-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Obamacare Pimps Smear Lipstick on Another Pig
May 6, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?
April 29, 2013 | 88 comments
-
GOP at Fault for Obamacare Train Wreck?
April 22, 2013 | 106 comments
-
The Wheels Come Off Obamacare
April 15, 2013 | 159 comments
A Further Perspective
Obamacare and the Broccoli Mandate
Can the federal government make America eat its vegetables?
Like former President George H.W. Bush and millions of other eminently sensible Americans, I have always hated broccoli. And one of the few complaints I can make about a generally idyllic childhood is that, occasionally, I would sit down at the family dinner table and find that my mother had deliberately ruined a perfectly good meal by including that dreaded vegetable among the otherwise palatable fare. My normal strategy for dealing with such maternal perfidy was to ignore the noxious plant, but this was invariably countered by a peremptory command from Mom to eat it immediately. When I further temporized, per my standard policy, she would appeal to my father for a final ruling on what should be done about my refusal to eat something that was so obviously good for me. He inevitably imposed the statutory penalty: failure to comply with the broccoli mandate would result in forfeiture of dessert. I always took the penalty.
Apparently, similar episodes remain green in the memory of U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson. On December 16, while presiding over a hearing in which attorneys representing Florida and nineteen other states challenged Obamacare’s individual mandate as unconstitutional, he asked its hapless defenders this question about the powers of Congress: “If they decided everybody needs to eat broccoli because broccoli makes us healthy, they could mandate that everybody has to eat broccoli each week?” Ian Gershengorn, the same Justice Department lawyer who unsuccessfully defended the mandate before U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, told Judge Vinson that the health care market has special qualities that somehow necessitate a federal law forcing everyone to buy health insurance: “It is not shoes, it is not cars, it is not broccoli.”
This answer manifestly failed, of course, to address the point. The judge wasn’t inquiring about economics or the dynamics of any particular market. He was trying to get Gershengorn to talk about constitutional limits on the power of the central government. The attorney representing the various plaintiffs in the case was far less reluctant to discuss the constitutional implications of Obamacare. David B. Rivkin argued, “The act would leave more constitutional damage in its wake than any other statute in our history.” That argument clearly resonated with Vinson, whose questions to the DOJ lawyer betrayed skepticism about the claim that a decision not to buy insurance constitutes economic activity that Congress can regulate by virtue of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause: “In the broadest sense every decision we make is economic: the decision to marry, the decision to keep a job or not has an economic effect.”
If Gershengorn had been permitted to provide a candid response to the judge’s observation, he would probably have said something like, “What’s your point?” He, like everyone else in the Obama administration, presumably believes that the commerce clause gives the federal government the authority to regulate virtually every decision we make in our day-to-day lives. Indeed, the belief that Washington can — and should — supervise us as if we were a nation of children is the core tenet of their nanny-state political philosophy. This is the belief system that prompted First Lady Michelle Obama to say, as her husband signed a law that will regulate what children eat during summer vacations and what can be sold in school vending machines, that child nutrition is something “We can’t just leave…up to the parents.” Without the “help” of the federal government, some mother might fail to force broccoli on her kids.
Likewise, we “can’t just leave it up” to the patients to decide for themselves if they should buy health insurance. Indeed, according to the Obama administration, there is something sinister in the very suggestion that we must allow them to do so. In a recent editorial published in the Washington Post under the names of Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder, we are told that the twenty odd lawsuits challenging the right of Congress to impose the individual mandate are “troubling.” Why are they so troubling? “We saw similar challenges to laws that created Social Security and established new civil rights protections. Those challenges ultimately failed, and so will this one.” In other words, the officials of twenty states, including the old Confederate bastions of Michigan, Colorado, Washington, and Nebraska, are actually modern equivalents of Bull Connor and Orval Faubus.
Sebelius and Holder also write that “these attacks are wrong on the law,” an argument that notably failed to convince U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in the Virginia case and doesn’t seem to have fared much better with Judge Vinson. Nonetheless, they continue to send Mr. Gershengorn out to make the Orwellian argument that failure to do business with an insurance company substantially affects interstate commerce because “inactivity is just an illusion.” And he dutifully soldiers on, even as irascible Judges like Hudson and Vinson glare incredulously at him from the bench. Gershengorn was “handpicked” for this thankless job, the New York Times tells us, because he was seen by DOJ leadership as “a real star.” One wonders, however, if he really understood that his first high-profile assignment as a government lawyer would be to make America eat its vegetables.
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (114) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/21/obamacare-and-the-broccoli-man
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Nuts to Nutter
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- The Great Train Robbery
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
mwinkey | 12.21.10 @ 7:28AM
Our Store mainly engaged in sales of Windows and Office product key. All products are fully authorized by Microsoft directly. Mwinkey'Store will provide the full range of products. Buy our products you will enjoy the cheap prices and professional service.you can find our store with follow keywords.
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 1:11PM
I want Repuglicans to eat unhealthily so they will die off early. Please eat:
lard
sugar
and everything carcinogenic. Please? it would be greatly appreciated if you would die early-- you don't know how grateful I would be.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 1:43PM
You first, there, Alan. What a nice thing to say. Schmuck.
Dataweaver| 12.21.10 @ 2:54PM
Would you be interested in mandating that? Or should Republicans be free to choose whether or not to eat such things?
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 3:26PM
Data,
Every man to the Devil his own way. Naturally, the issue is what no one wants to discuss; you don't want big govt; at the same time you want the state to protect your family in any way you can get away with: everything from Pell grants for your teens to Medicare for your grandparents. anyone gives you the slightest trouble, you call the cops; you want the state to be your family's nanny-- not someone else's. "My Family Uber Alles."
But that doesn't hold any more.
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 3:37PM
PS,
what impresses me more & more is the discrepancy between the social conservative side of the Rightist, and his libertarian side:
1) one side of the mouth says: "do as thou WILT"
2) the other side reads the Riot Act: "toe the line or ELSE"
Ol Will| 12.21.10 @ 5:35PM
Of course you can point to all the foibles of conservatives with sarcasm and irony - all of your conservatives are made of straw.
And of course the police are a legitimate state function. Why wouldn't we call them when our families need protecting. Would you have us acting like the Hatfields and McCoys? Trying to get justice by gunning each other down in the streets?
As far as Pell Grants and the rest, I have personally been against all that since the day they started handing out that unconstitutional largess. It has simply been used as a full-employment tool for Vietnam-era liberal/commie college professors who are worthless for existing in the real world.
In my long life as a Constitutional conservative, the one thing I know about liberals is that they say or write the first thing that pops into their heads - If they think it, it must be true. No evidence or logic required.
I'm sure you want some evidence to validate my last paragraph. Just go and actually read your two posts above. Pay attention this time.
Rothbardian| 12.23.10 @ 7:48AM
"And of course the police are a legitimate state function. Why wouldn't we call them when our families need protecting. Would you have us acting like the Hatfields and McCoys? Trying to get justice by gunning each other down in the streets?" - Ol Will
Waiting on the logic and evidence to follow for this claim...
Deuce| 12.23.10 @ 4:57PM
Alan, WOW! Are you in the scarecrow business? I've never seen such a big and complex straw man built in such a short period of time. In fact it sounds almost like a schizophrenic having an argument with himself. Note that every point raised in your posts originates with you, even when you are "replying" to Data and address him by name. He never raised any of the points you ramble on about. This is pretty clear.
That said, I do love the irony, in light of the content of the article , of you alleging that eating lard is deadly. It has been proven medically for decades that eating fats LOWERS cholesterol and the risk of heart attack and death. Meanwhile margerine, Crisco, and other trans fat-heavy "fat substitutes" are now on the hitlist of the people who support this legislation.
Long story short, you have confused what prefab talking points to regurgitate, and otherwise have no perspective on any of the things you are arguing with yourself about. Next time work these issues out in private rather than coming here, contributing nothing, and embarrassing yourself.
BBrianL| 12.21.10 @ 6:15PM
Ever heard of the enumerated powers in the constitution numbnuts?
Negro X| 12.21.10 @ 6:26PM
AB,
Tell you leftist controllers you need some new material.
Ron| 12.23.10 @ 4:59PM
I don't want the government to do anything other than sealing the US border!!!!!
GKPAL| 12.22.10 @ 11:29AM
Alan, you're sick. Get some help you jerk.
Charles Whatley| 12.25.10 @ 11:45PM
think about it alan; what if obama and his goons ordered you to eat high fat, sugary, carcinogenic foods? never mind, i can imagine you saying, "Yes lord! far be it for me to question your wisdom?"
Louis Jenkins| 12.21.10 @ 8:07AM
"First Lady Michelle Obama to say, as her husband signed a law that will regulate what children eat during summer vacations ..."
Eat it! That's what the District of Criminals expect us to do. Health Care is just like broccoli, ummm, good! I thought it was peas. I'll eat either one, but health care insurance- my stomach retches. Thank goodness one judge has seen the light.
Brian Mc| 12.21.10 @ 9:17AM
Who the hell do they think they are?
I'm an American and I'll be damned if any stooge from D.C. is going to tell me what to do.
There, that feels better. An aside, I like broccoli.
Deuce| 12.23.10 @ 4:59PM
Thank you. I absolutely LOVE broccoli. Such a shame that it is the unwitting whipping boy in the authors attempt to make his point.
katy the mean old lady| 12.21.10 @ 9:26AM
The so called well meaning are still trying.
"If you eat it the way I fix it,you'll just love it!"
NO
I
WON'T
Busch| 12.21.10 @ 9:33AM
Actually if you mix it with sausage you can eat the sausage(Bismark's)and skip the green.
80 years ago in response to Broccoli a little boy gave the correct response: "I say it's Spinich and I say the HELL with it!"
solidground| 12.21.10 @ 9:35AM
Does the commerce clause cover the eating of crow? Obama's been consuming some of it lately.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 9:47AM
Mr. Catron,
I have one beef with your article. In fact I have the same beef with a lot of columnists here and elsewhere.
You guys seem to always use the terms "nanny-state" and/or "soft European socialism".
Can't you idiots get it through you thick skulls that those terms do NOT describe the end result our communist wannabes, (pardon the shorthand), are after?
Certainly, the west Europeans drifted into socialism at the end of WWII. Their economies were destroyed...and the people were scared of literally starving...a life-boat situation.
Conversely, OUR communist wannabes want to "drive" us into the life-boats, and thus take away all of our individual freedoms, since they plan on being the "life-boat captains".
OKOK!
I will lead you by the hand and prove it!
The nanny concept you guys drag out at every drop of a hat implies a more or less well-meaning hired lady.....but knotheads...if one of the PARENTS walk in and discover the "nanny" abusing their kids..........She is FIRED!
(So, stupids, who is there to "fire" the communist dictator with a gun at our head and a wide ocean as our alternatives?)
I suggest the "we the people" under the authority of God and our constitution must take the Parental responsibility.
Please please..........get your collective pundit-poop together and write the truth!
VBMax| 12.21.10 @ 10:50AM
Ken,
Good on that tough love and telling it like it is.
Dear Leader and the rest of this administration is not unlike those stellar anti-social personalities of the past that wreaked havoc on their subjects: the Hitlers, the Maos etc. The only thing missing (until now) was opportunity. And as the Republic slides more and more into slavery, the useful idiots drone on and on. (Will I be able to say this once the FCC grabs hold of the internet?)
Anita| 12.21.10 @ 11:23AM
Well Old Texican you are right. Period. They are communists hoping to succeed in destroying the US and entrapping all of us in their controlling web.
Now that congress is Republican you will see regulations and decrees by passing congress. Our country is in for one hell of a ride.
Stay strong.
Walking Horse| 12.21.10 @ 11:48AM
History confirms that dictatorship is far more durable than any benevolence that accompanies its inception.
Pecos Pete| 12.21.10 @ 9:52AM
Question: Is it possible to amend the Constitution to limit the "commerce clause" to prevent some of this silliness?
Walking Horse| 12.21.10 @ 11:52AM
No amendment required. What is needed:
[a] some people in the judiciary with rudimentary reading skills.
[b] an excuse to repudiate Wickard v. Filburn (1942).
[c] repudiation of the individual mandate.
[b] could definitely be accomplished by [c], provided there is a judge with some courage.
Jack London| 12.21.10 @ 10:29AM
This is another idiotic article on healthcare and the constitution at first look. Idiots think healthcare can work for everyone without a national mandate. The facts show otherwise. But of course even more idiotic is that this article is nothing to do with healthcare but about a vision of stupid people retreating to their bunkers instead of putting in the planks that could actually rebuild productivity in America.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 10:40AM
Jack,
I and my companies "put planks" that DO actually rebuild productivity....every day.
I must tell you though, when the government termites get through with those planks, there is not much left.
You are not welcome to your subsidy checks any more.
Jack London| 12.21.10 @ 10:53AM
If you can come up with convincing reason why it is not desirable for all working people to contribute to the health insurance pool as a matter of course I'd like to hear it. Saying it's 'not constitutional' isn't going to get us lower costs and a healthier more secure and productive population, just as letting the highways and bridges disintegrate in the name of the free market won't even let us get to work.
Appleby| 12.21.10 @ 11:20AM
A lot of things are "desirable" in this world. For example, it is desirable that children be seen and not heard, and if possible they should not be seen either; it is desirable that men give their seats to ladies on the subway, that the word f*** not be used more than once in a sentence, and never in the presence of others, that people park their cars properly and not take up two parking spaces, and that everybody turn their music down at 11:00 p.m. even if it is Saturday.
It does not follow that because something may be desirable, that anybody, or anybusybody, should therefore be entitled to force others to engage in that thing.
Robert Heinlein, I believe, christened those people who think it is in fact their right to force others to do what is "desirable" -- rather than merely trying to persuade them -- as The Men of Desperate Sincerity; they are those people who, in the words of Lt. Calley, have to destroy the village to save it.
Now, Jack, explain to me why this destruction would be a good thing.
Steve A| 12.21.10 @ 11:25AM
Jack, The answer is this: You have a valid point. It is "desirable." Younger people who are healthier & who use less services would be forced to subsidize those who can't afford "insurance" & those who use more services. There are those (the majority) Americans who still believe it is not the business of the Federal Government to mandate responsibility.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 11:37AM
Jack,
"It is not desirable for all working people to contribute to the health insurance pool as a matter of course....."
...(Definitive Answer): We producers already do. It is called Medicaid, Medicare, CHIPS, workmen's comp. etc etc etc. IN ADDITION TO PAYING FOR OUR OWN INSURANCE. We also know that our federal government is WASTEFUL with our tax dollars, especially when those tax dollars subsidize your sloth.
kiltmaker| 12.21.10 @ 11:46AM
Jack, equating highways and bridges with healthcare is mixing apples and oranges. Highways and bridges could be a legitimate function of government. But, that is for another debate.
Healthcare is available for everyone and is very well done. In fact, we arguably have the best medical care in the world. I'm very satisfied with the care I get, and I get a lot of it. The problem is how to pay for this excellent care. That is health INSURANCE. The 2 terms are not entirely interchangeable. The care is excellent, the method of payment is a mess. I agree, there are people that don't have insurance because of the price. There are also people that don't own homes because of the price. OOPS, helping those people out has already been tried, and look at the mess that caused. People without insurance, either for reasons of pre-existing conditions or cash-short, should be helped. Not to get care, but how to pay for it. There are many market-driven methods that will assist these people, but they need to have some investment in seeing that healthcare is not overused, like it can be today. Monetary rewards, along with payment assistance, (HSA's would do this, help fund the account, and any unused monetary benefit can be rolled into retirement might work) would encourage people to be careful with use of healthcare, but still allow access. In most cases, the problem isn't medicine, but how to pay for it. Don't change medicine, change the way its paid for. Our current system of employer paid benefits isn't working. Change that, with individuals, not the government, in charge of their decisions.
Charles Whatley| 12.25.10 @ 11:53PM
the most critical opposition i've seen to the "health-care" / "power-play" bill is from people outside our country who, after the government has destroyed our health-care (think post office, railroads, social security, medicare, medicaid, traffic control, economy, et. al.), will have no place to go for high-quality health-care.
Walking Horse| 12.21.10 @ 11:46AM
Desirable, to whom? Social engineers and control freaks embedded in the bowels of government? Last time I checked, the advocates for this monstrosity didn't consult the people they propose to herd like livestock into a government-controlled health bureaucracy.
Jack, here is a convincing reason why not. We will not tolerate being coerced and controlled, force to purchase a product. Those who try will get a bloody nose for starters. If they are slow learners, the convincing will become much more sincere.
You and your comrades propose to employ force. Do not be surprised when you get force in response. Mob rule will not be tolerated.
Charles Whatley| 12.25.10 @ 11:55PM
i buy stocks low and sell them high ( at least i do the best i can); i refuse to buy into high quality health-care knowing it will become low quality health-care.
George S| 12.21.10 @ 11:46AM
False premise No. 1: mandated health insurance will lower costs. A glaring example of this fallacy is Medicare and Medicaid. Everyone is forced to "contribute" yet the costs skyrocket and government is unable to reimburse providers sufficient to keep them in the system (since they are still free to refuse Medicare patients). It is in fact the deficit of provider spending vs reimbursements that drives up costs as providers bill our insurance companies the difference. Medicare: the direct cause of the $8.00 aspirin tablet in hospitals. Now, take into consideration the history of the cost of laser eye surgery -- very high at first, then the price lowers considerably and then rises slightly and levels off as technology meets the increased demand. This is because eye surgery is an out of pocket expense and the industry competes for your dollar by the economies of scale: investing in technology that gives better results at an affordable price. Same concept behind cosmetic surgery, too.
False premise No 2: the free market is responsible for the state of disrepair of roads and bridges. Sorry, those are owned and operated by government. It is not the market's fault that governments would rather spend the money on bike paths and light rail research (and, in most cases, into the retirement fund of the toll collectors) than in actual maintenance. Vote For Me, I Made Sure the Bridges Were Painted is not actually a vote-catchy slogan, is it?
In both cases, it is the absence of the free market that results in the problems. And in both cases, "working people" are forced to contribute.
Jack London| 12.21.10 @ 12:56PM
Health premiums doubled in the last 10 years anyway. But I agree - Medicare costs must be controlled but that means focusing on effectiveness and cutting down on unnecessary procedures, which for some reason you conservatives don't want to do, which seems extraordinary as it's your dollars going down the john. Don't forget it was GW Bush who brought in the unfunded prescription drug benefit.
Laser eye surgery is mostly a cosmetic procedure - it is not comparable to the vast bulk of healthcare such as say cancer treatment and chronic disease care.
And I didn't say that roads were in the hands of the free market. The point is to show what happens when vital infrastructure is neglected. We need to spend more on roads and we also need to cover people's health.
I'll put the same point to you as I did in another thread - if for the sake of argument health reform is effective, would you sacrifice the benefits purely for the sake of 'freedom'?
George S| 12.21.10 @ 1:32PM
The only way to "focus on effectiveness and cutting down on unnecessary procedures" is to have a third party make the determination. Who?
Let's say that you have to buy an unknown person a Christmas gift in an office pool. The gift is a watch, and the choice of which model to buy is up to you. What would be your criteria? Cost, would it not? You would go out of your way to buy the cheapest watch since the money you are spending is for someone else's benefit. Now, what if the watch was your present and you could pick any one you wanted. Your criteria will suddenly change to the kind of watch that you prefer, regardless of cost, since you are not paying for it. If there was a third option, that you would have to buy a watch for another person but you were not paying for it, what would be your criteria now? If you think about it, it would not be the cheapest watch because that may take effort in finding it... what you would do is find the watch that is easiest for you to obtain, expending the least amount of effort since you are neither benefiting nor suffering with respect to cost. It matters not if there were a Rolex dealer or a street vendor next door, what the hell, you are not paying and the store is right there, thus cutting YOUR effort to a minimum and the heck with the person paying and the heck with the person receiving. You are seeking to do the least amount of work since the effort does not benefit you one bit.
The last example is government, providing a "watch" that is health care to third parties with other parties paying. So why would government go out of their way to deliver the health care YOU want? What's in it for them? Nothing.
However, if that money can go towards reelection by repairing roads and bridges, or shoring up health care worker's pension funds, what are your chances of getting that hip replacement surgery?
As to your question of whether we should enact policy that is unconstitutional if there is a public benefit that outweighs the freedom lost...
... never. Because once we lose freedom to chart our own lives, we will lose whatever benefits that unconstitutional act would have temporarily provided. Once we defer all power to government, then we will not be able to reach them with the ballot box as people will be afraid of surrendering whatever benefits government bestows. Then what would be government's incentive then? What you are dangling is the tyrant's fish hook with the lure of not having to ever work again. Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea and the Soviet Union are the result.
Jack London| 12.21.10 @ 1:56PM
George, your post is as feeble as a dead raccoon.
The watch example is absurd because the idea is that everyone is paying into the pool according to their means. I'm sure you don't wish that someone has only half a tumor removed because they don't earn as much as you.
As for your list of countries, try France, Germany. Netherlands, Sweden instead.
George S| 12.21.10 @ 2:27PM
If people pay into the pool according to their means, then WHO DETERMINES what benefits are paid out according to the same people's needs? Even a dead raccoon can see that there are not enough suppliers of health care and tax money to give everyone the health care they want. So, again, who does the rationing? And... now that health care will be subsidized by a general pool, the service becomes fungible because if you don't go to a doctor and demand an MRI for that headache, someone else will get it; and how about the long lines as people line up to take advantage of a service that they could not previously afford? Where does that put those who can afford it?
Will government remove that tumor if it only results in six more months of life? Or will it direct that money to AIDS research... or to Walter Reed... or to the First Lady's Healthy Food program? My analogy makes a lot of sense or else it wouldn't have been responded to so snippy.
France, Germany. Netherlands, Sweden...? Yes, but they also have a two-tiered system in which government officials and the wealthy do not have to worry about being rationed out. Money will always talk, don't kid yourself.
Jack London| 12.21.10 @ 3:50PM
Yes, there will always be tiers of access, especially in our country were money talks loudest. The point is how we get everyone to be able to access a decent level of care at minimum cost to others, the vast majority who must join general insurance pools. That does mean applying evidence - you shouldn't get an MRI if you've had a headache for a few hours - that's obviously stupid. You shouldn't get antibiotics for a cold as that's not only ineffective but dangerous to others as we feed antibiotic resistance. If you have the cash or some goldplated policy to pay for an MRI then go ahead - it's your money but I don't want my taxes and premiums paying for waste in Medicare and whatever we end up with for lower age groups, which is what we're doing far too much of at present.
And of course if we don't have a national scheme we will never match the response and cost-effectiveness of systems like Germany's, where no one loses their house over medical bills and can see docs faster than most of us can now here.
Don't forget also that Medicare already pays a lot towards hospital training for docs, and the government also funds a lot of research. You need to think carefully before advocating less federal involvement.
neanderthal| 12.21.10 @ 5:59PM
BINGO! Without realizing it, Jack London, you hit on the best example of what's wrong with your whole point of view. You don't want to cover Lasik under your centrally managed health care system because it is "mostly cosmetic".
A lot of insurance carriers agree with you. Hence Lasik is one of the few medical procedures which is sold in a market, a market in which costs are borne by the consumer, and not paid by some third party. And guess what? Prices for Lasik have come down while almost all other medical expenses have continued to increase. You can shop around for your Lasik. Providers advertise their prices and run specials. If we ran health care like other markets, it would respond to price pressures just like other markets.
Insurance should be reserved for payment of truly catostrophic medical expenses, like cancer treatment, or major trauma- with government acting as a backstop only for the truly needy.
Jack London| 12.21.10 @ 6:51PM
Neanderthal, thou art well named for verily thou dost have an exceptional small brain that predates modern thought.
The reason Lasik works well as a market driven procedure is because it is a one off operation for a single intervention that is mostly fine to be performed outside the mainstream medical and academic world.* But the majority of healthcare, especially in older life, is for multifactorial treatments that require multidisciplinary input multiple specialists, multiple drugs and hopefully an academic teaching environment - which you can't buy in a one stop shop. Even those that may seem simple like a hip replacement are less good outside teaching hospital settings - the complication rate is higher.
So no - there's no light shed in your cave I'm afraid. But keep trying - in about 500,000 years you may have evolved to engage in high level conversation.
*But the FDA is still looking at Lasik - it's success rate is not nearly as high it seems as the ads say.
Neanderthal| 12.21.10 @ 8:20PM
Actually, Neanderthals had slightly larger braincases than Homo Sapiens. They only died out because they mistakenly invented government run health care.
Freedom| 12.23.10 @ 8:05AM
This is why you can't argue with a liberal with a pea brain.
You come up with real world and current examples to challenge his argument, and he just moves the goalpost.
You come up with another one, and he will move them again.
If that doesn't work, it goes to the "well, it could work somewhere if economic laws and peoples natures changed".
If that doesn't work, we are all greedy racists for not agreeing.
You can never win against invincible ignorance, and I suggest we don't beat our heads into the wall trying.
The communist answer to everything is centrally planned rationing, no matter how many historical examples of the complete failure of governments to hold faith with their constituents in those circumstances.
Charles Whatley| 12.26.10 @ 12:04AM
yes! yes! yes! no benefit is worth the loss of my freedom!!! apparently you've never heard of hitler who offered benefits in exchange for his people's freedom... and the sheep followed him into a world war. castro offered benefits in exchange for his people's freedom and now they are living in the 50's while those of us who kept our freedoms are living in 2010! (read some history... the roman emperors, napoleon, the communists in russia and china; they all offered benefits in exchange for their people's freedom. and later the benefits disappeared with the freedoms! slaves don't get benefits...)
John Navratil| 12.21.10 @ 12:00PM
Mr. London,
It is freedom. What you propose are laws to limit freedom. This is fine for those who like laws and have no need for freedom, but it is manifestly not fine for those who chafe at the law.
This conflict between liberty and license is the conflict between left and right. As we are not all autocrats as we are not all anarchists, there will be laws.
What is alarming to the people here is that we are standing inside the cell watching it being built. Right now, it's just for safety. When the door is finally hung and the latch is fit, it will be too late for discussions with the jailer.
Curtis Rasmussen| 12.21.10 @ 12:15PM
There is a huge difference between desire and mandate. Obamacare will force young people, many who are in excellent health that choose not to buy insurance, into the system to pay for government teat sucking wannabees like you.
Obamacare does nothing to reduce cost as evidenced by the insurance waivers that many companies appropriated to prevent layoffs. As a matter of fact, companies like White Castle canceled their expansion plans due to the uncertainty of Obamacare. How do you count jobs that 'disintegrated' in a puff of smoke because of this fiasco? Or all future jobs that will never be created as small business fringe costs go through the roof?
GKPAL| 12.22.10 @ 11:42AM
Jack, you sound incoherent as usual. Please spare us with your postings. Try the huffington post.
skip| 12.22.10 @ 7:52PM
London Bridge Fell Down Long Ago,
Health care is behavioral. Health Insurance is the true subject.
Costs are unaffordable before Obama's unconstitutional takeover because of government interference. It was a very long time ago that the health insurance industry operated in a free market. Before Obamacare the government had mandated literally thousands of regulations, all at financial costs to providers and therefore customers.
Why in the hell are employers involved in health insurance at all? It hides true costs to customers. It adds to the costs. Does anyone besides Jack London, Alan Brooks, Ted R., Purpleguy, or any other true idiot think auto insurance should be provided through employers? Home owner insurance?
Get the government out of health insurance and it will be fine.
Computers, televisions, or any other product free of government intervention are easily and affordably obtained when providers and customers can operate in a true free market.
No one would be bitching here about anything if the computer industry was subject to the amount of government intervention the health insurance industry has been subjected to before Obamacare, because computers would be too expensive, not enough of them would be available for purchase, and the ones that were available would be of such poor quality they wouldn't work.
Jack London you are a moron.
Puzzled| 12.23.10 @ 1:08PM
I'll be happy to discuss with you what you think I should buy, as soon as you put down your gun. Since you have no clear intention to do so, I don't feel the need to have a discussion with you.
Sid Vicious| 12.21.10 @ 1:01PM
Idiots think healthcare can work for everyone without a national mandate.
Actually, idiot, it works fairly well now, as others have pointed out, despite decades of meddling by government. It worked even better a couple of generations ago, when one (gasp!) paid out of pocket for services like visiting the doctor, or for urgent care such as re-setting a broken bone or stitching up a deep cut. Beyond that, one carried "major-medical" insurance covering hospitalization and ancillary expenses attendant to serious injury or disease. The whole point of the insurance was that it covered the big stuff so that you and yours weren’t ruined financially. It was never meant to cover sore throats and skinned knees.
... putting in the planks that could actually rebuild productivity in America.
How, exactly, does this mandate "rebuild productivity" when it causes such deep uncertainty among employers about future costs that no company will hire anyone?
Saying it's 'not constitutional' isn't going to get us lower costs and a healthier more secure and productive population...
Perhaps not, but that's beside the point. If it's not Constitutional, then the federal government can't mandate it. Period. End of story. “The end justifies the means,” which is the basis of your argument, has no basis in Constitutional law. More importantly: Wasn’t "the end justifies the means" exactly why "progressives" screamed for years on end about the extent to which the USA Patriot Act – and particularly its application by a certain former president's administration – shredded said Constitution? Well, we're making precisely the same point today about the individual mandate in PPACA.
Jack London| 12.21.10 @ 1:36PM
Healthcare is not working well from both a cost-benefit basis and a coverage basis. And the world of care has changed dramatically since your grandpaw was riding round in a buggy - he couldn't get an MRI back then.
I agree that employer based insurance is bad. I agree too that making people buy a commercial product is not great. A proper public option would have been far far better, but you all screamed even louder about that. In fact what we have is more or less the Republican proposal from the 1990s.
But there are other controls and innovations that will do well. We can disagree about that but as I said above, let's assume the benefits are real - in that case do you throw them out purely on a constitutional basis?
Ray| 12.21.10 @ 2:00PM
"he couldn't get an MRI back then."
No, but he could get one today, for free, just by walking into an emergency room with, you know, an actual NEED. No insurance required.
Here's the thing, health care "reform" should be based on NEED and not on the "potential" costs to "society." But we all know that this isn't about reforming health care, it's about forcing people to decided which federally "approved" insurance policy they can 'legally" purchase.
Those who need, and desire insurance ( which is NOT health care, it's another product altogether) should have access to it, which, by far and large, they already do.
Those who don't have a desire or need for insurance (once again, NOT health care but a separate product altogether) shouldn't be forced to pay for it just to keep YOUR premiums lower!
Well, hay, I'm not about to buy only those policies that the government "approves" just to save other people money. How will that save ME money?
I'm going to "shop around" and chose, for myself, the best policy at the best cost I can find. I suggest you, and everyone else, do the same. It's really the only way to get insurance costs under dynamic control. Once the government takes over, that control becomes static and, ultimately, harmful for everyone.
Jack London| 12.21.10 @ 3:58PM
So Ray, what happened to health premiums over the last decade? Did they go up or down under GW Bush? Sometimes I think people like you live in an alternate universe - where money grows on trees. How can you think that having fewer and higher risk people in an insurance pool will give you lower premiums? Truly a fantasy.
Curtis Rasmussen| 12.21.10 @ 4:21PM
Government regulation boosted the cost of health-care. If private enterprise were left to it's own devices, we would have legitimate disease-specific pooling of groups to increase buying power and reduce cost. Also, we could shop around for the best deal inside or outside the state. Thirdly, if the government allowed tax exemptions for individuals buying insurance, more people would buy it on their won, all the costs associated with employer's third party decisions and separation from the real cost of healthcare would be eliminated.
Just another straw argument from Jackass London. Make a serious problem even worse by having the Feds seize more after they screwed it in the first place.
Jack London| 12.21.10 @ 5:18PM
In what way has the government boosted costs Curtis? The main drivers of healthcare costs are new technology, insurance profit takers, huge fees charged by providers building fancy clinics, overtreatment especially at end of life and of course uncompensated care. I agree that in Medicare, government cost drivers are not to apply effectiveness evidence, and the Bush drug benefit, but these are your side's policies, not mine.
I agree totally that health insurance should be decoupled from employers, but I don't agree with tax breaks in the same way as I don't agree with them for mortgages - they benefit the wealthy more.
The thing is, in your world we'd have a fantastically complex and fragmented system - even more than now - and a return to millions being kicked out on pre-existing conditions and excluded from any meaningful policies (those Wal-mart type limited policies are a real con). I can only see a future in some form of national insurance, like Medicare (which you'll be using one day?), that has the power to simplify what has all too often been a living and sadly often dying nightmare for far to many of us. But it does mean we all have to buy into it. Throwing out Obamacare will only hasten single payer I reckon.
Curtis Rasmussen| 12.21.10 @ 5:36PM
The straw argument comes to fruition. What a moron.
Curtis Rasmussen| 12.21.10 @ 3:43PM
Nice try with the straw argument. Someone will state that the whole Obamacare law needs to be thrown out because we can't be compelled to buy a private service only to have Jackass London argue that private enterprise needs to be seized to make it legit. Wrap that turd up and put it under the tree!
Don Corleone| 12.21.10 @ 6:34PM
In what way has the government boosted costs Curtis?
As someone who has spent the last 20 years in the biomedical industry, I could write volumes of books replete with examples of how government intervention routinely boosts healthcare costs. Permit me to cite two simple examples:
1) "Best Price" mandate: As you may know, current law requires that biopharmaceutical manufactures provide the government (Medicaid, VA, Tricare, etc.) with a 15% discount below the best available wholesale price offered to the private sector. What effect does this have on the cost of prescription drugs? Anyone? Well, let's say you own a company and the government says, "You are henceforth required to sell all your products to me at a 15% discount to the lowest price that you get from private customers." Would you:
a) Take a 15% haircut on your profit and lay off a few employees,
or
b) Raise the lowest price that you offer your private customers by 15%?
If you answered "a", you might be a patriot but you won't likely be in business long (I, for one, am quite unlikely to invest in your stock...). If you answered "b", welcome to the conservative party.
By the way, what happens to the cost of insurance when the cost of drugs are artificially inflated? You guessed it, sport - premiums go up, fewer people can afford them, and before you know it the government is claiming that the cost of healthcare is spiraling out of control.
2) Medicare reimbursement: Same principle - Medicare says to the heart surgeon, "The market rate for a coronary artery bypass surgery is $5,000; we'll pay you $1,250 per surgery". Heart surgeons are pretty smart guys, so it doesn't take them long to figure out that Medicare is going to pay them 25% of the market rate. Guess what? Market rate just went up to $20,000! And what happens to the premiums for those who have private health insurance? C'mon, I know you know the answer...
These are but a few of the simplest examples of how the law of unintended consequences inevitably applies when the government intervenes...
Ron| 12.23.10 @ 6:28PM
Why do I not want the US Government running my healthcare?
Example 1: US Postal Service
Example 2: Amtrack
Example 3: Tennessee Valley Authority
All three examples require enormous annual subsidies to stay in business.
But the real reason is that the politicians DO NOT WANT health insurance prices to go down, they want the health insurance industry to collapse so they can force us into a single payer, government run and mandated program that will allow them to determine who gets what. Since I vote republican, I will have to pay into the system until they decide I am not worth saving!
Curtis Rasmussen| 12.21.10 @ 3:43PM
Nice try with the straw argument. Someone will state that the whole Obamacare law needs to be thrown out because we can't be compelled to buy a private service only to have Jackass London argue that private enterprise needs to be seized to make it legit. Wrap that turd up and put it under the tree!
Puzzled| 12.23.10 @ 1:12PM
The advance of technology, such as the invention of the MRI, lowers costs. What raises costs is the multiple interventions you, I guess, have cheered for over the decades. I do not reject your efforts to control me on a 'constitutional' basis, I reject them because I do not negotiate with those who threaten me with guns.
Petronius| 12.21.10 @ 11:04AM
I'll tell you Jack.
You want your standard of living and level of medical care guaranteed by me and all others.
THAT'S NOT MY JOB!!
George S| 12.21.10 @ 12:04PM
The commerce clause cannot force people to eat broccoli, it can only force them to buy it . What gives government the power to mandate the eating of broccoli is the General Welfare clause.
I'll bet some Clinton appointee would read the above and a light will go off in his head...
Walking Horse| 12.21.10 @ 12:15PM
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 1:49PM
""With respect to the words general welfare,
I have always regarded them as qualified
by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be
a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which
there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
-- James Madison
George Indihutt| 12.21.10 @ 12:58PM
In The Orwellian World We Find Ourselves, A Smoker Is Dictating Healthy Living To Everyone Else And A Large Rear-ended Woman Is Dictating What Anyone Is Allowed To Eat. . . Turns Out , The Liberals Are Anything But Liberal.
Bruce Michael Anderson | 12.21.10 @ 1:01PM
I still am Not hearing the real world Idea behind Obama care and the Fcc Mix, One of the Big part behind Obama care i his force with out concent Human Micro S Chip Implant, The direct Sat com link systems he wants for the new relay of wirless medical records for every person in the united States,
He want control over the drugs market to cover the side Affects of the Emf Plague that is the wirless systems, one of the last Big Sttle ment from as like as such from drugs that do in fact cover for the EMF Plagues was and Mixes with
The key provision in Senators Lindsey Graham Chuck Schumer amnesty bill backed by President Obama is a new mandated Federal Biometric ID card or The S Chip or Micro Chip Human Implant that Radio Frequency Identification chips (RFID) would be required for any person to hold a job in the United States legally.
This card would include untold amounts of personal information (like gun ownership) and biometric tracking technology that would allow government bureaucrats to track our every move. Was not the History behind "Amalgam" or dental implants an the S.S. enough. many Union Drugs are used to Cover the Effects of the EMF Plague, Tinnitus isn't a disease ,it’s not schizophrenia seroquel
I mean come on Seroquel law suits $520 million in pay outs
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10016
Toll Free: (877) 779-1414
Telephone: (212) 779-1414
Fax: (212) 779-3218
bernlieb Dot com
Here is your sign
Can you say EMF Plague night mare
An they want this s chip as they have rouge communication Satellites Orbiting the earth.
May 28, 2010 A rouge communications satellite orbiting 22,000 miles above the earth could cause interference on more than 50 cable channels during the next 10 days. If there is interference, it would affect all cable television companies in the western hemisphere, according to Compas Cable TV General Manager Bill Harkins.
Harkins said the rogue satellite in question, Galaxy 15, is drifting into the path of another communications satellite, AMC 11. AMC 11 carries channels from the following broadcasters:
A&E, BBC, Bravo, Chiller, CMT, CNBC, Comedy Central, C-SPAN, Discovery, DIY Network, E!, Fine Living, Flix, Food Network, G4, Hallmark Channels, HGTV, History Channel, Investigation, Lifetime, Military Channel, Movie Channels, MTV, Mun 2, Nickelodeon, Planet Green, QVC, Science Channel, Showtime, Spike TV, Style, Telemundo Travel Channel, Univision, VH1, and the Weather Channel.
“The owners of Galaxy 15 have lost control, but the satellite is still transmitting a signal,” Harkins said. “As it passes near AMC, the Galaxy 15 signal could interfere with the AMC satellite signal and cause intermittent tiling and other interference.”
Harkins said the company that owns AMC 11 has backup satellites in place and are taking other steps to minimize interference. Galaxy 15 should be clear of AMC11 by June 7.
“We apologize for any inconvenience and hope our customers understand this is out of our control,” Harkins said.
For more information, call Compas Cable TV at 828-438-5353.
To learn more about Compas Cable TV, Internet & Voice services, visit web site.
http://Writing.Com/authors/epistemology
Wayne | 12.21.10 @ 1:17PM
Talk as we will about the constitution: Roe vs Wade convinced me lawyers and judges can twist it any way they want. It ends up Might makes Right. Alway. So not only can the government make you eat broccoli, but they can make you give that spare room in your house to a homeless couple. What are you going to do about it.
That is why EVERY single bill before Congress is about power. The more power given to the President by Congress the more he will do what he wants. Eventually if we are not careful he will just decide he no longer needs Congress like Chavez. What the GOP has is a bunch of RINOS afraid they will be left out. So as we see them prop Obama up by passing the Start treaty, we know they are just jockeying for position.
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 1:47PM
"NavyBrat| 12.21.10 @ 1:43PM
You first, there, Alan. What a nice thing to say. Schmuck."
But you say people ought to be allowed to eat anything they want even if what they eat is unhealthy! So go ahead, eat like a pig this holiday season.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 1:54PM
Poor Alan. You just don't get it do you? People can eat whatever the hell they want if they know the consequences of that result from eating an un healthy diet. We don't need people like you, who think they know best for everyone, telling us what we can or cannot eat. And if folks are too freaking dumb to realize that you can't eat steak 6 nights a week, or Mickey D's, or an anchovie pizza (personal weakness for me), then I guess that 's THEIR problem, now isn't it? WHO IN THE HELL DOESN'T KNOW that moderation in all things is the key? And like I said, if they DON'T, then its not like this has been a big secret for a long time. There's no excuse.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 2:14PM
Hey Navy Brat
...Speaking of which...I am going to eat out tonight. I'm going to order fried catfish with greasy french fries...Ummm Hmmmm!
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 2:35PM
Well Ken, you need to make sure that the catfish is prepared in the TRUE Souther way. Which means fried in bacon grease! Oh, how delicious. I think I'm gonna have to break out the cast iron skillet & make some myself here REALLY soon!
John Navratil| 12.21.10 @ 4:13PM
Are you two talking food, again! I'm gettin' hungry.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 4:30PM
Sorry, John. You know the foodie in me can't resist articles like this!
Ray| 12.21.10 @ 2:21PM
"But you say people ought to be allowed to eat anything they want even if what they eat is unhealthy! "
That's right, that's what personal freedom is all about. People are free to make bad decisions as well as good.
If not, if it's the government's responsibility to make sure that people make only those decisions that are beneficial to them, then it's the government's responsibility to regulate things like Marriage, just to stop the high divorce rates in America and ensure that all marriages are blissful and sustainable, correct? After all, divorce is expensive, rather stressful, and, usually, harmful to the parties concerned, especially children, correct? Well, doesn't that place a drain on society as a whole? Shouldn't the government insist on controlling who will marry who, for our own good?
Then there's the abundance of sexually transmitted diseases in America,. If the government should be making decisions for our well-being, shouldn't the government mandate that all sexual acts not performed for the purpose of procreation be performed with the aid of condoms in order to reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases? After all, the economic impact of sexually transmitted diseases are profound in America, correct? Well, should the government mandate the use of condoms, for our own good?
What about government mandates over what type of clothing you should wear? As far too many people suffer from exposure to the elements, shouldn't the government mandate what kinds of clothing should be worn according to current local environmental conditions? Just think about all those people who suffer from heat stroke, from frostbite, from sunburn every years. Think about the economic impact the treatment for those totally preventable injuries impose upon us all. Shouldn't the Government be forcing people to wear the proper clothing, like you think they should do for what food is proper or not?
If we allow the government to regulate our food choices, for our own good, of course, then we must allow the government to regulate every single choice we can make, and for the same reason: our own good. Does that sound "reasonable" to you? Does that sound like freedom to you? That sounds like tyranny to me.
e cowan| 12.21.10 @ 2:12PM
'Like former President George H.W. Bush and millions of other eminently sensible Americans, I have always hated broccoli.'
The only thing on which I ever agreed with Bush............
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 2:21PM
I still don't get it: you say if people (or in this case, swine-people) want to eat irresponsibly, that is their business. So if irresponsibility is acceptable, then why critize alcoholics, dope & sex-addicts, etc, so much? it is all irresponsibility, whether it is wrong or excess food, drink, dope, sex.
Why, for instance, is rutting like a rabbit in heat wrong, but eating like a starving pig acceptable?
Ray| 12.21.10 @ 2:27PM
Criticism, a form of public ridicule, is how we get people to CHOOSE to change their own behaviors. That's been true throughout human history. Those "victims' of criticisms don't have to change, but they'll probably be subject to ridicule until they do. Unlike with federal mandates, those people STILL have a choice, criticisms or not.
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 5:09PM
There are laws against even sunbathing nude on public view on one's own property. But you CAN eat like a total pig even if it drives up health insurance premiums when you get sick and check into a hospital at a thousand bucks a day.
Puzzled| 12.23.10 @ 1:17PM
And who continually whines until insurance companies are prohibited from doing proper risk stratification? Who insisted on tying insurance to work? Who wants pre-existing conditions covered? These are ways to allow those with unhealthy lifestyles to socialize the costs without paying the price. Those are your policies, not mine.
Ernie| 12.23.10 @ 11:47AM
Irresponsibility is the claim consistently used by snooty busybodies to interfere with anything they don't like. Rutting like a rabbit (which, btw, are always in heat) is not wrong. It is simply not to the taste of many. Likewise eating like a pig or doing drugs- all excessive behaviors are inherently self limiting. You either get tired of them or you die- either way it is nobody else's business.
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 2:27PM
"If we allow the government to regulate our food choices, for our own good, of course, then we must allow the government to regulate every single choice we can make, and for the same reason: our own good. Does that sound "reasonable" to you? Does that sound like freedom to you? That sounds like tyranny to me."
Then why tell people they can't sell illicit moonshine or dope? or sell porn on the street? Because you want the state to protect YOUR family at others' expense. libertarianism is as big a canard as Communism.
Ray| 12.21.10 @ 2:30PM
"Because you want the state to protect YOUR family at others' expense."
No, it's because someone else, the federal or state government, decided for us that this shouldn't be allowed. I didn't make those laws, the government did. I make the decisions for what occurs on my property, but I don;t make decisions for what occurs on YOUR property. I leave those decisions up to you.
Ray| 12.21.10 @ 2:37PM
By the way, what's the difference between "illicit moonshine" and normal alcoholic beverages? The answer is TAXES! The "legitimate" alcohol produces pays TAXES to the government for the "privilege" of being allowed to sell their product to the public.
You can still make your own "moonshine," but only for private consumption.
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 3:31PM
"You can still make your own "moonshine," but only for private consumption."
But if you get sick from drinking bad moonshine, you call an ambulance, regulated by the state. There is no GENU-WINE accountability.
John Navratil| 12.21.10 @ 4:14PM
Ray,
Check the rules. My reading is that you may not distill anything for personal use. Wine, beer, but no "shine".
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 5:15PM
look, I'm not saying conservatism; social, not economic conservatism (IMO economic conservatism is finished) isn't important. but libertarianism in a world of irresponsibility is impossible. Every day I meet more irresponsible youths-- from bad families-- and add onto that irresponsible elders, and I see no hope for liberty sans licentiousness.
Men give into temptation far too much for that; to the point of outright rebelliousness.
Negro X| 12.21.10 @ 6:32PM
AB, no doubt you intice these youth into unsafe sex to satisfy your homo desire.
Freedom| 12.23.10 @ 8:16AM
Typical liberal argument.
"It is beyond me to be responsible for myself without poking my nose into everyone else's businesses and making them live the way I consider responsibly."
"I can't conceive of free people without anarchy!"
I suggest you pick up some history books, or get out of the country more.
I am an ex-army ranger and my family came to the United States in the 1680's and my travels overseas have done nothing but encourage me to make plans to move out of the US. To MORE politically "liberal" countries. You know, like the Chech Republic or maybe Latvia.
Puzzled| 12.23.10 @ 1:21PM
So freedom is good, as long as people make the choices you wish?
Where did the world of irresponsibility come from? Answer: from the decoupling of action and cost through government programs.
Puzzled| 12.23.10 @ 1:19PM
Who says this? I say they should be allowed to sell moonshine, porn, and all the rest. On the other hand, I appreciate you commenting on this. It seems only liberals recognize the consistent philosophy of freedom, while conservatives like to talk the talk of freedom without being consistent, as you point out.
George S| 12.21.10 @ 3:49PM
It was just a matter of time... several years ago, the government mandated use of seat belts because they would limit injury, and as a result, the money spent on medical care. The rational person responded: "yes, but it's my accident, my injuries and, hence, my medical expense". Not so fast, sayeth government -- that expense is borne by everybody since it affects insurance premiums. So now government has the police power to detain you in an affront to the Fourth Amendment when you are not wearing a seat belt in your car. Click it or Ticket -- is there anything more offensive?
So why would the seat belt rationale stop there? This is now the basis for almost everything that can affect how much medical services are consumed. Yesterday it was second hand smoke. Today it is trans fats and salt. Next step can be any food. But why stop there? How about all that money spent treating gun shot wounds in emergency rooms, let alone the cost of care to a head wound induced coma. Doesn't the public good now outweigh the Second Amendment, the way seat belts brushed aside the Fourth?
Just you wait.
Jack London| 12.21.10 @ 4:13PM
Ah, the old seat belt canard - you're nothing if not predictable George. It's like waiting for a duck in a swamp - you just know he'll fly right by your 10 gauge. There's nothing like adding to the sum of human misery to make a man happy.
Palehorse| 12.22.10 @ 10:48AM
Mr. London you just don't get it do you? It's not your fault really. I have silently witnessed your citing of talking points for some time now gently amused at the lack of understanding for what America truly means. People from the world over have traveled to this land of opportunity to seek out a life away from the very oppressive systems you cite.
You make mention of how things are done in Europe, well news flash chief; this isn't Europe. Last time I checked things are not all peachy keen over there. They have grown so accustomed to their natural born entitlements, paid for by other people, that they riot to try and keep them when they can no longer be afforded. Is this what you wish upon this great land?
Who are you to tell me I have to pay into a pool my hard earned money? For what incentive to me and my family? So somebody who has not worked as hard, or applied their marketable skills as well as I can get something that when all is said and done I still have to pay for myself. You say that we should pay in according to our means, sounds familiar doesn't it? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." I believe that has been done before good sir, and it has failed, miserably.
What is so wrong with a system that is tied to ones ability to pay? It worked quite well for many generations in this country, as a matter of fact it helped to build the great society that we enjoy today. American greatness did not spontaneously appear because the founders deemed it so. It formed from the callous covered palms of Americans investing their own personal capital to create a better life for themselves. If people now a days are unwilling to do this, why should I be mandated to do it for them? Remember your right of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness end where mine begins.
Jack London| 12.22.10 @ 1:24PM
Sorry, but this is another feeble effort. Insurance won't work for an increasingly ageing population and ever increasing innovation without population-wide buy-in - it's basic economics. My health premiums have gone up greatly over the last 10 years or so and we have to draw a halt. I also don't want insurance that is likely to bankrupt me in a serious event. And I don't want my taxes and premiums paying for people who are not contributing. Maybe you do - perhaps you can explain why.
In any case, you right wing squealers are all for Medicare - 'hands off' you say. But this is a 'socialist' national insurance system. Go figure.
Palehorse| 12.22.10 @ 8:40PM
Wait, what now your against people who do not contribute getting covered? Did I read that right? As far as medicare, medicaid, social security goes if they would let me opt out I would. I say cut the crap out of it. Make it turn a profit. What say you? And just because I disagree with you does not mean I am a right winger.
Freedom| 12.23.10 @ 8:20AM
OK, I will argue like you do Jack Hoff.
ALL LIBERALS HATE the way the government handles tax regulation, experimental regulation, gun regulations, foreign policy, warfare, among others, but yet your tired old answer to your liberal dislike of how the state handles business is to HAND THE STATE MORE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Since all liberals bitch about the same government stuff, then they all feel the same way, as you then do, which invalidates your whole "government does everything better" argument.
Shut up stupid.
Puzzled| 12.23.10 @ 1:26PM
Actually, I don't. That's why I didn't support efforts to socialize costs in the first place. Innovation, again, lowers costs. This is basic economics. Your premiums have gone up because the government over time took away the ability to stratify risk. I am not "all for Medicare" - I oppose it at all turns. What in the world are you talking about?
PaulD| 12.21.10 @ 9:39PM
When the government says they're looking out for our own good, you can be sure that there is someone who is profiting from the "law". Seat belts and air bags aren't to save lives, they are to required to make someone rich who lobbied for their use.
Purpleguy| 12.21.10 @ 6:38PM
What frivolous lawsuits. The AG's have made a calculated assessment that in their states, a conservative judge or panel will rule in their favor. It doesn't matter... when this all reaches the Supreme Court the decision will be in favor of the mandate. Just as we have a mandate to pay income tax or register for the draft - against our will and restricting our freedom, I might add, the Supreme Court upholds both on grounds of being in the interest of the common good and general welfare for all. You don't have to buy insurance, and you don't have to pay taxes - but you will be fined and ultimately can be jailed - but you can refuse to pay. Nothing unconstitutional there.
Moreover, if you don't pay for health insurance, who pays when you are ill? Hospitals, doctors, nurses, ambulances - in short, anyone associated with Emergency Room care. We all pay for your folly of not having insurance. What the new healthcare law does is eliminate agregious insurance restrictions on pre-existing conditions and the like; it enables states to set up a pool for all individuals; ultimately it seeks to provide for all while lowering the cost for all at the same time. These lawsuits have no chance of declaring the Healthcare Act unconstitutional, with or without the mandate - and you can bet the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries will fund whomever in Congress makes sure the mandate sticks - one way or another. The rest is just blather and whining.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 8:46PM
Purpleguy,
God bless you.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt... that you are not really a communist troll...(pardon the shorthand).
Who is going to take care of your scrawney little butt when we producers say NO?
How about when your local doctors "retire"?
...Are you gonna' call a bureaucrat to give you a shot of penicillin?
Sir, you are dumber than dirt.
Sid Vicious| 12.22.10 @ 3:40AM
Is that so, Purpletroll? Then you will hand out tickets to all of us for ringside seats to observe your head explode as Justice Anthony Kennedy rules that the neo-Communist legislation mislabeled as "health" "care" "reform" is unconstitutional, won't you?
Five to four, baby – five to four. Ta-ta, Communist.
LibertyVini | 12.23.10 @ 7:59AM
There are no "legitimate" functions of government. All of it could either be done privately, or done without. Before government got involved in healthcare, private providers and charity covered it. With the cartellization of medicine and insurance, beginning in the late 19th century, and accelerating today, the cost of medical goods, services, and insurance have skyrocketed. So, as ever, the corporatist Obama wants to rip off all Americans to 'solve' a problem that his class has created. Sounds about right.
Pat| 12.23.10 @ 8:32AM
And like most Republicans he thinks reason and choice rules everything -- that his hatred of broccoli is a choice...the "sensible" thing to do. But one's like or dislike of broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables and Cilantro are genetic. It is not a choice and therefore sensibility has nothing to do with it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04.....rious.html
Rog| 12.23.10 @ 1:45PM
I've been listening to the arguments from the left for years and they always leave a bad taste in my mouth. I can't quite put my finger on it. Some of them sound reasonable, at first, if you haven't spent much time thinking about them. But then the acrid smell of death fills the air. The death of freedom, the death of the individual, the death of the human spirit.
These ideas are always presented in the name of the good of society. Which society? I ask. Then the old "social contract" theme is invoked. Which contract? I ask. I never signed any contract. All sorts of scenarios are proffered, what if this? What if that? How do we take care of this person in the event that..... Would you want your grandmother to suffer this or your mother to suffer that? Excuses, excuses to spread the responsibility even to those that never agreed to accept those responsibilities. This reasoning makes sense, sort of, if you are coming from the collectivist side of things. If the behavior of an individual somehow negatively affects the borg then the borg has every right to regulate that behavior. It is the hive mentality and it has no place among those who wish to be free. To those that prefer the warm, moist smell of the herd the social contract is unbreakable, unquestioned, and absolute. To those who wish to be free there is no social contract. We are responsible to ourselves and to those to whom we choose to be responsible. We can not please every one, if we try, no one will be pleased. To the borg, this is irresponsible. The borg tries to include everyone because there is safety in numbers. Resist and you threaten the stability of the herd.
I have come to the conclusion that the hive mentality is pure selfishness. Oh sure, they talk of helping the poor, the weak, on and on. But what form does this helping usually take? Paying a tax, sending a check, letting the government handle it. These are all ways of avoiding eye contact. Let some one else take care of it, I did my part, I paid the tax, now leave me alone I have honeycombs to build. Long live the hive and the structure it brings, the rules it imposes and the feeling of safety it provides. I pledge allegiance to the hive, not to you. The worker bee is irresponsible and he is selfish.
We are not bees. Freedom carries with it responsibilities, many responsibilities. We are responsible to ourselves and to those around us. we are responsible to humanity in that we must not impose our beliefs or require anything of any body through coercion. Peace is insured through cooperation. The use of force brings only resentment and eventually war.
The control the collectivists wish to impose, the control of health care, the control transportation, the control of the greedy and the lazy. The control of smokers and drinkers and the obese and the drug users and the religious and etc. etc. only creates more opportunities for more control. And then the controllers wonder why everything is out of control. Has it ever occurred to you that we have no control save self control? Does that idea frighten you? If it does, go back to herd, but leave me out it. I'll take of things myself, thank you very much.
RetUSA1/75| 12.23.10 @ 5:51PM
I'm glad santa is not paying any attention to this garbage. He needs his fat to insulate himself from the cold while delivering presents to all the wonderful childeren of the world. Any goofball could understand that.
Tim| 12.23.10 @ 6:01PM
The idea that the commerce clause grants general powers to Congress completely obliterates the doctrine of enumerated powers. Of course, that horse left the barn yard along time ago when the Supereme Court ruled in Wicker v Filburn that the federal government could regulate how much wheat is grown on private land and privately consumed. What should one expect when the Feds are entrusted with the authority to determine the limts of their own powers. However, it's never too late to turn back and correct a mistake.
ephraiyim | 12.24.10 @ 1:27AM
I guess I have a problem here. You don't want Obama's Healthcare to force parents to buy insurance (nor do I). At the same time Republicans in the Senate just passed S 510 (most voted for it) which would force small farmers to pay (large?) fees to be permitted to sell some produce to their neighbors at the local farmers'market. I guess Republicans, like their buddies the Dems will compromise on anything if the price is right. Bunch of liars and thieves all.