordable and available health care but the current bill is not the way to do it effectively and efficiently. As I said before, the way the governemnt administers Medicaid and Medicare is a shining example of what I don't want to see happen to this country.
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team