The words of 200-year dead white guys do not impress me nearly as much as they impress you
and
Appealing to the text of a document written before electric lighting does not make sense to me.
I had read through most of your post before I got to the above -- and was considering how to approach your rants and inaccurate statements of my positions. Then I read the above...
I might as well call the constitutional equivalent to Godwin's law here. It's pointless to argue the Constitution with you or what the role of the federal government is. You obviously have little to no understanding of our Founding -- or of government's role in general and instead use comments and phrases like the above to demean them. To make it "OK" to ignore them or how they've built and hold our society together. Because, they were just words written by some "dead white guys before electric lighting". Got it.
And you chastise me to "not presume to have a better understanding of the Constitution than [you] do"... What a prat!
When it turns out that you've chosen to bark at someone who in fact knows FAR more than you, you instead insult the Constitution, our Founders and the foundation of our republican form of government. What does this say about you?
The rest of your rant essentially continues to re-write what I actually said and then make snide comments on the words you put in my mouth. I should have seen this coming from the way you've done this to a lesser degree further up the thread. You aren't worth my time.
I'll close by leaving you with two quotes:
This (from Benjamin Franklin):
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
And this statement (with questionable attribution, but insightful nonetheless):
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
"The people do" is not a valid answer to my question. I don't think you can point to or cite anything that can show the federal government has the authority to "force" a citizen to purchase anything.
The problem as I see if is that if the federal government somehow is found to HAVE such authority, it has too much power.
See Wickard v Filburn -- and more recently US v Lopez and US v Morrison, although Gonzales v Raich might be used to argue otherwise based on affirming that Congress can (at least in the case) assert that a particular act or class of acts fall under the commerce clause -- and that assertion alone makes it so. Scalia, while agreeing with the majority, wrote a separate opinion which distances this from Lopez and Morrison -- and I'd bet money Gonzalez v Raigh wouldn't apply on any challenge here based on prior cases, the dissenting opinions of Raigh and Scalia's opinion.
Are you familiar with the term Cognitive Dissonance? I am very interested in what you have to say, that's why I am continuing this conversation. I would encourage you to try to accept that I am not trying to play gotcha here. I am not trying to win anything. I ask questions because I am trying to explain to you why your arguments aren't convincing to me. In the hope that you will be able to make your point of view clearer to me.
An interesting statement -- and completely ignores my observation and fails to address your previous posts which claimed several of my views were mutually exclusive. You denied it, but you were wrong. Instead you type the above.
You make the argument that the American public is happy with their health insurance. So why change it?
No. Go back up the thread and re-read what I said. You'll see I make the argument that the majority of American's are happy with their health care as an indication that it isn't BROKEN -- and certainly not broken in a way that needs the kind of proposed fixes.
I make the point that the American public is not always the best judge of what's going on. And so a poll that says they're happy with their health-care doesn't mean much when we're talking about the system collapsing in the near future.
No. What you did was attempted to do was indicate that "Most Americans" are stupid (in that they believe they are above average intelligence, believed the war was a good idea and the economy was good pre 2007). Then follow it up with a link that most American's don't believe in evolution. None of this is relevant to the discussion that most Americans are happy with their health insurance.
BTW, had you read your own link, you'd notice you completely misstated your citation -- only 25% do not believe. The rest either believe or have no opinion.
what are the broken parts?...how will fixing them resolve the never-ending spiral of higher medical costs?
The "never-ending" spiral is part of what's broken.
But please do not use Tort Reform as the lynch-pin of your arguments. Knowing what I know, I cannot accept Tort reform [cnn.com] as a solution.
And I cannot accept a solution that does not INCLUDE Tort reform.
Read your citation -- it could save the GOVERNMENT. How much would it save the private sector? How much would it save me as a patient? Tort reform isn't JUST about the malpractice awards, or the malpractice lawsuits (who's costs are huge), but the huge malpractice insurance premiums doctors (read patients -- in the form of increased costs) must pay. And the increased costs of unnecessary tests done so a HX or MD can cover their backside as standard POLICY -- not because the MD believes it to be medically necessary.
Tort reform wouldn't JUST save $54 billion over the next 10 years. That's just how much the government's estimated share would be from Medicare and Medicaid.
-What do your fixes do to reduce government over-spending on health care?
My fixes? What about the current bills fixes. Are there alternatives? That's a discussion I would like to have seen no the hill -- but it didn't happen.
My opinion is that a combination of tort reform, remove barriers preventing out of state insurance purchases (imposed by state government regulation) and charge a fee (or tax) per emergency room visit for EVERYONE ($50 or something -- payable when you walk in). Use the funds generated by the "tax" (and savings made by note dropping money down the money hole of emergency-room cold visits) to open urgent care clinics for non-emergencies. That would dramatically reduce the cost to both private health care -- and reduce public health care as well.
That's also well established. For example, you "purchase" the services of the police, you "purchase" the use of the roads, and you "purchase" the protection of our armed services. It's called "taxation".
No it's not well established. You are making that up. Those are "services" provided by my city, county and state through state and local taxes. As far as armed forces go, that *IS* within the authority of the federal government.
So, I ask again -- hoping that you actually read and comprehend what I type this time:
And what gives the federal government the authority to "force" a citizen to purchase anything?
The basic premise is right: that by forcing everyone to be insured, we expand the "healthy" pool
And what gives the federal government the authority to "force" a citizen to purchase anything? You have a strange idea bout what is "right" with this and the powers you think our government should have.
to fix it, you can pay some extra taxes to the federal government for the rest of your life, or you can pay hefty fees to the insurance companies for the rest of your life.
This is wrong. If government takes over, I basically have no choice. I will be forced to pay. I would, however like to see LESS government regulation -- particularly in state's disallowing interstate purchasing of insurance.
Part of the NATURE of the cost of heath care right now is BECAUSE of too much government involvement!
*I* want the choice of what insurance I'm willing to pay for. Or if I want insurance at all. I want to choose based on my needs. I currently live in a state that forces me to buy insurance that covers pregnancy->birth. Which is fine -- and would (and have) gladly paid for during my "build a family" years. We're done with having children. I'd like the ability to explore coverage which may not include pregnancy->birth. It's not something I need any more and see no need to pay for it.
That said, I've made sure I've had health insurance since I was 19 years old (well over 20 years). Including 1 year of Cobra (the expensive year). I've also had a friend who made the choice *NOT* to get covered, though he could afford it. He was young (early 20's) and he wanted to save the money for a house. It worked for him. He came out of it with about 100k in savings after 10 years. It would have been more, but he had to cover a nasty accident he had (about $40k in medical bills -- he paid for out of pocket).
(just a quick aside, you don't really think the money collected from the telephone excise tax is going to fund an ongoing Spanish-American war, do you?)
I am not saying that the issues you raised are mutually exclusive.
You might want to go back and re-read your post. Or perhaps record it and play it back. Or maybe have someone read it out loud to you. I say that because you were in fact saying they were mutually exclusive. Perhaps you didn't intend to -- but you did nonetheless.
Most Americans think they are of above-average intelligence. Most Americans thought the Iraq war was a good idea. Most Americans thought the economy was going gangbusters before 2007.
I fail to see your point. Most Americans believe grass is green. Most Americans believe 2+2=4. Most Americans believe the sky is blue. Most Americans are usually right about how the FEEL about something vs. what is factually true or not.
"Most Americans think they are of above-average intelligence". A little less than half are correct. The rest is wishful thinking.
"Most Americans thought the Iraq war was a good idea". And based in the intelligence at the time, a strong argument could be made for this.
"Most Americans thought the economy was going gangbusters before 2007". It sort of was. There were warnings about the "bubble bursting", but it can;t be argued that the economy through 2006 was wasn't pretty damn good (on paper).
When I say "I'm happy with my health care coverage", I am 100% correct. And I don't want it messed with. I don't trust our governments ability to do better and fully expect them to do much much worse.
However, when I say "I believe Pi equals 3.15", I'm either right or wrong.
What do workers in the health-care industry think?
I've been in the health-care industry for over 20 years now. It needs reform. Fix the broken parts of it. Don't tear it down and rebuild it. I can tell you virtually all my peers (not all) feel the same. My job has me working with many doctors and nurses -- and virtually all feel the same. I've no idea about your "friends and family" and if they all work in the health care industry or not. I *DO* know that *I* do -- as do my co-workers (duh). And the people I interact with daily as part of my job (duh).
I'll point out a notable exception. One doctor I work directly with is very much in favor of this bill. He is, however, not a practicing physician. He's a teacher. Working at a public university. Doing publicly funded research (of which I'm usually part of collecting data for him). All the doctor's I know who work for a living are scared to death for their practice.
Requiring a unanimous vote on an incredibly complex issue, it seems reasonable that it would have some difficulty no matter what the situation.
I would suggest reading "Constitutional Journal" -- it's entertaining and a great layman's introduction to the US Constitution and why our system is set up the way it is. The Senate has a function -- that is quite different from the house. Our founders wanted to make sure "passions" did not cause the speedy passage of legislation. The process is supposed to be slow. Anyone with eyes can see the reason this particular bill is trying to get rammed down our throats is that the more time passes, the more "passions" cool and the less support it has. It's already well in to the negative.
Yes I read it. Did you? It's the same tax. My point was government, as a rule of thumb, never shrinks. Once something is in place, it's next to impossible to get rid of it.
Just look at the growth of public sector jobs vs. private sector jobs. All public sector employees are paid with tax money. As private sector employment shrinks, the pool of money available to pay them shrinks. Add the slap in the face that most public sector employees now make a significant percentage more than their private sector counterparts and you may start to understand tax-payer outrage.
I'll agree that it needs REFORM -- but the current bill is not reform and doesn't really attempt to "FIX" (even going on the assumption that it's broken) the current system so much as it's tearing it down and rebuilding it. That's like tearing down my house and rebuilding it because I've got loose floor boards and need a new roof. Waste of money and effort. But to obfuscate the issue, I'd assume you'd ask a silly question like "But are you concerned about reform or are you concerned about wasting money on it?"
If what you are suggesting is true, there is NO way a Democratic executive with his party having supramajority in the Senate and a huge majority in the lower house would have trouble passing such "reform". Yet there has been MAJOR difficulty addressing this "crisis" by the party in total power. Why? Because the problem is not as bad as you think it is nor as bad as it's being painted by our President. The only "true" bi-partisan support on this issue is the vote AGAINST this particular direction of "reform".
Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
That's misleading.
It doesn't factor in the cost of malpractice INSURANCE, nor does it appear to include court costs. Just monenies lost to malpractice lawsuits.
From your same citation:
The available evidence suggests that premiums have risen both because insurance companies have faced increased costs to pay claims (from growth in malpractice awards) and because of reduced income from their investments and short-term factors in the insurance market. Some observers fear that rising malpractice premiums will cause physicians to stop practicing medicine, thus reducing the availability of health care in some parts of the country.
Re:A false choice, of course...
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Nothing is as bad..."
Yeah. Keep saying that. When our government starts taking away our liberties (forcing people to buy health care, taking away private property to give to another private party are just two examples), I'd say that's bad for America. When it continues to spend us into either runaway iflation or economic ruin, I'd say that's bad for America. But that's just me.
Any rational person can see this "budget neutral" bill is a hoax. 10 years of taxes, 6 years of real benefits. WTF? Additional budget trimming based on rasing the capital gains tax with estimates of increases in tax revenue that are NEVER going to materalize (as they never have in the past when estimates like this were used).
If I STILL wasn't paying a tax to help support the spanish american war, I'd think this was a joke.
I would suggest that's "part" of the "logical solution".
It's impractical to "send them all packing". I can't see it happening.
But I completely oppose this until the border is secured against further illegal crossings.
Want a solution that will solve MOST of the problem?
Everyone already here, stays here. All employees get their W-2s validated (verify mutliple jobs aren't being done by the same SSN)
o A simple letter to business asking for a copy of picture ID or something to verify any discrepancies) Fine and Imprisonment for any employer who fails to validate W2s and who continues to employee someone with a fake SSN.
And finally --
INSTANT green-card and resident status for ANY undocumented worker (and their family already here) who turns in their boss (or 1099 worker, or under-the-table boss, or whatever) for hiring/paying them.
I fat-fingered a zero. But "most" estimates are wrong -- or do not include all the costs. Your estimate from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Articles/article.asp?title=California%20comparison is from 05-06. It's closer to $10k-$12K+ now (which is where I came up with $10 billion). Also, the numbers reported to your ed-data study do not include the total cost per child -- at least not in CA. CA reports cost of education for children in Juvenal Detention separately, but the cost comes from the same education pool, for example. That's a huge expense.
My estimate came out around $10 billion. JUST for education. And those JUST based on 2004 estimates of illegal immigrant children.
Toss on medical care, food stamps, subsidized housing, welfare and such, the cost grows. Toss on the increased housing expense everyone pays (not through taxes, but supply-demand on housing) because of the additional population, and the cost grows. Apartments in LA go for close to $800/mo for a low end studio in a not-that-great neighborhood. I'd be spending close to $2k/mo for a 2 bedroom for my family if I didn't own a home.
Tack on the lost state and city revenue due to illegal garage conversions (HUGE problem in the SF Valley) and houses with 20 + people in them -- lost revenue to licensed businesses due to illegal street and alley vendors (who collects sales tax from a unlicensed vendor pushing a cart?)
Your $10 billion is so low-ball -- and based on a 2004 study. And it's low ball even for then.
You are changing the argument -- not to mention attempting to dismiss it by trying to link me to someone you perceive in a negative light. These are poor logical/argumentative tactics and could say a lot about your skills as a thinker. I however will give you the benefit of the doubt that you just had a gut-reaction and fired off a hate-response and didn't actually READ my post. I'll spell it out clearer for you in the hopes you might actually read (by which I mean not look for buzz words to invoke a "you are Hannity and watch fox news" response).
First, I deliberately wasn't including "legal US resident children". The children from the study in 2004 are in this country illegally. Second, if you want to include children born in the US to illegal immigrants, the percentage jumps quite a bit -- and if you include children where just ONE parent is in the US illegally it goes up even more. There is a STRONG argument to be made that the child(ren) should be with the parents -- and the parents should not be here. And to back-track the problem a bit, the child(ren) wouldn't have been born in the US had it better controls on employment and border enforcement.
And all attempts at better border and employment enforcement are meet with cries of racism and xenophobia... and we as a state spiral around the debt drain ever faster...
his assumes that each new person is a net cost to government coffers. If that's true, then we have bigger problems than immigration.
Each new person? No. But I would say it's safe to assume that each new illegal immigrant (undocumented worker, labor sans paper -- whatever) is.
Do a little research. In 2004, it was estimated that 15% of California's public student body were children of illegal aliens. At around 6.2 million students today, 15% (assuming the number hasn't increased) comes out at around 1 million students. At a cost of about $9k-$12k per student, That's nearly $100 billion dollars a year. JUST in educating them. That's not counting the costs in "free" or "subsidized" lunches, either. Or "free" transportation.
Do you have any idea how many people it takes to generate 100 billion in state tax revenue for California? How many people who actually aren't using fake SSNs and setting the w-2s so they get next to no income withholding?
The Mexicans who do enter illegally aren't exactly "stealing" great jobs from American citizens. They're picking crops, cleaning houses, flipping burgers, etc. The real problem is that our legitimate businesses are legally shipping planeloads of cash overseas for crappy products and services. Do we really need a million plastic "movie tie-in" figurines to be given away with Happy Meals, or blankets with arms in them?
When I was 16, I worked "flipping burgers". Rather than a high-school or college student doing it now, there's a 30 some odd polite (yes) Hispanic lady doing it. Is she here legally? I can't say, but I suspect she is. As well several of the staff.
On a higher level, at my current job (before our buy out), several people were making near or over $40k using bogus SSNs. Were THEY here legally? Cant say -- but they all bailed during our company buy out (and re-hire screening). I dont know about you, but I'd say $40k/year is far from your "[not] exactly great jobs [for] Americans" comment.
That said, my wife is a legal immigrant (from Syria). Came here when she was 19. Here entire family is from either Syria or Lebanon. Two of my grand parents immigrated legally. The others (except maternal grandfather's family) came one generation sooner. Apparently Pop-pop's family goes back to the early 1700s or earlier in Deleware.
What bothers me is people try to make this about race or "xenophobia". It's not. Its about national sovereignty. Why would it be bad to protect our southern border in the exact same way that Mexico protects it's southern border? I understand why Mexico protests -- as it would mean an end to a HUGE part of it's GDP (money flowing back in from the US from Mexican nationals working in the US illegally).
Hmmm. These "rights" you speak of... Who creates the environment for them and has the capacity to protect them? The government, perhaps?
Um... you got that backwards:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
And should a government fail to protect these rights:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I cannot begin to express my frustration with my state legislators. I'm living in a state that is not only one of highest taxed states in the union (and in many cases *THE* highest taxed state), but also the state with one of the worst budget problems in the union! Every penny spent on this exercise could be better used paying off it's $6 billion budget gap (soon to be $20+ billion next year) PER YEAR!. It's quite possible we'll default on some of our bond's this year!
Look -- I'm all for harsh punishment for ANYONE who causes sadistic pain on man or beast -- but for the love of all that's holy, I don't need to know that there's a guy who bagged and drowned a cat living within a 1/4 mile of me! Not at any cost. And not in this economy.
And you post this attack as an anonymous coward because....?
Anything supernatural in any way is bullshit.
You just want to believe.
I don't "want" to believe. I do believe. Want implies can't or don't.
You want to believe everyone is like you.
In many ways, everyone *IS* like me. And in many ways, they are not. I'm not sure where you got that BLANKET statement about me from my post -- but I'd say it says more about you than it does about me.
I'm not. I don't believe in your God.
It's no skin off my nose. And I won't call you a nut job either.
I have a conscience that doesn't talk to me but let's me judge right from wrong using a thought process, "would I want this to happen to me?"
That's one aspect of a conscience... And if you re-read your statement, it's not unreasonable to say your "thought process" is talking to you. You in fact used quotes to note what was said.
To believe in anything supernatural is a lie.
That's one particular belief system you've expressed. It's certainly not the only one.
You can believe all the lies you want but in the end we'll both die and it won't make a difference.
I'll say the same of you. Let's compare notes when we cash in our chips.
In this country, Christians are sadly very often guilty of that. It's not surprising, therefore, that *some* atheists would react harshly to that and become unnecessarily vocal about their beliefs.
"Christians are... very often"? The "guilt" of which you speak and suggest is done by most Christians is actually perpetrated by a minority. Those who have far too much zeal in their beliefs. Like the Atheists in this thread. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheist here.
Don't try to justify what these whackjobs have done because you feel religious whackjobs have done it on the other side. Condemn it and move on!
According to my ASL instructor, lip readers are rarely more than 50% accurate. Which makes me wonder about the alleged capabilities of this software, honestly.
I don't think this technology is THAT new... or that it's that inaccurate.
On a side note, I'm hearing impaired (car engine exploded a bit too close to my head). I *CAN* hear -- and that supplements the lip reading I *DO* do... and asking my friend who is totally deaf (and on AIM as I type this), I think that 50% estimate is way low...
Something that is unreasonable: 2+2=5. Anything that axiomatic and provably false and claimed to be true. Or vice versa.
Science is not axiomatic. It' is a process, not a definition.
Just on the surface, religions have had a rich history with humanity -- and appear pretty much with every culture. One might say it's an ignorant culture making up their "religion" trying to come to grips with a world that appears random -- to give it some meaning and to find their place in the world.
That is a reasonable theory...
On the flip side, let me give you a Hindu parable that was shared with me many years ago...
A poor man (Sudra) sought out the local wise man (Bhraman). The poor man asks "Where is God?" The wise man replied "Oh. His up there on top of that mountain." The poor man was happy! "How do I get there?", he asked. The wise man said, "All roads lead to the top of the mountain -- some are easy to travel, and may even take you away from the mountain, but they will eventually turn you back. These easy roads will take you a long time to reach the mountaintop. Other roads are very hard to travel, with rocks and thistles -- those paths will get you there much much sooner". And so the poor man went on his way, confident he will eventually find God.
What I took from that, when it was told to me, is that ALL of us are on a religious path (if we accept it or not) because we *ALL* want to understand our place in the universe and, apologies to D. Adams, have the ultimate question answered.
So -- is it unreasonable to believe in something outside the physical world? I don't think so.
Let me ask you something -- have you ever done some -- that AS you are doing it you feel "this is wrong -- I shouldn't be doing this"? My take away from experiences like that is it's God nudging me in one direction or another. This idea goes way back. Plato documents Socrates discussing his daemon that he claimed to hear only when he was about to make a mistake.
As many users point out, a number of those rj-45 runs you are seeing might just be serial -- with the notable exception being the ultrasound box. It's not a tool to provide diagnosis -- but a tool to allow an MD to provide a diagnosis. It's sending a huge amount of data in the form of a pic to the patient file. Can't do that via serial.
Check out your Hx's lab. Check out their CBC machine, their blood chem, micro, etc... bet ALL of them are serial. And they all provide the actual DX back to the LIS/HIS (Lab or Hospital Information System) and many with auto verification. Tiny tiny text records -- shooting for hundreds of feet back to some serial concentrator/server (maybe Xyplex, maybe digiboard) then slurped up in to the LIS/HIS.
Why not USB? Distance mostly. And see below for tcp.
Why not TCP/IP? Because pretty much every LIS/HIS out there currently supports serial for their instrumentation interfaces (why reprogram at a huge expense to both self and client?) FDA re-approval costs. And simply -- it just "works".
I've seen HINTS of hl7 being used for some new instrumentation -- but I've yet to see or touch anything that utilizes it... And with hl7, you can shoot it across pretty much anything.
And there are gizmos that change serial to TCP -- then change back to serial at the other end (a la Xyplex). I personally hate those (too many things go can go wrong and they are a pain to troubleshoot). They also have a tendency to freak out and loose all their settings. I had to write a script that runs weekly that logs in to all our Xyplex servers, dumps all the port settings to a log file, then logs out cleanly. Saved our butts a few times. When a hospital tosses something at you STAT, they do NOT expect the test to be shipped out to another location with the result to come back tomorrow or so. They expect 15-60 mins (depending on the test).
Slashdot Mirror
You are a liar. Does "The words of 200-year dead white guys do not impress me" sound familiar?
and
I had read through most of your post before I got to the above -- and was considering how to approach your rants and inaccurate statements of my positions. Then I read the above...
I might as well call the constitutional equivalent to Godwin's law here. It's pointless to argue the Constitution with you or what the role of the federal government is. You obviously have little to no understanding of our Founding -- or of government's role in general and instead use comments and phrases like the above to demean them. To make it "OK" to ignore them or how they've built and hold our society together. Because, they were just words written by some "dead white guys before electric lighting". Got it.
And you chastise me to "not presume to have a better understanding of the Constitution than [you] do"... What a prat!
When it turns out that you've chosen to bark at someone who in fact knows FAR more than you, you instead insult the Constitution, our Founders and the foundation of our republican form of government. What does this say about you?
The rest of your rant essentially continues to re-write what I actually said and then make snide comments on the words you put in my mouth. I should have seen this coming from the way you've done this to a lesser degree further up the thread. You aren't worth my time.
I'll close by leaving you with two quotes:
This (from Benjamin Franklin):
And this statement (with questionable attribution, but insightful nonetheless):
"The people do" is not a valid answer to my question. I don't think you can point to or cite anything that can show the federal government has the authority to "force" a citizen to purchase anything.
The problem as I see if is that if the federal government somehow is found to HAVE such authority, it has too much power.
See Wickard v Filburn -- and more recently US v Lopez and US v Morrison, although Gonzales v Raich might be used to argue otherwise based on affirming that Congress can (at least in the case) assert that a particular act or class of acts fall under the commerce clause -- and that assertion alone makes it so. Scalia, while agreeing with the majority, wrote a separate opinion which distances this from Lopez and Morrison -- and I'd bet money Gonzalez v Raigh wouldn't apply on any challenge here based on prior cases, the dissenting opinions of Raigh and Scalia's opinion.
An interesting statement -- and completely ignores my observation and fails to address your previous posts which claimed several of my views were mutually exclusive. You denied it, but you were wrong. Instead you type the above.
No. Go back up the thread and re-read what I said. You'll see I make the argument that the majority of American's are happy with their health care as an indication that it isn't BROKEN -- and certainly not broken in a way that needs the kind of proposed fixes.
No. What you did was attempted to do was indicate that "Most Americans" are stupid (in that they believe they are above average intelligence, believed the war was a good idea and the economy was good pre 2007). Then follow it up with a link that most American's don't believe in evolution. None of this is relevant to the discussion that most Americans are happy with their health insurance.
BTW, had you read your own link, you'd notice you completely misstated your citation -- only 25% do not believe. The rest either believe or have no opinion.
The "never-ending" spiral is part of what's broken.
And I cannot accept a solution that does not INCLUDE Tort reform.
Read your citation -- it could save the GOVERNMENT. How much would it save the private sector? How much would it save me as a patient? Tort reform isn't JUST about the malpractice awards, or the malpractice lawsuits (who's costs are huge), but the huge malpractice insurance premiums doctors (read patients -- in the form of increased costs) must pay. And the increased costs of unnecessary tests done so a HX or MD can cover their backside as standard POLICY -- not because the MD believes it to be medically necessary.
Tort reform wouldn't JUST save $54 billion over the next 10 years. That's just how much the government's estimated share would be from Medicare and Medicaid.
My fixes? What about the current bills fixes. Are there alternatives? That's a discussion I would like to have seen no the hill -- but it didn't happen.
My opinion is that a combination of tort reform, remove barriers preventing out of state insurance purchases (imposed by state government regulation) and charge a fee (or tax) per emergency room visit for EVERYONE ($50 or something -- payable when you walk in). Use the funds generated by the "tax" (and savings made by note dropping money down the money hole of emergency-room cold visits) to open urgent care clinics for non-emergencies. That would dramatically reduce the cost to both private health care -- and reduce public health care as well.
My own health provider does something similar. Em
No it's not well established. You are making that up. Those are "services" provided by my city, county and state through state and local taxes. As far as armed forces go, that *IS* within the authority of the federal government.
So, I ask again -- hoping that you actually read and comprehend what I type this time:
And what gives the federal government the authority to "force" a citizen to purchase anything?
And what gives the federal government the authority to "force" a citizen to purchase anything? You have a strange idea bout what is "right" with this and the powers you think our government should have.
One more point:
This is wrong. If government takes over, I basically have no choice. I will be forced to pay. I would, however like to see LESS government regulation -- particularly in state's disallowing interstate purchasing of insurance.
Part of the NATURE of the cost of heath care right now is BECAUSE of too much government involvement!
*I* want the choice of what insurance I'm willing to pay for. Or if I want insurance at all. I want to choose based on my needs. I currently live in a state that forces me to buy insurance that covers pregnancy->birth. Which is fine -- and would (and have) gladly paid for during my "build a family" years. We're done with having children. I'd like the ability to explore coverage which may not include pregnancy->birth. It's not something I need any more and see no need to pay for it.
That said, I've made sure I've had health insurance since I was 19 years old (well over 20 years). Including 1 year of Cobra (the expensive year). I've also had a friend who made the choice *NOT* to get covered, though he could afford it. He was young (early 20's) and he wanted to save the money for a house. It worked for him. He came out of it with about 100k in savings after 10 years. It would have been more, but he had to cover a nasty accident he had (about $40k in medical bills -- he paid for out of pocket).
Answered here.
You might want to go back and re-read your post. Or perhaps record it and play it back. Or maybe have someone read it out loud to you. I say that because you were in fact saying they were mutually exclusive. Perhaps you didn't intend to -- but you did nonetheless.
I fail to see your point. Most Americans believe grass is green. Most Americans believe 2+2=4. Most Americans believe the sky is blue. Most Americans are usually right about how the FEEL about something vs. what is factually true or not.
"Most Americans think they are of above-average intelligence". A little less than half are correct. The rest is wishful thinking.
"Most Americans thought the Iraq war was a good idea". And based in the intelligence at the time, a strong argument could be made for this.
"Most Americans thought the economy was going gangbusters before 2007". It sort of was. There were warnings about the "bubble bursting", but it can;t be argued that the economy through 2006 was wasn't pretty damn good (on paper).
When I say "I'm happy with my health care coverage", I am 100% correct. And I don't want it messed with. I don't trust our governments ability to do better and fully expect them to do much much worse.
However, when I say "I believe Pi equals 3.15", I'm either right or wrong.
Yes I read it. Did you? It's the same tax. My point was government, as a rule of thumb, never shrinks. Once something is in place, it's next to impossible to get rid of it.
Just look at the growth of public sector jobs vs. private sector jobs. All public sector employees are paid with tax money. As private sector employment shrinks, the pool of money available to pay them shrinks. Add the slap in the face that most public sector employees now make a significant percentage more than their private sector counterparts and you may start to understand tax-payer outrage.
And these are mutually exclusive because...? I'm concerned about both.
And these are mutually exclusive because...? I'm concerned about both.
And these are mutually exclusive because...? I'm concerned about both.
I disagree and with all due respect would suggest your reading and comprehension skills are lacking in something.
If it's broken, why are most Americans happy with their health care? Stop repeating that meme. It's not true.
I'll agree that it needs REFORM -- but the current bill is not reform and doesn't really attempt to "FIX" (even going on the assumption that it's broken) the current system so much as it's tearing it down and rebuilding it. That's like tearing down my house and rebuilding it because I've got loose floor boards and need a new roof. Waste of money and effort. But to obfuscate the issue, I'd assume you'd ask a silly question like "But are you concerned about reform or are you concerned about wasting money on it?"
If what you are suggesting is true, there is NO way a Democratic executive with his party having supramajority in the Senate and a huge majority in the lower house would have trouble passing such "reform". Yet there has been MAJOR difficulty addressing this "crisis" by the party in total power. Why? Because the problem is not as bad as you think it is nor as bad as it's being painted by our President. The only "true" bi-partisan support on this issue is the vote AGAINST this particular direction of "reform".
That's misleading.
It doesn't factor in the cost of malpractice INSURANCE, nor does it appear to include court costs. Just monenies lost to malpractice lawsuits.
From your same citation:
"Nothing is as bad..."
Yeah. Keep saying that. When our government starts taking away our liberties (forcing people to buy health care, taking away private property to give to another private party are just two examples), I'd say that's bad for America. When it continues to spend us into either runaway iflation or economic ruin, I'd say that's bad for America. But that's just me.
Any rational person can see this "budget neutral" bill is a hoax. 10 years of taxes, 6 years of real benefits. WTF? Additional budget trimming based on rasing the capital gains tax with estimates of increases in tax revenue that are NEVER going to materalize (as they never have in the past when estimates like this were used).
If I STILL wasn't paying a tax to help support the spanish american war, I'd think this was a joke.
I would suggest that's "part" of the "logical solution".
It's impractical to "send them all packing". I can't see it happening.
But I completely oppose this until the border is secured against further illegal crossings.
Want a solution that will solve MOST of the problem?
Everyone already here, stays here.
All employees get their W-2s validated (verify mutliple jobs aren't being done by the same SSN)
o A simple letter to business asking for a copy of picture ID or something to verify any discrepancies)
Fine and Imprisonment for any employer who fails to validate W2s and who continues to employee someone with a fake SSN.
And finally --
INSTANT green-card and resident status for ANY undocumented worker (and their family already here) who turns in their boss (or 1099 worker, or under-the-table boss, or whatever) for hiring/paying them.
There's your virtual fence.
I fat-fingered a zero. But "most" estimates are wrong -- or do not include all the costs. Your estimate from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Articles/article.asp?title=California%20comparison is from 05-06. It's closer to $10k-$12K+ now (which is where I came up with $10 billion). Also, the numbers reported to your ed-data study do not include the total cost per child -- at least not in CA. CA reports cost of education for children in Juvenal Detention separately, but the cost comes from the same education pool, for example. That's a huge expense.
My estimate came out around $10 billion. JUST for education. And those JUST based on 2004 estimates of illegal immigrant children.
Toss on medical care, food stamps, subsidized housing, welfare and such, the cost grows. Toss on the increased housing expense everyone pays (not through taxes, but supply-demand on housing) because of the additional population, and the cost grows. Apartments in LA go for close to $800/mo for a low end studio in a not-that-great neighborhood. I'd be spending close to $2k/mo for a 2 bedroom for my family if I didn't own a home.
Tack on the lost state and city revenue due to illegal garage conversions (HUGE problem in the SF Valley) and houses with 20 + people in them -- lost revenue to licensed businesses due to illegal street and alley vendors (who collects sales tax from a unlicensed vendor pushing a cart?)
Your $10 billion is so low-ball -- and based on a 2004 study. And it's low ball even for then.
You are changing the argument -- not to mention attempting to dismiss it by trying to link me to someone you perceive in a negative light. These are poor logical/argumentative tactics and could say a lot about your skills as a thinker. I however will give you the benefit of the doubt that you just had a gut-reaction and fired off a hate-response and didn't actually READ my post. I'll spell it out clearer for you in the hopes you might actually read (by which I mean not look for buzz words to invoke a "you are Hannity and watch fox news" response).
First, I deliberately wasn't including "legal US resident children". The children from the study in 2004 are in this country illegally. Second, if you want to include children born in the US to illegal immigrants, the percentage jumps quite a bit -- and if you include children where just ONE parent is in the US illegally it goes up even more. There is a STRONG argument to be made that the child(ren) should be with the parents -- and the parents should not be here. And to back-track the problem a bit, the child(ren) wouldn't have been born in the US had it better controls on employment and border enforcement.
And all attempts at better border and employment enforcement are meet with cries of racism and xenophobia... and we as a state spiral around the debt drain ever faster...
Each new person? No. But I would say it's safe to assume that each new illegal immigrant (undocumented worker, labor sans paper -- whatever) is.
Do a little research. In 2004, it was estimated that 15% of California's public student body were children of illegal aliens. At around 6.2 million students today, 15% (assuming the number hasn't increased) comes out at around 1 million students. At a cost of about $9k-$12k per student, That's nearly $100 billion dollars a year. JUST in educating them. That's not counting the costs in "free" or "subsidized" lunches, either. Or "free" transportation.
Do you have any idea how many people it takes to generate 100 billion in state tax revenue for California? How many people who actually aren't using fake SSNs and setting the w-2s so they get next to no income withholding?
When I was 16, I worked "flipping burgers". Rather than a high-school or college student doing it now, there's a 30 some odd polite (yes) Hispanic lady doing it. Is she here legally? I can't say, but I suspect she is. As well several of the staff.
On a higher level, at my current job (before our buy out), several people were making near or over $40k using bogus SSNs. Were THEY here legally? Cant say -- but they all bailed during our company buy out (and re-hire screening). I dont know about you, but I'd say $40k/year is far from your "[not] exactly great jobs [for] Americans" comment.
That said, my wife is a legal immigrant (from Syria). Came here when she was 19. Here entire family is from either Syria or Lebanon. Two of my grand parents immigrated legally. The others (except maternal grandfather's family) came one generation sooner. Apparently Pop-pop's family goes back to the early 1700s or earlier in Deleware.
What bothers me is people try to make this about race or "xenophobia". It's not. Its about national sovereignty. Why would it be bad to protect our southern border in the exact same way that Mexico protects it's southern border? I understand why Mexico protests -- as it would mean an end to a HUGE part of it's GDP (money flowing back in from the US from Mexican nationals working in the US illegally).
Um... you got that backwards:
And should a government fail to protect these rights:
I'm just sayin'.
I cannot begin to express my frustration with my state legislators. I'm living in a state that is not only one of highest taxed states in the union (and in many cases *THE* highest taxed state), but also the state with one of the worst budget problems in the union! Every penny spent on this exercise could be better used paying off it's $6 billion budget gap (soon to be $20+ billion next year) PER YEAR!. It's quite possible we'll default on some of our bond's this year!
Look -- I'm all for harsh punishment for ANYONE who causes sadistic pain on man or beast -- but for the love of all that's holy, I don't need to know that there's a guy who bagged and drowned a cat living within a 1/4 mile of me! Not at any cost. And not in this economy.
And you post this attack as an anonymous coward because....?
You just want to believe.
I don't "want" to believe. I do believe. Want implies can't or don't.
In many ways, everyone *IS* like me. And in many ways, they are not. I'm not sure where you got that BLANKET statement about me from my post -- but I'd say it says more about you than it does about me.
It's no skin off my nose. And I won't call you a nut job either.
That's one aspect of a conscience... And if you re-read your statement, it's not unreasonable to say your "thought process" is talking to you. You in fact used quotes to note what was said.
That's one particular belief system you've expressed. It's certainly not the only one.
I'll say the same of you. Let's compare notes when we cash in our chips.
Trillian, then. I've a few contacts on AIM -- and I have an AIM bot I wrote for work years ago still in use.
"Christians are ... very often"? The "guilt" of which you speak and suggest is done by most Christians is actually perpetrated by a minority. Those who have far too much zeal in their beliefs. Like the Atheists in this thread. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheist here.
Don't try to justify what these whackjobs have done because you feel religious whackjobs have done it on the other side. Condemn it and move on!
You might want to look at this.
I don't think this technology is THAT new... or that it's that inaccurate.
On a side note, I'm hearing impaired (car engine exploded a bit too close to my head). I *CAN* hear -- and that supplements the lip reading I *DO* do... and asking my friend who is totally deaf (and on AIM as I type this), I think that 50% estimate is way low...
I'll add to the dog pile...
Something that is unreasonable: 2+2=5. Anything that axiomatic and provably false and claimed to be true. Or vice versa.
Science is not axiomatic. It' is a process, not a definition.
Just on the surface, religions have had a rich history with humanity -- and appear pretty much with every culture. One might say it's an ignorant culture making up their "religion" trying to come to grips with a world that appears random -- to give it some meaning and to find their place in the world.
That is a reasonable theory...
On the flip side, let me give you a Hindu parable that was shared with me many years ago...
A poor man (Sudra) sought out the local wise man (Bhraman). The poor man asks "Where is God?" The wise man replied "Oh. His up there on top of that mountain." The poor man was happy! "How do I get there?", he asked. The wise man said, "All roads lead to the top of the mountain -- some are easy to travel, and may even take you away from the mountain, but they will eventually turn you back. These easy roads will take you a long time to reach the mountaintop. Other roads are very hard to travel, with rocks and thistles -- those paths will get you there much much sooner". And so the poor man went on his way, confident he will eventually find God.
What I took from that, when it was told to me, is that ALL of us are on a religious path (if we accept it or not) because we *ALL* want to understand our place in the universe and, apologies to D. Adams, have the ultimate question answered.
So -- is it unreasonable to believe in something outside the physical world? I don't think so.
Let me ask you something -- have you ever done some -- that AS you are doing it you feel "this is wrong -- I shouldn't be doing this"? My take away from experiences like that is it's God nudging me in one direction or another. This idea goes way back. Plato documents Socrates discussing his daemon that he claimed to hear only when he was about to make a mistake.
As many users point out, a number of those rj-45 runs you are seeing might just be serial -- with the notable exception being the ultrasound box. It's not a tool to provide diagnosis -- but a tool to allow an MD to provide a diagnosis. It's sending a huge amount of data in the form of a pic to the patient file. Can't do that via serial.
Check out your Hx's lab. Check out their CBC machine, their blood chem, micro, etc... bet ALL of them are serial. And they all provide the actual DX back to the LIS/HIS (Lab or Hospital Information System) and many with auto verification. Tiny tiny text records -- shooting for hundreds of feet back to some serial concentrator/server (maybe Xyplex, maybe digiboard) then slurped up in to the LIS/HIS.
Why not USB? Distance mostly. And see below for tcp.
Why not TCP/IP? Because pretty much every LIS/HIS out there currently supports serial for their instrumentation interfaces (why reprogram at a huge expense to both self and client?) FDA re-approval costs. And simply -- it just "works".
I've seen HINTS of hl7 being used for some new instrumentation -- but I've yet to see or touch anything that utilizes it... And with hl7, you can shoot it across pretty much anything.
And there are gizmos that change serial to TCP -- then change back to serial at the other end (a la Xyplex). I personally hate those (too many things go can go wrong and they are a pain to troubleshoot). They also have a tendency to freak out and loose all their settings. I had to write a script that runs weekly that logs in to all our Xyplex servers, dumps all the port settings to a log file, then logs out cleanly. Saved our butts a few times. When a hospital tosses something at you STAT, they do NOT expect the test to be shipped out to another location with the result to come back tomorrow or so. They expect 15-60 mins (depending on the test).