Slashdot Mirror
Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act
Shining Celebi writes "U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled in favor of the ACLU and struck down a portion of the revised USA PATRIOT Act this morning, forcing investigators to go through the courts to obtain approval before ordering ISPs to give up information on customers, instead of just sending them a National Security Letter. In the words of Judge Marrero, this use of National Security Letters 'offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.'"
I, for one, welcome our newly Constitutionally-conscious judicial overlords.
At least someone still has some sense and remembers about those quaint old "rights" and "warrants" and "due process".
Where is the "nodamnkidding" tag when you need it?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Now we just have to get the rest struck down.
B5 71 ED FB 55 D6 4E 68 07 25 E2 FA CA 93 F0 2F, is mine! All mine!
If the members of Congress had any sort of backbone, we wouldn't have needed to bring checks and balances into play.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
this use of National Security Letters "offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers."
This entire administration offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin
The game.
Anyone want to guess how long it'll be before Victor finds himself out of a job?... Unfortunately...
Next on the todo list: throw out the rest of that abomination of a document that is the Patriot Act. It seems more and more often that document is affecting reach of life that go far beyond "national security". I recently had to provide multiple forms of documentation to open a Health Savings Account because of a Patriot Act provision.
Good work, Congress. Protecting our freedoms by removing our freedoms.
I'm an anti-voter, anti-voting in all elections that I can vote in. Many people are surprised that I said I would actually vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, since this vote doesn't actually give any of my rights up to another individual. But even with so many RP supporters online (and now offline), I still think the only way to reduce tyranny in this country is to get judges back into reading the Constitution, and understanding that the document is not flexible, living, breathing and adapting.
Since the U.S. was born, it was understood by all, even detractors, that the Constitution had one purpose: the keep Federal government small and let the individual States be big for those who wanted a big State, and small for those who wanted a small State. People afraid of a North American Union forget that the U.S. was designed this way: a union of States (governments) that agree to one thing: personal rights and responsibilities (these are one thing because they go hand-in-hand).
I'm SHOCKED that we today forget that freedom comes from a lack of government intrusion, NOT from government intrusion. The PATRIOT Act is a simple proof that citizens today have no clue that the Federal government is restrained by the Constitution exactly as it was written. No laws restricting speech, no laws restricting arms, no laws restricting Habeus Corpus, no laws restricting travel or transport, no laws restricting trade, no laws restricting the People's rights beyond what limited powers the central body has. In fact, the only thing the Feds really can do is to make sure the individual States don't trample on the individual's rights to act non-violently how they want to act.
I'm glad to see SOME judges admire SOME parts of the Constitution, but I can only dream of a day when judges understand the non-breathing, non-adapting Constitutional limits on the Feds. When that happens, nothing Congress or a power-hungry President do would become law.
This act is contrary to everything that makes America who it is. At least they had the marginally good sense to put a sunset on it. I think they knew it would be kicked out at some point anyway. Good riddance. Patriot Act supporters are whats wrong in America.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
A US District Court is a fairly low-level court. As a result, this is but the first step in the process. You can be assured that the Feds are going to appeal this vigorously to the highest levels...
If you appreciate what the ACLU does, it's worth noting that they could always use your support.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Courts these days have very little to do with a codified rule of law - look at all of the Supreme Court cases where major changes in national course have been made by a single person voting along party lines.
This ruling is inevitably going to be appealed, since the government has unlimited funds to drag things through court indefinitely (zero accoutability) and will eventually be brought before the USSC where it will probably be ultimately overturned on a 5-4 vote along party lines. Personally, I think that any case that isn't decided by a margin of at least three should never be allowed to be considered as precedent, and that if a judicial panel can't rule by at least a margin of two then the law should be immediately thrown out as being too vague.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
Well I am glad to see there are some rational people left in this world. :)
Federal judges have life tenure unless impeached by Congress for misconduct, and while this Congress has no backbone to hold The Sprout's (thanks, Molly Ivins!) feet to the fire in terms of obeying the Constitution, neither does it have the degree of nutball monomania required to impeach a judge for such evident Constitutional common sense. I doubt there's a single Representative crazy enough to ... belay that, there aren't enough crazies there to make it a serious possibility.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
It's about six years too late. Let me know when they're getting the tar and feathers out.
Their taking our jobs!!!!
I don't have a microwave. I do, however, have a clock that occasionally cooks shit.
The ACLU challenged this law, and hence brought about this ruling. Hopefully, they will be successful in challenging similar laws in the future.
You benefit from their work.
They need to eat.
Donate.
The Bush admin wll just use their next atty general to prevent these cases from getting reviewed, appealing it all the way to the now-biased supreme court. This is a long fight.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
I'm tired of activist judges who ignore basic law principles
Basic law principles... like the 4th Amendment. Oh, wait, that's what Congress and the President ignored. Good thing someone is actually about enforcing the law. Too bad there are so many who would throw out our most basic of law -- the Constitution -- the second it inconveniences them.
The enemies of Democracy are
In completely unrelated news, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero has been arrested as an enemy combatant who hates freedom as is currently on an airplane in transit to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he will be held indefinitely. Ironically, it is unlikely that this judge will ever see his own day in court.
President Bush has issued a signing statement declaring that the principles of checks and balances and separation of powers is unConstitutional, since "Clearly the executive branch of government is over the other two, or else they wouldn't have called it the 'executive' branch." Dick Cheney couldn't be reached for comment to see which branch of government he is part of today.
Various parts of The Government Intrusion Act have been struck down over the years, right from the time it was first passed. I was hoping they'd let it just go away through its sunset clause, but they rammed a new version through. So now we start the process anew... go after one part at a time. It may take a while, but it will all eventually go away because Congress and the President overstepped their constitutional authority.
OCO is Loco
And yet, for some reason, you object when we call you what you are: Nazi's.
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
...that's unconstitutional!!! He can't do that unless the president says he can!!!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Funny how fast terrorism switches sides these days . . .
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Thank god going back to 1774 ideals started in united states.
Read radical news here
Congress made such a law, and by virtue of checks and balances, we're able to get rid of it. Try again coward.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Mod parent up funny/insightful, please!
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Call me a cynic, but I think it's the Judge's own desire to preserve his JOB that may be the motivation here. Like lawmakers approving legislation for their own pay raises through in record time, there's no motivator like self-interest.
It's a very old piece of paper, too. If I threw it in your face it'd crumble! That'd probably make some people happy.
The enemies of Democracy are
Huh? The Reps are down to 10% now? Boy, I must've been sleeping for a while.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The Government can prevent this kind of challenge by simply declaring that the existence of such NSLs is a State Secret, denying any prospective plaintiffs proof that they have standing. That's exactly what the USSC ruled in the secret-wiretap ruling recently and the Administration is sure to have pointed that out (I don't have a copy of the pleadings here, but given the Administration's fondness for that tactic I can't imagine that they would have missed that one.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Now, if only the supported the second amendment, I'd be ridiculously happy with them. At least they're not supporting gun control.
Card carrying member of both the ACLU and NRA.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
Read the actual decision. (PDF) What the court ruled was that the "gag rule" associated with "National Security Letters" was fundamentally unconstitutional as a First Amendment violation. The issue is that the FBI can't impose a "gag order" on someone without court approval.
The previous issue, issuance of National Security Letters without court approval as a Fourth Amendment violation, was dealt with when Congress revised the Patriot Act last year to allow recipients of a National Security Letter to challenge them in court, like a subpoena.
As a classic rule of First Amendment jurisprudence, when the Court finds a First Amendment violation, they strike down the entire statute, rather than trying to patch it. That's what the court did here. The court also stayed the execution of the order pending an appeal, which is likely.
It's a narrow holding. The FBI can still issue National Security Letters without going to court first, but anyone who receives one is now in a much stronger position to argue about it. As a practical matter, if you work for an ISP or telco and get a National Security Letter, your response is "This has to go through our lawyers."
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot. It's all a matter of perspective.
Who let Ann Coulter on
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Troll? Do the moderators know what Zyklon B is?
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
insight
-noun 1. an instance of apprehending the true nature of a thing, esp. through intuitive understanding
People here have been rolling out that tired quote for the past six years. Posting it verbatim no longer qualifies as "insightful" IMO.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Actually the Patriot Act is a mixed bag of some stuff that is pretty bad, and other stuff that seems reasonable but isn't a solution to the situation we faced on 9/11.
If you go through the provisions, most of them seem to be aimed at the proverbial "ticking time bomb" scenario. This wouldn't have helped on 9/11, because the first inkling we had the operation was going on was when the plane was hijacked. At that point the time it would take to get a warrant in Boston vs. Washington DC wasn't an issue. Other provisions pierce the Chinese wall between intelligence and law enforcement. Again that wasn't an issue in 9/11. Had we taken the steps available to us under the old rules, it would have made a difference. Having the same attitude, the new rules would not have made a difference.
If we had done everything we should have in the lead up to 9/11, it is conceivable although not certain that the provisions in the Patriot Act might have made a difference. That is saying something for the Patriot Act in my opinion.
The main problem with the Patriot Act is not what it contains, but what it fails to contain: any provision to hold the executive branch accountable for its use of its new powers. And therein lies the opportunity for a tool of security to become a tool of tyranny. As President Reagan said: trust, but verify. Which means you can trust somebody when any cheating would be made obvious.
The police have the ability to do all kinds of things to you that you wouldn't want them to do, up to and including shooting you dead. This doesn't mean we live in some kind of police haunted dystopia, for the simple reason that there are rules that govern the police use of their powers, and when they exercise those powers they have to answer to the courts as to whether they were using those powers within their lawful limits. That's accountability: it's a philosophy that works.
This by the way is the problem with the administration's wiretapping programs. I'm happy to let them have such programs for the purposes they claim so long as somebody independent verifies they are using it for that alone. If there is no such mechanism, it doesn't matter if the program is being run by Jesus Himself. It's a bad program.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It's now easier to obtain the name matching the IP address of a suspected copyright infringer than it is for a suspected terrorist?
Our priorities in this country fill me with amazement and despair.
At first I thought "a ray of hope?" but then I realized that they will just obtain the information illegally anyway.
Do you really think that Giuliani would be worse than Bush/Cheney?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"Ironically, socialized medicine takes healthcare decisions out of individuals' hands..."
So do HMO's.
EXCELLENT. Mod Parent UP.
Socialized Medicine makes sure that the poorest and most vulnerable get decent care, which they currently do not.
I don't recall making the decision to support hateful religionists through my taxes, but 'churches' are tax exempt.
Get over yourself son.
Blar.
I pay my taxes. I do not in any way wish to support the ACLU.
For example, a courthouse has a display of 15 of history's preeminant lawgivers. Among them, is Jesus. ACLU is trying to get rid of the Jesus image. I can't say I agree with that. Jesus is up there with 15 of history's preeminant lawgivers, IMO. Makes sense. He promoted peace and justice, things you want in a courthouse. Or the ethiopian food fight. Were it about Republicans, or about the plight of white overage Americans, the ACLU wouldn't care.
Are those 2 (very recent) examples really what you want your tax dollars going towards? I'd classify it as pork. There are so many things that rank higher in the world of 'civil liberties', the ACLU, from what I have seen, nitpicks the little things that really don't matter. If pictures offend you, you have bigger problems.
Please, shut up.
I actually do have a problem with judicial activism, as in legislating from the bench, as in a judge deciding what he wants to be law instead of ruling on the law as it is. Your brand of trolling just makes serious objections look stupid.
What this judge did was overturn a law on Constitutional grounds. (And hallelujah for that!) Even if you don't think the Patriot Act provision really was unconstitutional, you can't call it judicial activism unless you think that the judge invented a new "constitutional right" or some such. Otherwise, you should just say the decision was wrong.
(I know, I know, I'm feeding the troll. I can't help myself.)
I guess you would like to be ruled by Queen Elizabeth right now. I mean that "goddamned peice of paper!" is what prevented that.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
If you want better, you pay more for it. Do you think people who send kids to private school should get a tax rebate because they don't use the service?
If so...
I don't go to church, I want the portion of my taxes that supports those churches back.
I have my own weapon and I'll defend my property myself, I don't want to pay for police services that others use.
Blar.
9/11 changed everything
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
...Who Accounts for the General Accounting Office?
Blar.
In completely unrelated news, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero has been arrested as an enemy combatant
The day this comment becomes modded Informative instead of Funny, is the day you can reasonable claim the US a fascist state.
The fact that you can so easily joke about it, belies just how far from reality we are from this happening.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
i'm sure they don't and that it was a conservative that modded grandparent
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Don't let him remain an inconsequential voice, spread the word, get involved in your politics, because you don't take charge of politics, politics will take charge of you.
You can't take the sky from me...
Or listen to Interview here:
And considering his oath of office, that excited utterance alone should be enough for a charge of treason to stick.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I remember saying on 09/11/2001 that the government will use the fear generated by the crashes to ram the Patriot Act down our throats. It's sad that our country gives up personal freedom so willingly. While any reverse of any part of the Act is good, I won't be happy until it's abolished in its entirety. But, now that its there, it will be tough to eradicate. I wish people would think before they act in fear. Anyway, my $0.02.
It's certainly true that some of the provisions "might have" prevented a 9/11 attack, but hindsight is 20/20. Granted I've only just started reading his work, but Sun Tzu clearly indicated that in order to successfully wage war when your force is smaller, you have to attack where your enemy does not expect you. That is the problem with this kind of war; you can defend against one tactic, but they'll simply adapt and do something else. Look at internet security--it doesn't matter how much Microsoft patches the operating system; they're still going to find a new way to get in. All these provisions will do is direct terrorists to other unknown avenues, at the cost of billions of dollars, our freedoms (which is what we are trying to protect), and our very way of life.
That, however, is only an argument for the futility of the Patriot Act. I would argue that the biggest problem, however, is its scope. Again, why would the Patriot Act dictate what documentation I need in order to open an HSA? Where is the sense in that? Do terrorists use the tax-free medical funds to finance terrorism? I didn't need any of that to open a bank account, or get a credit card, so why an HSA? The problem is that the Patriot Act seems to cover any kind of wild scenario that maybe someone could somehow, in some crazy unlikely scenario, use to even indirectly benefit terrorism. Hey, maybe the terrorists are getting $34/year extra on tax benefits by using an HSA (which, by the way, also requires them to have a HDHP)!
And that even says nothing about why we need to get really, really wound up over terrorist attacks on the US that have killed only a small fraction of number of people who have died of more troublesome causes, such as cancer, or the flu, or armed robbery, or drowning in backyard pools. If we look at it in terms of how much we're giving up in terms of dollars and freedoms per life saved, we're probably spending millions of times on terrorism what we spend on anything else.
Now if we can just get the Executive branch to listen to... oh I dunno... ANYBODY else, this might mean something. Is it me, or is the Legislative and Judicial branches a bunch of big fat pussies? No wonder the Executives are running away with all the marbles.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Not everyone took this practice lying down, you know ...
There are good people in the business community that pushed back, and probably put themselves out on a limb to do so. The rsync.net warrant canary is, by far, my favorite example:
http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt
I doubt it ever got tested, but the point is, it was there.
Yes, he's a troll, but here's an important thing for everyone to remember: the phrase "activist judge" is a synonym for "a judge who made a ruling I don't like."
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
ok, so the US government must get a court order to get customer info from ISP's but the record companies dont?
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
If only this made it a little bit harder for the RIAA to also get ISP subscriber data too.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Constitution != Declaration. They served different purposes (and initially set up different systems of government).
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
You didn't pay attention in civics. The executive is charged with enforcing laws, the legislative with making laws, and the judiciary with ensuring the legality of laws.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The rule is that the president must get 270+ electoral votes. The popular vote is meaningless. It always has been.
Next on the todo list: throw out the rest of that abomination of a document that is the Patriot Act. It seems more and more often that document is affecting reach of life that go far beyond "national security".
Just what I was thinking, now the whole act needs to be thrown out.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's a mediocre idea, but one that's better than the idea we're running with now. My dad's been working in public health for about 35 years, all over the world. He was telling me the other day that there are ex Soviet-bloc countries that have better child and maternal health statistics than major US cities. That's just plain _broken_.
Best would be for government to get out of the way. Socialized medicine drives up healthcare costs and or rations healthcare. Some say look at Canada's system, but I hear a lot of Canadians come to the US to get healthcare if they can afford it. US healthcare quality may be the best in the world but unfortunately not everyone has insurance and can afford it out of pocket. Because the government drives up the prices though, if it were to get out of the way healthcare prices would be lower.
FalconShould there be a Law?
make it hard to sue people - get rid of crap lawsuits - and stop crap malpractice suits - i mean if they can show intention to do harm sure sue and lock the guy up - but if it is a mistake .. then it is a mistake...
BS! Make it hard for some poor smuck to sue and there's no justice.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Congratulations, you just spouted off a bunch of nonsense without backing it up.
As for Canada: so what if some Canadians who can afford it come to the US for treatment? The US is the most technologically advanced nation in the country --- is it surprising that you can get some stuff here (if you have the _money_) that you can't get in Canada?
The question isn't how the system handles the rich guy with brain cancer who needs American technology to save his life. He can get top-flight care wherever he is. The question is how the system handles the hundred other people who have mundane things like work-related injuries or childhood illnesses. And our system just falls down there.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I think we have finally found the first of the 1000's of people involved in the governments false flag operation commonly known as 9/11.
So, St0rmCr0w, who were you talking to on 9/11 about the Patriot Act? Your pals Bush and Cheney? It was a mistake to reveal yourself in such a clumsy manner and on such a public forum.
That knock on the door is coming...
That's the same argument people make when the issue of school taxes comes up. People are free to send their kids to a private school if they so choose, but they are still forced to pay for both the public school and private. That is wrong.
It's also wrong to send a child to a bad school just because their parents aren't wealthy. All keeping poor children in poor school does is make it harder for them to escape poverty. However good public schools improve the area they are located in which benefits most people there. Even those who don't have children or who's children moved out.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Are you a U.S. citizen? What portion of your taxes go to support churches? Or are you making the argument that not taxing something (like charitable donations) is the same as supporting it.
Now that Bush is president the US does support churchs, thats what Bush's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is all about.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Definitions of militia on the Web:
/
...
... .html
* civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army
* the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* A militia is a group of citizens organized to provide paramilitary service. The word can have four slightly different meanings:* An official reserve army, composed of non-professional soldiers* The national police forces in the Russia, and other CIS countries, and the Soviet Union: Militsiya* The entire able-bodied population of a state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy* A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by the government
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
* a group of civilians trained as soldiers who serve full time only in emergencies
www3.newberry.org/k12maps/glossary/
* A citizen army; a military organization formed by local citizens to serve in emergencies.
library.christchurch.org.nz/FamilyHistory/Glossary
* All males, usually between the age of sixteen and sixty, were required to do local military service. Each county of a province (or state) would divide its inhabitants into companies, which in turn would form battalions or regiments. Militiamen were generally not uniformed, only sometimes paid when on actual service, and often had to provide their own arms and accoutrements.
www.royalprovincial.com/etc/gloss/gloss.htm
* a group of men who drilled on a regular basis and were considered the community's first line of defense to protect the community as a whole. In most communities, the militia elected its own officers, and the quality of militia varied from community to community. Until late in the Revolutionary War, these men wore civilian clothes to the battlefield. Both the rebel and Tory sides had their own militia forces.
pbsvideodb.pbs.org/resources/liberty/primary/gloss
* Private citizens available for military service in an emergency.
www.tsgraves.com/relics/legalLand.htm
* armed forces raised locally to protect the citizenry, and may be called upon to serve in a wider conflict as happened in the American Revolution and Civil War.
freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~randyj2222/gendi ctm.html
* a part-time military force, recruited from a local area, rather than nationally.
www.durham.gov.uk/recordoffice/usp.nsf/pws/durham+ record+office+-+the+learning+zone+-+The+Story+of+J immy+Durham+-+Glossary
* The part-time civilian military force used in Great Britain, Upper Canada and the United States. See also Incorporated Militia and Sedentary Militia. [ Top of Page ]
www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/exhibits/1812/gloss ary.htm
* is a military unit made up of non-professional soldiers. In Chinese, a militia is called tuanlian.
pages.prodi
-- Alastair
I'll agree that churches shouldn't receive government funding. However if you are simply equating their tax-exempt status as a government subsidy, you are simply wrong.
Ah but as part of hie White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Bush does give churches taxpayer money.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I hate to be a bitch, but... many of Slashdot's Patriot Act opposers also opposed the second amendment. There's plenty of "throwing out the Constitution the moment it inconveniences them" on both sides.
Now I know that there are a lot of morons out there who will say that this is a good step in the right direction and that maybe we shall see the Patriot Act disappear. I call these people morons. Why? Simple; we need the Patriot Act, I do agree that the Patriot Act needs some fine tuning however the Act as a whole is not only needed but also a long time in coming. This being said however I also think that handing too much power to Law Enforcement without oversight is a bad idea....Does the name Hoover mean anything?? On the other side of this does anyone remember the events of 9/11 or do people just live in a hole in the ground.
I'll admit, your comment intrigued me enough to go to the source. You have an interesting definition of "almost". I'd suggest a new dictionary. I think the word you're looking for is "doesn't". ;)
(I'm not saying that authority can't be an important tool to protect freedoms, but if that is what he is trying to say, he is more like Bush than I thought.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Speaking of nonsense, I think I found my next sig:
;)
"The US is the most technologically advanced nation in the country"
Thanks
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
You don't think banning sale of Psuedophedrine isn't patriotic?
Nothing says anti-terrorism, like an anti-drug law!
Patriot Act should have been called the "Garbage we couldn't fit in any other bill".
Since the founding of this nation, there has been exactly one time when the populace took up arms en masse against the government to fight to preserve a right that appeared to be threatened.
What right was that?
The right to enslave black people.
Armed revolt is a nasty, unpredictable thing, and it only ever serves the causes of majority large enough to challenge a government. Which is great if you've got one...but if so, why not just vote?
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
A Clinton appointee sides with the ACLU. Amazing!
Particularly overcrowding.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
4. Let WalMart or some other low-cost innovator run low-cost health care and see if they can get some efficiencies going there. This actually isn't too far off - WalMart's Sam's Club is starting to push low-cost health insurance for small business, for example, and WalMart has also begun selling cheaper medications in select stores. The problem with this is that most people are (understandably) concerned about letting someone with a penchant for selling shirts that don't last six months take control of people's health decisions.
Ah but Walmart already has the opportunity to do this, by giving Walmart employees health insurance. However many employee neither have nor can get health insurance through Walmart. So a lot of employees end up getting public assistance when they need healthcare, which costs even more. To me this smacks of subsidizing Walmart with taxpayer money.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So then you are arguing that 2 (from my original post) is false? Try to tell that to customs the next time you come thru a port of entry into the US. That ought to be good for a laugh.
So the US has a system to tap all calls, including all internet traffic. Wow, that's unpossible. Not to mention, someone has to look at all of this traffic, someone has to listen to all the calls. I'm not a math major, but I think the odds are against the US or anyone short of Xenu from actually having something like what you describe in place.
Human analysis is the achiles heel. Computers can only do so much.
Ever stop and think of where all the medicines that are saving people are coming from? If you guess "The Government," you're wrong. Nope, it is from creativity that is motivated by reward. So yeah, pharmaceutical companies are making bank off of medicine, but where would we be otherwise (answer: we wouldn't have the medicine anyways)
If you think the government does no research into drugs and that pharmaceutical companies do all the research in the US you are dead wrong. A very good example I know is with Taxol. A group of researchers with the National Cancer Institute, NCI, a government organization, spend $183 million US taxpayer dollars to develop Taxol as a cancer treatment. What does the NCI do with it? It sells all of the rights to the data, needed for FDA approval, to Bristol Myers Sqibb, BMS, for $43 million, $140 million less than the government paid to develop it. BMS was brought in on it in 1989 and in 2000 BMS made $1.6 Billion, with a "B" not an "m". US taxpayer were ripped off. I wouldn't be surprised if BMS has made more than 10 Billion on it.
Don't tell me pharmaceutical companies spend all of the money and develop all of the drugs. If I had had my way either everything that was needed so anyone could manufacture and sale Taxol would be released, or BMS would of had to pay the government royalties on the money they made on the sale of Taxol. Said royalties could then be put into a fund to fund more research.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Congratulations, you just spouted off a bunch of nonsense without backing it up.
What happens when government pays healthcare cost for those who can't afford it? One, it takes money out of taxpayers pockets. Two, healthcare providers don't get as much from government as they would from private insurance. This means providers will raise prices for everyone else.
As for Canada: so what if some Canadians who can afford it come to the US for treatment? The US is the most technologically advanced nation in the country --- is it surprising that you can get some stuff here (if you have the _money_) that you can't get in Canada?
Ah, why is the US the most advanced? Because the government doesn't control as much of the market as other countries do. It allows more businesses, organizations, and people to do more research without constantly getting in the way.
The question is how the system handles the hundred other people who have mundane things like work-related injuries
Work related health issues are just that work related. The employer is who should have to pay, not taxpayers.
or childhood illnesses.
If government got out of the way healthcare costs would be lower therefore insurance would be more affordable. More employers could offer health insurance to employees. That is one of the big issues with employers today, many aren't able to afford to offer insurance to employees. Up the thread someone said something about allowing Walmart to run healthcare, but Walmart is one of the businesses that doesn't offer employees insurance. Employers can officer insurance to employees at low rates because they pay much of the cost of insurance. I don't have any data now but say an employee pays, just making up a figure, $50 a week, the employer may be paying twice that or more. So some have dropped health insurance as a benefit. Many of those who lost coverage had children.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I may be wrong but I sense an unwavering belief socialized medicine will fix everything. My beliefs on this aren't solid so if there is a better system I'm all ears, however I have yet to be offered anything that will improve the situation. Do yo have one?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Oops..., so much for that judge.
But saying that any lost lawsuit should go against the plaintiff is ignoring the huge gray area between "clear and convincing evidence" that the defendant is at fault, and "clear and convincing evidence" that the plaintiff is bringing a suit in bad faith.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Because the government drives up the prices though, if it were to get out of the way healthcare prices would be lower.
Funny. When I fill a prescription in the US, the cheapest pharmacy in my city (the largest city in a medium-size state) is $330. The cheapest US mailorder source I've found (drugstore.com) is $235. If I order it from a Canadian pharmacy, the order is filled by a Swiss pharmacy (selling the same drug, made by the US pharmaceutical company in Australia) it costs $117, including air shipping. It's traveled almost all the way around the world, and has an extra middleman, and yet it costs a third of what it does here. And you're saying this is somehow the fault of the government?
I'm not so worried about the Fed coming in and knocking down my door....the possibility of it is extremely rare. But every credit card purchase is watched by a bunch of people who *didn't* get a security clearance. Every store I go into has me on film. And every job application (because of the credit checks) remind my creditors of my new name and phone number, as well as what I've been doing since the last time. No security clearances here, either.
All these people mean well; they just have jobs to do. But how many of them lately have lost in excess of a million records...this calendar year?
Face it guys, we're so transparent to large corporations, it's not funny. To allow them and deny someone who's trying to stop terrorism...does that make sense?
Yeah, I know; Ben Franklin, liberty and safety...but in his day no one was blowing up buildings...potentially CITIES...for want of a single piece of information. Being alive is probably the most useful civil right.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Why does health insurance need to be income based? Based solely on demographics, I would expect the rich to pay lower premiums on average then the poor. Most employers allow health plans to be opted out of, and if the cost for private insurance outside of the company (which will definitely not be based on percentage of income) is lower than inside, and then I expect that they would jump out and do so.
Because employers pay premiums on insurance they offer employees said insurance should be cheaper than private insurance.
FalconShould there be a Law?
GWB called, he wants his sound byte from 2005 back.
What happens when government pays healthcare cost for those who can't afford it? One, it takes money out of taxpayers pockets. Two, healthcare providers don't get as much from government as they would from private insurance. This means providers will raise prices for everyone else.
FACT: Americans spend substantially more per-capita on healthcare than Europeans.
One can argue about the reasons why our private health insurance system has failed to provide efficiency, but it's hard to ague that it is indeed efficient. Modern economics recognizes many situations in which the free market fails to provide a good solution, perhaps healthcare is one of them.
Ah, why is the US the most advanced? Because the government doesn't control as much of the market as other countries do. It allows more businesses, organizations, and people to do more research without constantly getting in the way.
First, the US government pours about $100bn a year into R&D expenditures, more than a third of the total R&D expenditures in the country. Major industries (aerospace, military technology) in which the US is the world leader are funded partly or largely by the government, directly and indirectly. This is not including all the money poured by states and the federal government into academia. Our universities are still the best in the world, and also a major source of our innovation.
Second, I'm not arguing that in general lesser government intervention is a good thing. I'm arguing that limited government involvement is neither a necessary nor a sufficient criterion for a good solution.
I may be wrong but I sense an unwavering belief socialized medicine will fix everything. My beliefs on this aren't solid so if there is a better system I'm all ears, however I have yet to be offered anything that will improve the situation. Do yo have one?
This is not a deep, unwavering belief. I have, in general, a libertarian bent. But ultimately I'm a pragmatist. I'm convinced the present system isn't very good (and have spoken to people who work in public health who agree with me), and I can see that the Europeans have a proven, working solution. The engineer in me says: "why not just copy the solution we know to work?"
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Funny. When I fill a prescription in the US, the cheapest pharmacy in my city (the largest city in a medium-size state) is $330. The cheapest US mailorder source I've found (drugstore.com) is $235. If I order it from a Canadian pharmacy, the order is filled by a Swiss pharmacy (selling the same drug, made by the US pharmaceutical company in Australia) it costs $117, including air shipping. It's traveled almost all the way around the world, and has an extra middleman, and yet it costs a third of what it does here. And you're saying this is somehow the fault of the government?
True, that's why a lot of seniors in border states, like Maine and Washington, get a large van or bus and go on field trips to Canada to buy the drugs they need. Canada basically buys the drugs, or tells the companies how much they can sale drugs for. As do many other countries. This was a big stink in congress recently, some wanted to prevent people in the US from buying drugs from Canada. In this sense the US subsidizes drugs for the rest of the world, prices are higher in the US because drug companies know they can't sale drugs for as much in other countries. In a sense it is a government manufactured problem, by Canada telling companies they have to sell at a given price and not more it raises the prices in those countries without the government doing it. Me, I'd allow anybody to buy any drug they want from anywhere. And that includes so called illegal street drugs, or experimental drugs.
Should there be a Law?
I have no kids, but I still pay taxes for public schools. I'm not complaining however, because having a educated workforce (even sub-standard education from a US public school) is better than having a nation where only the top 10% can pass a basic reading test.
Think about it. Not everybody can get a job as a Walmart greeter.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
This is not a deep, unwavering belief. I have, in general, a libertarian bent. But ultimately I'm a pragmatist. I'm convinced the present system isn't very good (and have spoken to people who work in public health who agree with me), and I can see that the Europeans have a proven, working solution. The engineer in me says: "why not just copy the solution we know to work?"
Oh I agree the current system in the US is broken. But I place the blame on government. I don't see how more government will make it better. To the contrary, I believe less government will reduce costs. For instance the FDA requirements for approval of drugs add a lot to the cost of drugs. In order to have a drug approved pharmaceutical companies have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and that's not for research. Even today people are dying when a drug may be able to help them but because the FDA hasn't approved it they can't get it.
I say don't fix it, get rid of it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Maybe we can rid of this one next? It sounds great on paper, but ask any teacher to tell you how they feel about - I don't know any who do.
Up the thread someone said something about allowing Walmart to run healthcare, but Walmart is one of the businesses that doesn't offer employees insurance.
ORLY?
My wife (A Wal-Mart Canada Employee) has private health insurance through Wal-Mart (Provided by Manulife Healthcare). It covers pretty much everything, including 75% of Dental and 50% of Optical, along with covering everything (And I do mean everything) else totally. Admittedly, that is the "Gold" scheme, and costs an extra $20/month for the extra premium, but the rest is co-payed by Wal-Mart.
Part of the reason Wal-Mart has such a bad rap is that 60% of their wage is paid in non-paycheque amounts. Deferred Profit Sharing, Stock Ownership, Medical coverage, Employee Discounts, all these things are included in even the lowest tier pay scheme.
I'm not a Wal-Mart shill, I have not been paid for this posting, and TBH I would rather see my wife earning more in her hand each paycheque, but it does have to be said that the medical coverage and benefits she receives are second-to-none.
I'm not a Wal-Mart shill, I have not been paid for this posting, and TBH I would rather see my wife earning more in her hand each paycheque, but it does have to be said that the medical coverage and benefits she receives are second-to-none.
Maybe Walmart is different in Canada. According to this article, Wal-Martization of Health Care "More than 60 percent of Wal-Mart employees--600,000 people--are forced to get health insurance coverage from the government or through spouses' plans--or live without any health insurance".
FalconShould there be a Law?
The U.S. government has no business in health care. The constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it guarantee heath care, personal property, a home, or any other products or services. The federal government needs to get out of housing business, education, etc. Some laws protecting rights are needed but there are no guarantees here. The federal government of the U.S. was designed for four things and, except for minor details of things that did not exist and were not covered, needs to stick to those four things.
With some additions I agree. Most federal agencies should be abolished. I'd keep the EPA though, pollution recognizes no artificial manmade lines on paper, neither local, state, or even national borders. Two others I'm not sure about, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. Maybe they could be privatized and made into nonprofits.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Why? Most of us (republicans, democrats, misc.) are very happy with large government. Care to explain your point of view?
As Thomas Jefferson said "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground". That's exactly what has happened.
FalconShould there be a Law?
All of the extra-constitutional departments should be defunded.
No, not just defunded, but abolished.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It does NOT enumerate any rights for non-citizens. If a foreign national visited the US, the government could imprison and execute him without trial, without once violating the Constitution.
I think you're missing something or are misinterpreting the Constitution of the USA and Bill of Rights. In the Constitution itself "citizen" is used a number of tymes, such as in the requirements to run federal office. However when enumerating rights in the Bill of Rights not once is "citizen" used, "people" is what's used. the first use of "citizen in the amendments is Amendment 11 when it says:
Falcon"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Again "citizen is in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments. I'd say it's pretty obvious the Founding Fathers meant all people when they said people have these rights. And you can't say they were written at widely different tymes, the Bill of Right was ratified December 15, 1791 and the 11th was ratified February 7, 1795. Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, was elected president in 1801, after the ratifications.
Should there be a Law?
During World War Two, firms were experiencing labor shortages. The normal way of fixing a labor shortage, raising wages, was impossible because of wartime price controls. So the government allowed Companies to give workers health care tax free in lieu of wage increases. This little quirk is why you don't see such a policy in any other nation in the world.
Oh really, no other country's employer offer health insurance? What's this then?
People who reside in Japan must join either their employer's health insurance scheme or National Health Insurance, which is managed by the city, town or village.
Yet this is still way too expensive for workers who are currently facing major reforms in China's medical insurance system that are far from perfect and unlikely to meet such costs. Moreover, migrant workers are generally not included in employer health insurance schemes;
Even in China employers offer health insurance for their employees, though not to all.
If a company chooses to pay with health insurance, and the worker agrees, then that is fine. But that is not why we see widespread employer provided health-care. Suppose that if instead of health-care, you were paid with money. You would then be taxed on this money, and you now have around 30% less money to spend on health care. But if you are given the health care directly through an employer, you are not taxed (because of WW2 era rules). Because of this, it makes overwhelming sense to buy your health care through your employer.
Ok, I can see why employers, those who can afford it, will offer insurance. However employees can still get insurance from employers cheaper than they can on their own. As for income tax and having to pay more if you get paid more by the employer, so you can get your own insurance, that's another matter. Personally I'd eliminate all personal earned income tax. Because corporations offer their owners, shareholder or stockholders, limited liability I'd require corporations to pay income tax. Problem solved.
What is wrong with this? First, companies usually negotiate a single HMO or insurance company for all of their employees in exchange for some kickbacks. So these employees are stuck with a single insurance, and if they don't like it, competing companies are at a 30% disadvantage. So employer related health insurance companies have quite a bit of wiggle room in terms of service and price before hand. There are exceptions, like Google and American Airlines, but in general, most companies act in such a way.
WOW! You've given me something to think about, I hadn't thought of it that way before. Combined with Medical Savings Accounts, one on a very short list of things Bush has proposed I like the other being to allow workers to privatize some of their social security, it could work. Of course if earned income weren't taxed MSAs and SS wouldn't be needed. I just hope I can remember what you said later, damaged memory.
We have two options to fix this: 1) Get rid of the tax loophole, so that people are taxed on the health care benefits they receive, or 2) Allow all health-care spending to be tax exempt. Personally, I prefer the first one, as the second one will distort demand for elective surgery, but I don't care very much either way, as long as one of them is done.
Personally I prefer my third choice, get rid of personal earned income tax.
By the way, I have issues with any 3rd party payment scheme, any honest doctor will agree.
So do I, if a person is responsible for paying for their own healthcare they will be more careful. Maybe not all but I'd hazard to guess many people would exercise more preventive healthcare, live a healthier lifestyle, and when needed would do more shopping for healthcare providers.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm supporting Ron Paul until he drops from the race. He's the only candidate who I trust to say the truth. I may disagree with him in several ways but at least he will do what he says. The others will all lie to me and then do something else random. He's the only one who sticks to his principles.
While Ron Paul may make it through the Vermont and New Hampshire primaries I seriously doubt he'll make through the rest unfortunately. I voted from him in 1988 and would vote to vote for him in 2008.
FalconShould there be a Law?
OK, you guys can hack at this argument but, we could have been stuck with king ALGORE. That would have been far worse. Talk about crooked hypocrites!
In 2000 because the race was so close, instead of voting for whom I wanted to I specifically voted against Bush by checking off Gore. Gore was bad but Bush is much worse. These past 6 years have proven that.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Oh, don't worry. McCain is a closet fascist too; maybe worse than Guiliani. There was a whole article in Reason about it which I'm too lazy to link here.
In the run up to the 2000 election I supported McCain as the Republican candidate, but after reading the "Reason" article I was glad he lost.
FalconShould there be a Law?
> If you mean that the NRA donates money to politicians,
That's exactly what I mean. Tax revenue sources don't tend to have much influence on federal policy. Campaign contributions have enormous influence.
The NRA is an example campaign contributions don't have much influence. If campaign contributions did have an effect people wouldn't needing to fight tooth and nail to keep their, our, right to bare arms.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Also, Jesus wasn't a lawgiver, so your whole argument is bunk. Jesus was a law-breaker, who threw most of the Old Testaments rules out the window and replaced them with "love god" and "love thy neighbor." And those are wonderful philosophies, don't get me wrong, but they ain't exactly laws.
While I love those sentiments, well the neighbor part, to Christians they are the law. Laws they fail to follow frequently.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I think, there are bigger problems this country is experiencing than pictures on a wall, or a cartoon in a newspaper. But it seems at every turn the ACLU is cherry-picking the little ones, and not taking on the meaningful ones. With few, rare exceptions. That's why I would oppose any tax funding of the ACLU.
Yea, one of those problems is income tax.
FalconShould there be a Law?
They specifically attack the right to religious expression in schools and in public places.
The expression of religion in school, a public school, is not a right. As Thomas Jefferson said religion is a private matter and that's exactly where it should stay. Freedom from religion is as much a part of the First Amendment as is worship. Exhibits in public, not government, are another matter as long as it isn't paid for by taxpayer dollars. I have one simple question for those who support the display of Christian images and text such as the Ten Commandments in government building what they would think of having a display of the Buddhist Four Noble Truths and the Wiccan Rede right next to it?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Also, it was the revised Patriot act, which was signed into law on March 9, 2006. I don't know if the offending provision was in the original act or not.
The case was filed before the act was revised. However offending parts were in the revised version as well.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You mean like the Second Amendment? Oh yeah, that's right, they think it applies to state organized militias. You know, like the Federally funded, Federally equipped, Federally organized, and Federally controlled Nation Guard. Support the ACLU? No thanks, I'd rather support someone that doesn't cherry pick from the Bill of Rights.
What do you think the NRA did? they cherry picked the Second amendment. Of course that's the reason of their existence.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Or if I smoke tobacco[Smokers' Rights Group], Pot[Libertarian], wear Tie Dye's [Leftist], Use an Apple Computer [Gay], Linux [Smart], Microsoft [Dumb]
If all this is true what is someone who smokes, wears tie dies, uses Macs, Linux, and Windows?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Whereas, when it was written, the Bill of Rights only applied to certain people whom society dictated, and there was no "theory" about it they flat out said it did or didn't apply. Never was it written into the Constitution that neither women nor Africans would enjoy the same protections that white males did, but such was the case. And is still the case, just to a much lesser and less explicit extent, at least for those groups that spent literally hundreds of years fighting for their rights. Unfortunately some groups, based solely on the fact that they belong to the group or in some cases are even suspected of belonging, face grave repurcussions.
Actually Africans, both freemen and slaves owned firearms and both fought during the Revolutionary War or War of Independence. Some fought for America some for the British.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yes, seriously, socialized medicine.
..." So, you call or visit your GP and pick your specialist (or they'll suggest one) and off you go.
Come to Canada for a while. You can use hospitals without ID, I have almost total freedom in picking GPs. I just call up and ask if they can take a new patient. No HMO. No government forms. Totally my choice.
You do need referrals from that doctor to specialists, but it's almost always forthcoming. I've never been turned down, even when the doctor said "I don't think you need this, but
I've similarly been able to get blood tests and such that we're "strictly necessary" just by saying that I was just afraid of getting Diabetes, etc.
You see it as a system of very strict rationing. Personally, I see it as a land of plenty. It's so easy to see a doctor. One of our homeless could walk into one of the better clinics and get an appointment in an hour. They could go to a hospital and get treated immediately.
That means I don't need to worry about a junkie stealing to afford a doctor. I don't need to worry about a Typhoid Mary wandering the streets. I don't need to worry that I lost my ID in an accident and won't get expensive treatment until they find it.
Sure, if I get a weird brain cancer, I might have a better chance in the USA with my $20Mil. Of course, I don't have $20M and far more people die of untreated trivial infections than rare cancers, but hey...
actually HMO's take more decisions out of the individual's hands since you are bound to network doctors and facilities in the HMO it's like- what is your favorite color, light blue aqua or teal? we are giving you decisions
I am constantly amazed at how many people do not know their history. As I have said there will be morons who think that the US is always the bad guys. Well I see that the immigration thing in France is totally forgotten. I also see that the fact that both Germany helped build bunkers for a man who was in direct violation of Human Rights issues and Germany has not taken responsibility. Maybe the Morons out there should look at themselves first. Now I also strongly suggest that anyone who says that US citizens do not need to be monitored should remember things like....Tim McVeigh (Spelling) The SLA; The Weatherman...Oh wait they were Arabs :)
Oh wait...England never operated as a Police State....Faulkland Islands ring any bells...Guess not!!!!
Now before any lunatics out there who can't read think I totally support the Patriot Act....I will say again that there needs to be overview and oversight...Not total reliance the ..."We are looking out for the best interests of a nation." Attitude.
Now before you throw historical names out there please check all of your facts and start taking some of that responsibilty that you say the US should take.
The employer health insurance scheme is rather closely linked with the government, I was under the assumption that policy was just a form of corporate welfare for large Japanese companies (But I am not an expert on Japan, feel free to correct me).
"Even in China employers offer health insurance for their employees, though not to all."
Chinese workers spend many more hours at their employers than Americans do. I imagine that it would be in both parties interest to have a Doctor on staff at the workplace.
"Ok, I can see why employers, those who can afford it, will offer insurance. However employees can still get insurance from employers cheaper than they can on their own."
Sometimes that is true, sometimes it is not. As I said before, if that is what a company and employer wants to do, all the more power to them. I have the feeling that if it were not for our tax policies, very few corporations would choose to provide health-care.
"As for income tax and having to pay more if you get paid more by the employer, so you can get your own insurance, that's another matter. Personally I'd eliminate all personal earned income tax. Because corporations offer their owners, shareholder or stockholders, limited liability I'd require corporations to pay income tax. Problem solved."
I'm worried that this will tax lawyers can get around such policies using trivial financial engineering. If we can change tax policies, I would prefer a consumption tax.
"WOW! You've given me something to think about, I hadn't thought of it that way before. Combined with Medical Savings Accounts, one on a very short list of things Bush has proposed I like the other being to allow workers to privatize some of their social security, it could work. Of course if earned income weren't taxed MSAs and SS wouldn't be needed. I just hope I can remember what you said later, damaged memory."
Medical Savings accounts don't allow workers to spend the money that they don't use on health care. This prompts a desperate spree to spend every last cent of it, and a lot of underinvestment. But if you allow people to withdraw from such accounts, I would support it wholeheartedly. I am not opposed to social security privatization in principle, but the version Bush proposed was rather horrendous.
"So do I, if a person is responsible for paying for their own healthcare they will be more careful. Maybe not all but I'd hazard to guess many people would exercise more preventive healthcare, live a healthier lifestyle, and when needed would do more shopping for healthcare providers."
I'm glad we can agree on this point, it is the backbone of my argument.
You do need referrals from that doctor to specialists, but it's almost always forthcoming. I've never been turned down, even when the doctor said "I don't think you need this, but ..." So, you call or visit your GP and pick your specialist (or they'll suggest one) and off you go.
Thus driving up the costs of healthcare. I bet if you had to pay for healthcare out of pocket you wouldn't be so eager to see specialists.
I've similarly been able to get blood tests and such that we're "strictly necessary" just by saying that I was just afraid of getting Diabetes, etc.
As far as I'm concerned docs should order blood tests and maybe urinalysis at every visit, and the last doc I was seeing did that.
You see it as a system of very strict rationing. Personally, I see it as a land of plenty. It's so easy to see a doctor. One of our homeless could walk into one of the better clinics and get an appointment in an hour. They could go to a hospital and get treated immediately.
Thus driving up costs again. Sure people should be able to easily see a doc, however when someone else is paying for it, like a lot of other freebies, people will get as much as they can thus driving up costs. I bet if you had to pay out of pocket you wouldn't be so flippant about seeing a doc on a whim. As for hospitals, in the US even the homeless can go to the hospital. Unfortunately it frequently happens only when it's an emergency, which drives up costs. Better would be to allow walkin clinics on the street corner. However government has made this economically unfeasible with all the licensing and regulations, well off areas can afford it but not in poor areas.
That means I don't need to worry about a junkie stealing to afford a doctor. I don't need to worry about a Typhoid Mary wandering the streets. I don't need to worry that I lost my ID in an accident and won't get expensive treatment until they find it.
I didn't need one either when I had an accident. See, I was hit by a moving van while riding my bike. Though I didn't have insurance I was airlifted to a hospital where I was admitted and treated. Though there was no guaranty any of them would ever get paid the hospital still admitted me and the docs treated me. My hospital stay cost more than $120,000, yet I got all that help without insurance.
Sure, if I get a weird brain cancer, I might have a better chance in the USA with my $20Mil. Of course, I don't have $20M and far more people die of untreated trivial infections than rare cancers, but hey...
Easy to take care of. Reduce or eliminate licensing and regulations so walkin clinics can be opened on the street corner in a poor neighborhood. Right now only wealthy areas can afford it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The existence of the NRA is quite a bit more complex than that, and if you want a true 2nd Amendment group, look up the JPFO or GOA, not the NRA. But regardless, unlike the ACLU, they don't pretend to defend the entire Bill of Rights. Ultimately, it's the 2nd Amendment that protects the 1st, not the ACLU.
That's something most don't think of or realize, the Second amendment protects all the others. JPFO? I don't recall that one but I've heard of the Gun Owners Of America, GOA. I don't really know much about it though.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Personally, I think most of the government social programs are functions that could be better handled by community churches and other charities (faith-based or not). They're cheaper, too. I mean, the church only asks for 10% of my money.
I agree whole heartedly. I'd much rather Civil society help the needy rather than government.
FalconShould there be a Law?
What!? Healthcare costs money? I thought it was just made by the fairies who provide fresh water, roads, etc.
Do you think you're being insightful?
Your whole point is that this isn't free?
Personally, I'm not as short-sighted as you. I'd rather our homeless drive up costs by going to the hospital when they need it than getting really sick and either making this a third-world-hellhole by dying on the street, or mugging me for their medical expenses.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
There, corrected your spelling. Right up front, in its name, the act calls anyone taken in by it a sap.
They track down the baddies who have wronged me? I've been wronged three times, and cops never found them.
I should get back the portion of my property tax that funds the police since I don't need them...according to your logic.
Blar.