billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote
Man up and answer.
Already have
You just dont like my answer
They are taken care of today
It works
So the status quo is OK with you. Freeloaders continue to get a free ride at your expense. Fascinating.
No
It is better than obamacare would be
At least they get treatment for less dollars today than they will under gov treatment
You, on the other hand, are decrying your tax dollars being spent on those that need help
A big turn around for you
I had no idea you were to heartless
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuote>Obamacare, of left standing, will just be the beginning of the nanny starte
>taking over our lives
So will Romneycare. The question is - what's the alternative? What we have now isn't working.
repeal the EMTALA.
So you'd be happy to have sick people who can't prove that they have the capacity to pay left to die in the street. Nice guy you are. Not even rushmc goes that far.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
Quote>vTort reform
Agreed there.
>repeal the EMTALA
I'd only support that if there were a replacement to it to ensure care during emergencies.
>regulation reform to allow standardized insurance products to be sold across state lines
I would support this unless the implementation was really screwy.
All really new ideas huh
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
Freeloaders continue to get a free ride at your expense. Fascinating.
What is REALLY facinating is your picking out one group of freeloader you dont like yet, you support many of the others I listed earlier in the thread
Hypocrisy and a demonstration of bigotry
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Bolas 5
QuoteQuoteQuote>Obamacare, of left standing, will just be the beginning of the nanny starte
>taking over our lives
So will Romneycare. The question is - what's the alternative? What we have now isn't working.
repeal the EMTALA.
So you'd be happy to have sick people who can't prove that they have the capacity to pay left to die in the street. Nice guy you are. Not even rushmc goes that far.
No, I'm for calling it the Emergency Room again and it used for Triage only.
There are other options already. Prior to the EMTALA, people in critical condition weren't left dieing in the streets.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
Quote>Obamacare, of left standing, will just be the beginning of the nanny starte
>taking over our lives
So will Romneycare. The question is - what's the alternative? What we have now isn't working.
It works great, In spite of the recession in 2009 the health insurance companies had a 56% increase in profits (facilitated partially by dropping unprofitable subscribers).
Things aren't going nearly as well for other American industries.
billvon 2,991
>No, I'm for calling it the Emergency Room again and it used for Triage only.
Provided that such care was guaranteed by whatever replaced it - I'd support that.
Provided that such care was guaranteed by whatever replaced it - I'd support that.
Skwrl 56
Quotestandardized insurance products to be sold across state lines, etc.
So, for the record, a state shouldn't have the ability to regulate the insurance products being sold in its territory? This should be governed by Federal and not State law? Interesting position, since I thought a lot of folks who are opposed to the federal mandate concept are pro-State's rights...
Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography
Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
rushmc 23
QuoteQuotestandardized insurance products to be sold across state lines, etc.
So, for the record, a state shouldn't have the ability to regulate the insurance products being sold in its territory? This should be governed by Federal and not State law? Interesting position, since I thought a lot of folks who are opposed to the federal mandate concept are pro-State's rights...
This maybe should apply here
QuoteThe Commerce Among the States Clause operates both as a power delegated to Congress and as a constraint upon state legislation. No clause in the 1787 Constitution has been more disputed, and it has generated more cases than any other.
To this day, the debate over the extent of the commerce power centers on the definitions of "to regulate," "Commerce," and "among the several States."
The narrowest definition of "to regulate" is to "make regular," that is, to facilitate the free flow of goods, but not, except in cases of danger, to prohibit the flow of any good. The Supreme Court has never accepted this narrow definition. From the beginning, Chief Justice John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) saw the power to regulate as coextensive with the other delegated powers of Congress. He declared: "This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution." The manner in which Congress decides to regulate commerce, Marshall said, is completely at the discretion of Congress, subject only to the political check of the voters. This power, as it later turned out, includes the power to prohibit the transportation of articles, as well as to control their exchange and transportation. Champion v. Ames (1903).
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Bolas 5
QuoteQuotestandardized insurance products to be sold across state lines, etc.
So, for the record, a state shouldn't have the ability to regulate the insurance products being sold in its territory? This should be governed by Federal and not State law? Interesting position, since I thought a lot of folks who are opposed to the federal mandate concept are pro-State's rights...
Regulate, yes. Mandate, no. The issue of too much government interference and corruption is not limited to the federal level., they're just the worst offenders.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
wmw999 2,447
They were transferred to charity hospitals before they were ready, and did, in fact, die sometimes. Which caused newspaper stories, and which led to EMTALA.QuotePrior to the EMTALA, people in critical condition weren't left dieing in the streets
I'm all for more wards and fewer private rooms in hospitals, as well as more basic care. But the cost is that some people won't get top-tier care. We'll just be admitting it.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Obamacare, of left standing, will just be the beginning of the nanny starte
>taking over our lives
So will Romneycare. The question is - what's the alternative? What we have now isn't working.
repeal the EMTALA.
So you'd be happy to have sick people who can't prove that they have the capacity to pay left to die in the street. Nice guy you are. Not even rushmc goes that far.
No, I'm for calling it the Emergency Room again and it used for Triage only.
There are other options already. Prior to the EMTALA, people in critical condition weren't left dieing in the streets.
Ummmm - wrong.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Bolas 5
QuoteThey were transferred to charity hospitals before they were ready, and did, in fact, die sometimes. Which caused newspaper stories, and which led to EMTALA.QuotePrior to the EMTALA, people in critical condition weren't left dieing in the streets
I'm all for more wards and fewer private rooms in hospitals, as well as more basic care. But the cost is that some people won't get top-tier care. We'll just be admitting it.
Wendy P.
No health coverage is going to help everybody, even universal care.
Universal care limits top tier care to even fewer.
We just need to come to the realization as a society, regardless of what path we choose, we're not going to be able to help everyone. Period.
Most of the arguments for socialized medicine seem to be it prevents people "falling through the cracks." It has it's own cracks. As Obamacare has aspects of both, it has even more cracks.
If allowed to choose between a government controlled and mandated solution or a free market one, I'll choose free market. I think everyone is in agreement that the system we have now has issues, we just disagree on which way to go and what we need to do to fix it.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
Bolas 5
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Obamacare, of left standing, will just be the beginning of the nanny starte
>taking over our lives
So will Romneycare. The question is - what's the alternative? What we have now isn't working.
repeal the EMTALA.
So you'd be happy to have sick people who can't prove that they have the capacity to pay left to die in the street. Nice guy you are. Not even rushmc goes that far.
No, I'm for calling it the Emergency Room again and it used for Triage only.
There are other options already. Prior to the EMTALA, people in critical condition weren't left dieing in the streets.
Ummmm - wrong.
So car accident victims were just left to die without getting ANY medical care?
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
wmw999 2,447
Personally, I'm in favor of a two-tier system. The one that our taxes pay for includes casts rather than surgery for broken bones, ward beds in the hospital, generic medicines in (nearly) all cases, freestandin clinics with NPs and PAs rather than doctors for much of the care, and an acceptance that it's not as good as the upper tier. But beats the heck out of waiting in the ER every time.
Kind of like how public education way beats the alternative of lots of even-more-uneducated people that would be the option, but many private schools are better than the public ones.
Americans will always be willing to pay more to get more.
Wendy P.
Kind of like how public education way beats the alternative of lots of even-more-uneducated people that would be the option, but many private schools are better than the public ones.
Americans will always be willing to pay more to get more.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Skwrl 56
QuoteQuoteQuotestandardized insurance products to be sold across state lines, etc.
So, for the record, a state shouldn't have the ability to regulate the insurance products being sold in its territory? This should be governed by Federal and not State law? Interesting position, since I thought a lot of folks who are opposed to the federal mandate concept are pro-State's rights...
This maybe should apply hereQuoteThe Commerce Among the States Clause operates both as a power delegated to Congress and as a constraint upon state legislation. No clause in the 1787 Constitution has been more disputed, and it has generated more cases than any other.
To this day, the debate over the extent of the commerce power centers on the definitions of "to regulate," "Commerce," and "among the several States."
The narrowest definition of "to regulate" is to "make regular," that is, to facilitate the free flow of goods, but not, except in cases of danger, to prohibit the flow of any good. The Supreme Court has never accepted this narrow definition. From the beginning, Chief Justice John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) saw the power to regulate as coextensive with the other delegated powers of Congress. He declared: "This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution." The manner in which Congress decides to regulate commerce, Marshall said, is completely at the discretion of Congress, subject only to the political check of the voters. This power, as it later turned out, includes the power to prohibit the transportation of articles, as well as to control their exchange and transportation. Champion v. Ames (1903).
I'm missing your point there. Are you saying that you think it's within the federal power to regulate or is it limited to the states?
As a body of law, the Commerce Clause has evolved considerably, since 1903. For example, any analysis that skips over the huge body of Supreme Court cases since the New Deal is pretty darn misleading. For starters, check out United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., which states: "The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. * * * [No] form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power."
Granted there have been cases that have popped up after (in 1995, Lopez) that that have placed limits on the ability to regulate true INTRA-state activities, and that's why the ACA case is interesting from a Constitutional standpoint.
But that really wasn't what I was getting at.
Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography
Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotestandardized insurance products to be sold across state lines, etc.
So, for the record, a state shouldn't have the ability to regulate the insurance products being sold in its territory? This should be governed by Federal and not State law? Interesting position, since I thought a lot of folks who are opposed to the federal mandate concept are pro-State's rights...
This maybe should apply hereQuoteThe Commerce Among the States Clause operates both as a power delegated to Congress and as a constraint upon state legislation. No clause in the 1787 Constitution has been more disputed, and it has generated more cases than any other.
To this day, the debate over the extent of the commerce power centers on the definitions of "to regulate," "Commerce," and "among the several States."
The narrowest definition of "to regulate" is to "make regular," that is, to facilitate the free flow of goods, but not, except in cases of danger, to prohibit the flow of any good. The Supreme Court has never accepted this narrow definition. From the beginning, Chief Justice John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) saw the power to regulate as coextensive with the other delegated powers of Congress. He declared: "This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution." The manner in which Congress decides to regulate commerce, Marshall said, is completely at the discretion of Congress, subject only to the political check of the voters. This power, as it later turned out, includes the power to prohibit the transportation of articles, as well as to control their exchange and transportation. Champion v. Ames (1903).
I'm missing your point there. Are you saying that you think it's within the federal power to regulate or is it limited to the states?
As a body of law, the Commerce Clause has evolved considerably, since 1903. For example, any analysis that skips over the huge body of Supreme Court cases since the New Deal is pretty darn misleading. For starters, check out United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., which states: "The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. * * * [No] form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power."
Granted there have been cases that have popped up after (in 1995, Lopez) that that have placed limits on the ability to regulate true INTRA-state activities, and that's why the ACA case is interesting from a Constitutional standpoint.
But that really wasn't what I was getting at.
Maybe I missed where you were coming from
I am pro states rights but, as with any rights there are limitation
I think the clause I listed is there to make sure the states play nice
Restricting cross border insurance business unless a HQ is in the state falls under that IMO
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Agreed there.
>repeal the EMTALA
I'd only support that if there were a replacement to it to ensure care during emergencies.
>regulation reform to allow standardized insurance products to be sold across state lines
I would support this unless the implementation was really screwy.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites