The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 53

The point is they gave us the means to remedy any shortcomings and we do that via the amendment process, not via the "Constituion is a living document and I think speech really means money and thus free speech means free money" type of nonsensical reasoning.


InfidelPsychologist would have been best of course.


The courts have been reviewing that as well. I was looking over some of the Supreme Court transcripts last night (I got about 10 pages in out of probably 500 page generated across two days.) There is a lot of discussion about the ability of the states to refuse the federal governments offer as well (the prior model) in discussing the Medicare reforms. Their choices appear to be basically agree to take on a whole slew of new responsibilities and people or lose disproportionate money compared to what they had before. Some members of the court have been asking about this coercion and Scalia specifically called it "an offer you can't refuse" noting the mafia type reasoning within it. Much of how it is bundled together is being discussed with the hearing on severability as well. I find it pretty interesting that the court has had to appoint lawyers to address several third way options. Got any thoughts on that?

It really looks like if this goes down in flames it won't be because the Supreme Court didn't want to be helpful in terms of rulings. It will be because the profoundly partisan Democratic Congress and President tied it into such a tight knot that it became an all or nothing deal combined with an offer you can't refuse and the Supreme Court will have had to refuse due to that crazy Constitution thing.


What you are saying is true at the state level but we have branches of government and levels of government for a reason. Democrats in a zest for victory at any cost are increasingly harming their own agenda.


You are talking about day one, but we have to consider beyond that and so must the courts. Clearly those who have no money to give must be covered as well. 10 million people are supposed to be added via expanded Medicare coverage.


Yes but we aren't discussing you right now.


I agree so stop acting like one.


When you say things like "really true" what you mean is that courts affirmed what was challenged in perhaps the most final manner. You again cite an amendment but seem to keep avoiding the point that an amendment is not a court ruling or a mere bill passed by Congress. In instances where the ideas or understandings that we had from the founders required modification, we amended the Constitution. We did not pass a bill and then let Congress just alter the entire nature of our relationship with our government by being able to compel us to enter a marketplace. If people feel the government ought to be able to do that after this is ruled against, the amendment process it the best way to do that.

You've heard me argue this both with the right to privacy, gay marriage and so on. A court decision that alters the true understanding of words basically requires the courts and future judges continue to buy the lie. That is why people are still terrified of Roe v Wade being overturned 40 years later. Meanwhile no one is worried about a Supreme Court overturning the right of women to vote or of African-Americans or anyone else returning to slave status. An amendment has a purpose and if we were willing to consider them more often instead of running to the courts, we might be in a better position.

A major point to remember in all of these reports are that the countries often self-report and thus their measures may not be uniform.


I've often said that the blind-spot that leftists have for government severely undermine their own solution because they refuse to criticize or reform them. As an example you are right that the U.S. spends far more, but most of that additional spending is PRIVATE. In terms of government spending, the U.S is right in the middle of the mix. Yet most of these others countries manage to cover almost their entire population with that government spending. In our case not only does the government spending not get us almost universal health care, instead it is clear that there is cost shifting related to the complete government inefficiency.


If we have massive numbers of people spending far higher than the rest of world in per capita PRIVATELY then the real question to ask is why the government when spending as much as the U.K and Japanese governments as a percentage of GDP cannot provide what they provide?


Health outcomes and health delivery are not the same. If people flock to the U.S. from other countries, if they make poor health choices in their personal lives, then there is only so much that can be done to mitigate that.

Basically the same points have been brought to you repeatedly that the segments of the economy that the government radically influences or outright controls have costs that continually rise above the rate of inflation. Likewise many of those countries that you call "rich" or "poor" are those like the PIIGS of Europe (and likely the U.S.) that are actually broke debtors.