Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Examiner.com: Why federal health control is like federal gun control

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Please CLICK, DIGG, and REDDIT - and FOLLOW Mike on Twitter:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gu...al-gun-control

    SNIP

    Just like federal gun control schemes, federal health control schemes can be attacked on constitutional grounds. There are two lines of attack.

    First, federal action can be attacked as violating individual rights.

    Federal gun control schemes have been successfully attacked as violating the individual right to keep and bear arms. In District of Columbia v. Heller the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DC's handgun ban and inflexible trigger lock law. Subsequently at least two federal judges have that under the Second Amendment, "federal laws depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm." United States v. Arzberger, 592 F. Supp. 2d 590, 602 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Same result in United States v. Kennedy, 593 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1231 (W.D. Wash. 2008).

    Likewise federal health control schemes can be challenged as violating the individual right to privacy. As I previously here, legal experts question the constitutionality of health control rationing and regulation in under Roe v. Wade's right to privacy framework.

    Second, federal health control can be challenged as . . .

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Couldn't the proposed healthcare plan be challenged as being in violation of s "Anti-Trust" law or 2 as well. This thing has the potential, if not the intent, to drive all current insurance companies out of business.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    Don't you know anything? It's not a monopoly if the government runs it. It's "public option."

  4. #4
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Couldn't the proposed healthcare plan be challenged as being in violation of s "Anti-Trust" law or 2 as well. This thing has the potential, if not the intent, to drive all current insurance companies out of business.
    Oh, it has the intent. Insurance companies will not be able to write new policies. Therefore, when you leave one insurance company, you will have to enroll in the government "option". Also, if you decide you want to stay with your current insurance company, the plan will have to be tailored to a "government approved" plan.

    BTW, you will also have to give up your routing # and account # to the feds so they can take payments directly from your bank account.

    How do ya like dat?
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I happen to not have a bank account and if this goes through I will not get a new one.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Hi, I'm new here at OpenCarry...

    I'm fiecerly in support of individual rights.

    Now, from a legislative stand point, there are plenty of radicals out there that use a very specific strategy when attacking issues in a free society. Specifically, crush a government with overloaded demands to generate the fall of capitalism, and individual rights too.

    Worth a read... http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6967

    Gun laws don't do what they are supposed to, nor has mandated, government care. They overload the government, a government that is supposed to protect our individual rights not take them, twist them, and regulate them.


    Thank you for the article, Mike!

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Please CLICK, DIGG, and REDDIT - and FOLLOW Mike on Twitter:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d5-Why-federal-health-control-is-like-federal-gun-control

    SNIP

    Just like federal gun control schemes, federal health control schemes can be attacked on constitutional grounds. There are two lines of attack.

    First, federal action can be attacked as violating individual rights.

    Federal gun control schemes have been successfully attacked as violating the individual right to keep and bear arms. In District of Columbia v. Heller the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DC's handgun ban and inflexible trigger lock law. Subsequently at least two federal judges have that under the Second Amendment, "federal laws depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm." United States v. Arzberger, 592 F. Supp. 2d 590, 602 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Same result in United States v. Kennedy, 593 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1231 (W.D. Wash. 2008).

    Likewise federal health control schemes can be challenged as violating the individual right to privacy. As I previously here, legal experts question the constitutionality of health control rationing and regulation in under Roe v. Wade's right to privacy framework.

    Second, federal health control can be challenged as . . .
    I'm not so sure you can state that with a certainty.

    The commerce clause rulings that you speak of, specifically the Morrison case in 2000 and the Lopez rulings in 1995, were generally reversed a few years later by the Gonzales case.

    Deregulate the health insurance market so that consumers could buy health insurance from insurance companies in any state. Just like deregulation of air travel, deregulaton of health markets will lower costs and expand consumer options.

    Are you really serious? The airline market right now treats customers like utter crap. Continual flight delays, forcing people to stay on the tarmac for 9 hours straight due to bad weather (which is a airline decision, not an FAA decision), continually trying to pack more people into the plane like sardine cans, etc. There's a few airlines that don't do this (Jetblue, Frontier, Virgin America, etc), but most of the recognizable ones do (American, United, Delta).

    What your suggesting also was tried in the credit card industries. If you do what you're talking about, health insurance companies would just re-incorporate in the state that will uphold any decision by the insurance company to deny a person care who'd paid their premium's on time, have very clear coverage of a certain condition in the contract, but their state courts will just ignore them for political benefit of their state. It won't lower our costs, it'll just lower the cost to the company, who will not give the benefit to us the consumer, but will give higher benefits to shareholders. Death panels already exist in the form of review boards within private insurance companies who already judge you to be too expensive to care for when it affects their profit margin.

    De-regulation isn't always the answer.

    I also point out that Medicare and Social Security's constitutionality has been upheld repeatedly. The only lawsuit I'm aware of is in any way challenging it is the link between Medicare Part A and Social Security (disenrollment from Part A equals losing your SS benefits). The reason for this is that the rules that required it did not follow the Administrative Procedures Act for enrollment in the federal register and a comment period at all. The DOI concealed carry in parks rule had a similar issue except it did have a comment period but did not have an environmental review as required by the organic act. The Coburn amendment fixed this by putting a better rule (which allows both OC and CC) into Congressional law, which bypasses APA entirely.

    My prediction with the Hall case (the Medicare case) is the court will use the role of constitutional avoidance, and rule it a violation of the APA. They'll either reissue the rule or pass a Congressional fix similar to Coburn. Then what?

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    I happen to not have a bank account and if this goes through I will not get a new one.
    From Politifact:

    Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records. One of the goals is to include features that "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation" between payment and billing. The legislative summary says the intent in the section is "to adopt standards for typical transactions" between insurance companies and health care providers. The legislation generically describes typical electronic banking transactions and does not outline any special access privileges.


    Has nothing to do with personal bank accounts.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote
    I'm not so sure you can state that with a certainty.

    The commerce clause rulings that you speak of, specifically the Morrison case in 2000 and the Lopez rulings in 1995, were generally reversed a few years later by the Gonzales case.

    Deregulate the health insurance market so that consumers could buy health insurance from insurance companies in any state. Just like deregulation of air travel, deregulaton of health markets will lower costs and expand consumer options.

    Are you really serious? The airline market right now treats customers like utter crap. Continual flight delays, forcing people to stay on the tarmac for 9 hours straight due to bad weather (which is a airline decision, not an FAA decision), continually trying to pack more people into the plane like sardine cans, etc. There's a few airlines that don't do this (Jetblue, Frontier, Virgin America, etc), but most of the recognizable ones do (American, United, Delta).

    What your suggesting also was tried in the credit card industries. If you do what you're talking about, health insurance companies would just re-incorporate in the state that will uphold any decision by the insurance company to deny a person care who'd paid their premium's on time, have very clear coverage of a certain condition in the contract, but their state courts will just ignore them for political benefit of their state. It won't lower our costs, it'll just lower the cost to the company, who will not give the benefit to us the consumer, but will give higher benefits to shareholders. Death panels already exist in the form of review boards within private insurance companies who already judge you to be too expensive to care for when it affects their profit margin.
    So, you're pointing out in your airline section that there are actually choices that don't take the action you're using as an example. Would that be something that you'd use for your choice on your next air trip? Additionally, did the airlines that did those things have compensated customers for their bad experiences. Why would government be needed additionally when the market is working? You have choices, compensation has been made that both parties have agred to?

    As for insurance, yeah, I'm sure each family has a death panel too. Individuals make decisions on their care, along with family members sometimes having to make those decisions too.

    When an insurance company denies the payment for a medical service, it doesn't eliminate an individual's choice to seek opportunities. When government makes those decisions, you would have no opportunity to seek an option of your own choosing.

  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    Please CLICK, DIGG, and REDDIT - and FOLLOW Mike on Twitter:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d5-Why-federal-health-control-is-like-federal-gun-control

    SNIP

    Just like federal gun control schemes, federal health control schemes can be attacked on constitutional grounds. There are two lines of attack.

    First, federal action can be attacked as violating individual rights.

    Federal gun control schemes have been successfully attacked as violating the individual right to keep and bear arms. In District of Columbia v. Heller the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DC's handgun ban and inflexible trigger lock law. Subsequently at least two federal judges have that under the Second Amendment, "federal laws depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm." United States v. Arzberger, 592 F. Supp. 2d 590, 602 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Same result in United States v. Kennedy, 593 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1231 (W.D. Wash. 2008).

    Likewise federal health control schemes can be challenged as violating the individual right to privacy. As I previously here, legal experts question the constitutionality of health control rationing and regulation in under Roe v. Wade's right to privacy framework.

    Second, federal health control can be challenged as . . .
    I'm not so sure you can state that with a certainty.

    The commerce clause rulings that you speak of, specifically the Morrison case in 2000 and the Lopez rulings in 1995, were generally reversed a few years later by the Gonzales case.
    Um, I did not cite to Morrison, but still, Gonzales v. Raich did not "overrule" Lopez and Morrison, nor their holdings, in fact, it noted approval at their continuing validity:

    "To support their contrary submission, respondents rely heavily on two of our more recent Commerce Clause cases. In their myopic focus, they overlook the larger context of modern-era Commerce Clause jurisprudence preserved by those cases. Moreover, even in the narrow prism of respondents' creation, they read those cases far too broadly.

    Those two cases, of course, are Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626, 115 S. Ct. 1624, and Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 146 L. Ed. 2d 658, 120 S. Ct. 1740. As an initial matter, the statutory challenges at issue in those cases were markedly different from the challenge respondents pursue in the case at hand. Here, respondents ask us to excise individual applications of a concededly valid statutory scheme. In contrast, in both Lopez and Morrison, the parties asserted that a particular statute or provision fell outside Congress' commerce power in its entirety. This distinction is pivotal for we have often reiterated that "[w]here the class of activities is regulated and that class is within the reach of federal power, the courts have no power 'to excise, as trivial, individual instances' of the class." Perez, 402 U.S., at 154, 28 L. Ed. 2d 686, 91 S. Ct. 1357 (emphasis deleted) (quoting Wirtz, 392 U.S., at 193, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1020, 88 S. Ct. 2017); see also Hodel, 452 U.S., at 308, 69 L. Ed. 2d 1, 101 S. Ct. 2352.

    At issue in Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626, 115 S. Ct. 1624, was the validity of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which was a brief, single-subject statute making it a crime for an individual to possess a gun in a school zone. 104 Stat. 4844-4845, 18 U.S.C. ยง 922(q)(1)(A). The Act did not regulate any economic activity and did not contain any requirement that the possession of a gun have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity. Distinguishing our earlier cases holding that comprehensive regulatory statutes may be validly applied to local conduct that does not, when viewed in isolation, have a significant impact on interstate commerce, we held the statute invalid."

    Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 23 (U.S. 2005)

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    SD26 wrote:
    So, you're pointing out in your airline section that there are actually choices that don't take the action you're using as an example. Would that be something that you'd use for your choice on your next air trip? Additionally, did the airlines that did those things have compensated customers for their bad experiences. Why would government be needed additionally when the market is working? You have choices, compensation has been made that both parties have agred to?

    As for insurance, yeah, I'm sure each family has a death panel too. Individuals make decisions on their care, along with family members sometimes having to make those decisions too.

    When an insurance company denies the payment for a medical service, it doesn't eliminate an individual's choice to seek opportunities. When government makes those decisions, you would have no opportunity to seek an option of your own choosing.
    The three airlines I pointed out are very small in comparison to the big three (United, Delta, American).

    As for compensation for the bad experience, it should not have happened in the first place, and that's why there have been Congressional bills to limit the amount of time on tarmac to keep these kinds of abuses in check.

    As for the last paragraph:

    You (or someone who love, child, wife, spouse, whoever) are denied payment for medical service involving cancer treatment, doctor who is supposed to be reimbursed bills you for the cost. He then tells you that no further treatment can be given until A) your previous bill is paid and B) you pay up front for further treatment. You try to switch to another insurance company but they deny you based on "pre-existing condition", or refuse to cover you for the cancer treatment. You have to mortgage your house (if you actually own your home, if you rent your really screwed) in order to pay it, but if you can't get a second mortgage in order to leverage the buy treatment (which can cost in excess of 100,000), you have to watch yourself, or watch the one you love, pretty much die in writhing agony and pain.

    I'm not a fan of economic social darwinism, which is what is supported by continuing the current situation.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    You (or someone who love, child, wife, spouse, whoever) are denied payment for medical service involving cancer treatment, doctor who is supposed to be reimbursed bills you for the cost. He then tells you that no further treatment can be given until A) your previous bill is paid and B) you pay up front for further treatment. You try to switch to another insurance company but they deny you based on "pre-existing condition", or refuse to cover you for the cancer treatment. You have to mortgage your house (if you actually own your home, if you rent your really screwed) in order to pay it, but if you can't get a second mortgage in order to leverage the buy treatment (which can cost in excess of 100,000), you have to watch yourself, or watch the one you love, pretty much die in writhing agony and pain.
    And how is this the government's problem?

    And why would not better competition and portability policy help those who play by the rules and by good insurance for life when they are young and have no pre-existing conditions?

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    And how is this the government's problem?

    And why would not better competition and portability policy help those who play by the rules and by good insurance for life when they are young and have no pre-existing conditions?
    From hearings in Congress earlier this year:

    A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.

    The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him.

    ....Late in the hearing, [Bart] Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."

    The answer from all three executives: "No."



    I'm sure you could legally challenge these recissions in certain circumstances, but litigation takes years and if you have cancer, you don't have that kind of time to go untreated.

    Why do health care CEO's and other high level executives get paid so much? Because functional sociopaths are as rare as gold. Being able to make the decisions to do the above means that you're not a normal human being. The difference is, rather than going out and doing serial killing, they promulgate policies which in effect do the same thing, is currently legal, and kills a lot more people.

    This is the reason why there's a significant amount of support for banning pre-existing condition requirement and recission by insurance companies (outside of the current debate over public option or single payer).

    As for "and how is this the government's problem?", you're asking the question decades late. The rejection of Socio-Economic Darwinism is what led to the Social Security and Medicare system in the first place. Unless your arguing that both of those programs are unconstitutional, then you have no case for a constitutional rejection of single payer or public option.

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    And how is this the government's problem?

    And why would not better competition and portability policy help those who play by the rules and by good insurance for life when they are young and have no pre-existing conditions?
    From hearings in Congress earlier this year:

    A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.

    The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him.

    ....Late in the hearing, [Bart] Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."

    The answer from all three executives: "No."
    With more competition, the contractural standard for nonconforming disclosures of previous conditions can be more clear; also, by changing the tax system to push people out of employer based plans over time and into buying lifetime insurance makes the coverage portable - no need to buy new coverage and worry about pre-existing conditions.

    And as a current or prospective policy holder, of course you WANT the inurance company to keep out or charge more to high risk people who decide to get insurance after they need it - why should people who were responsible and ensured they were covered and paid premiums for yeats reward the slackers?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote
    The three airlines I pointed out are very small in comparison to the big three (United, Delta, American).

    As for compensation for the bad experience, it should not have happened in the first place, and that's why there have been Congressional bills to limit the amount of time on tarmac to keep these kinds of abuses in check.

    As for the last paragraph:

    You (or someone who love, child, wife, spouse, whoever) are denied payment for medical service involving cancer treatment, doctor who is supposed to be reimbursed bills you for the cost. He then tells you that no further treatment can be given until A) your previous bill is paid and B) you pay up front for further treatment. You try to switch to another insurance company but they deny you based on "pre-existing condition", or refuse to cover you for the cancer treatment. You have to mortgage your house (if you actually own your home, if you rent your really screwed) in order to pay it, but if you can't get a second mortgage in order to leverage the buy treatment (which can cost in excess of 100,000), you have to watch yourself, or watch the one you love, pretty much die in writhing agony and pain.

    I'm not a fan of economic social darwinism, which is what is supported by continuing the current situation.
    Yes, the airlines are smaller in comparison to the others. What's the point? They can react, yes. But sitting on the runway is not a common issue with the over 25,000 flights a day in the United States.

    Now, treatment...

    Why should someone be able to force a service from someone when they haven't gotten paid for the previous service? One could certainly advocate slavery of those in the health care industry, but I would think that that is covered under the US Constitution as of yet.

    Additionally, insurance is not a guarantee of being able to receive every service. A rational person also reconizes that they are buying into a pool that allows them an opportunity to get services that they could not afford without that insurance. So, there has to be someone that decides what treatments are going to be covered.

    Having been through cancer with two family members and being associated with some families with children with pediatric cancer, it's not pretty all the time. Some stuff is experiemental. No, one can't always afford that when the insurance company won't either. And why should it as someone else's family has a right to coverage for an illness that has a more mainstream treatment that will most likely be successful. The void where insurance and personal income and property can be filled by charitiable programs, other family members, and even people that you don't know.

    Even if all of the premiums of one company with hundreds of thousands of paying customers were to pool their money to save one person, they will eventually pass. That cannot be denied. Insurance is not a guarantee for immortality.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:

    I'm sure you could legally challenge these recissions in certain circumstances, but litigation takes years and if you have cancer, you don't have that kind of time to go untreated.

    Unless your arguing that both of those programs are unconstitutional, then you have no case for a constitutional rejection of single payer or public option.
    Have you ever sued the government?


    As for unconstitutional, my health care options are not for the government to take away. Unless you can tell me when it became "theirs". As it is, over forty of years of Medicare/Medicaid has involved the government in their standard scheme of not being able to accomplish the task they were supposed to take care of again, but they have developed more indebtedness for my children, waste, and rampant fraud. That's not even part of my pusuit of happiness.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    With more competition, the contractural standard for nonconforming disclosures of previous conditions can be more clear; also, by changing the tax system to push people out of employer based plans over time and into buying lifetime insurance makes the coverage portable - no need to buy new coverage and worry about pre-existing conditions.

    And as a current or prospective policy holder, of course you WANT the inurance company to keep out or charge more to high risk people who decide to get insurance after they need it - why should people who were responsible and ensured they were covered and paid premiums for yeats reward the slackers?
    Ok, let's say for a minute that what your saying is correct, and that employee based system that the government encouraged from WW2 is the real cause of this problem, and you force things to an individualized system away from an employer based system of insurance.

    Do you intend to grandfather those who were, as a result of the employer based insurance systems that the government encouraged, had to switch insurance plans when they switched employers, or when the employer switched insurance on those currently enrolled?

    What your suggesting *could* be a great idea for those who haven't yet been born, but what those of us that are here, today? You talk about a "lifetime's worth of insurance", but we've been dealing with an employer based system which encourages switching around. Ideas are great until you deal with the real world implementation. Unless you're willing to wipe everyone's slate completely clean before a certain date when your new system goes into effect, you won't have anyone go for such an idea.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    SD26 wrote:
    Have you ever sued the government?
    Yes I have. It's a lot easier to do a constitutional challenge against government malfeasance or violations of FOIA/PRA than it is to file a common law suit over a contract of adhesion with a private insurance company.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    Isn't that the kind of argument that people use to support Socialist Security? They know it's a bad system destined to fail and they want to continue along the same path instead of changing it. So to help out those that are under the system now they hurt those growing up and those yet to be born.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    I happen to not have a bank account and if this goes through I will not get a new one.
    From Politifact:

    Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records. One of the goals is to include features that "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation" between payment and billing. The legislative summary says the intent in the section is "to adopt standards for typical transactions" between insurance companies and health care providers. The legislation generically describes typical electronic banking transactions and does not outline any special access privileges.


    Has nothing to do with personal bank accounts.
    Since when has the government stuck with the original intentions. I don't want them involved any more into my life. I am tired of them growing more and more intrusive, and now forcing healthcare on people? Come on!!!!! Why do they have to have more access to bank accounts for what ever reason!!!

    And your example of airlines isn't true, I fly Hawaiian a lot a great airline great treatment and great on time rating, and a lot cheaper since deregulation. Deregulation happened how long ago, being stuck on a tarmac had nothing to do with that, can you say they wouldn't have been stuck if the government was running the cost of flying? I have flown other airlines and the service has been great, and I am glad I don't have to pay out the nose to fly. If you want premium treatment fly first class.

    You should study how life insurance dropped in the '90s. It was due to the internet and the ability to get quotes from all over the United States across state lines.

    It is sad when something bad happens, it is not the responsibility of the rest of the country to take care of this. We need to stop this sort of thinking.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Do you intend to grandfather those who were, as a result of the employer based insurance systems that the government encouraged, had to switch insurance plans when they switched employers, or when the employer switched insurance on those currently enrolled?
    I said "phase out" - I would not drop the non-taxability of employer based health care insurance immediately, but many of all ages would jump on the opportunity to buy a simple and cheap catostrophic coverage only plan if the premiums were tax deductible.

    This issue is usually covered in many or most college economics programs - pretty straight forward.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Sounds like a stretch, Mike:

    Exactly what in the health care bills currently before the House would violate the Roe/Casey right to privacy?

    The Commerce Clause is merely a matter of good statutory draftsmanship, here, seems to me. Are you saying that the bills weren't properly drafted, like in Lopez?

    My view: lets pass the bills, and then you can sue and we'll see if you are right!

    Donk

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    Sounds like a stretch, Mike:

    Exactly what in the health care bills currently before the House would violate the Roe/Casey right to privacy?

    The Commerce Clause is merely a matter of good statutory draftsmanship, here, seems to me. Are you saying that the bills weren't properly drafted, like in Lopez?

    My view: lets pass the bills, and then you can sue and we'll see if you are right!

    Donk
    Great idea Dinkey!!! How about we just let the government collect all the guns and see if we're safer? If not we can trust them to return our property or just "sue" when we find out your party is wrong as they always are.

    I've said it before, and everytime this guy posts it's no wonder their party mascot is a *******.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •