Yeah, too bad Obama publicly stated he wanted this. He also publicly stated that he wants a federal police force that answers only to him. Besides, since people think Bush was so evil, why didn't he do this? He certainly had enough time and a congressional majority to do it.
The difference between martial law and this is that martial law takes a lot of time and manpower to implement on a national scale. This takes a few hours.
This is akin to putting people on the no-fly list for no reason. IMHO, this is a blatant abuse of power and violates the 1st amendment in a big way. Can anyone remember when shutting down the opposition in the name of security was done last? Oh, yeah, Hugo Chavez. Oh yeah. the Chinese government. Oh yeah, the Iranian government. Oh yeah, the Burmese government (scuse me Miranmar). If people being pissed about the Patriot Act contributed to a change of power, this will do the same in the other direction. "Oh, but our beloved president Obama would never do that do me only to those evil right-wing militias (that nobody ever heard of until now)." Yeah, keep thinking that. Would you want a president with an opposing ideology to have this power?
That's all well and good but the issue is translating a mathematical formula for say basic particle physics into C code. You might read a paper that says the formula for a spring network for cloth simulation is this and there will be a fancy formula with lots of fancy symbols. Last time I checked, C didn't have these symbols in it. I have also seen the code for a rigid-body dynamics engine and I look at the code for the solver and I'm left scratch my head going "How the hell do you go from a pure paper mathematical formula to this bit of code?"
And then you sit in a SIGGraph course on rigid body dynamics and they show you how to do Euler which anybody with basic algebra can grok and then they say "More advanced solvers are left as an exercise to the reader" but yet the remainder of the course exercises and examples only work if you pitch your Euler solver for a fancier one.
"And then a miracle occurs" "I think you need to be more explicit in step 2"
See this is what happens when uneducated morons (read: the government) come up with "consensus" that something is bad for you and they have the solution. Sugar BAD! You MUST use HFCS instead. Oops, our bad. Saturated fat BAD! Use transfat instead. Ooops, our bad. How long will it be before we discover that Sea Salt (or whatever they plan to replace regular salt with) is bad for you?
I heard Alton Brown say that the reason hot sauce is so popular is that as we age our taste buds sort of wear out. But people have been aging since the year one so that theory is bunk, IMHO. If you have parents in their 80s, ask them what food was like 30, 40, 50 years ago and they'll tell you things like "Pork used to be really delicious." Now it's like chewing on a mouse pad because everyone decided that fat pigs were bad for you. Technically, you might argue that "Fat Pig" is no longer an insult.
Never paid much attention in Diff Equ's class and I wish I had. Or rather I wish the material was presented in a much more practical applications way. Every time I went to a SIGGraph course or paper presentation on dynamics, the speaker would say something nebulous like "We implemented a 4th order adaptive Runge-Kutta solver" or "We implemented the Navier-Stokes equations". Sure you did. Let me see the damn source code, smartass.
Once again, anecdotal evidence doesn't hold water with me. I live in a fairly rural district. It wouldn't be cost-effective for corporations to send people here. In addition, people know their neighbors here so it would be risky for an outsider to spout off. Besides, the insurance companies aren't complaining too much about this since their customer base is going to increase by roughly 10% because of this. The fact is that our congresswoman is arrogant to think that she doesn't have to sit through an entire meeting. Her disrespect for her constituents (read: employers) is well documented via our local paper and radio stations.
The problem I have with that is that you have no recourse whatsoever if there is no choice of provider. Once you remove competition in the marketplace, you remove all incentive to do things better or cheaper. Why do you think FedEx and UPS are able to thrive? I personally ditched UPS because they're a pain to deal with. Imaging if you could only go to the post office to ship a package and their attitude was "It'll get there when it gets there and too bad if it gets trashed in the process." If your insurance provider gives you lousy service, you can pitch them and go with somebody else. If the government gives you lousy service and you can't pitch them, you're SOL. And then what if their basis for decisions isn't founded on sound medical grounds but for ideological reasons? Take for example the concept of kosher food or not eating meat on Fridays for Catholics. Sure, originally, kosher was intended to deal with disease in the food supply. But it's far from necessary now. And not eating meat on Fridays was originally a way to prop up the fisherman. What if some civil servant with no medical or scientific training comes along and tells you that you won't get medical treatment unless you agree to take vitamins (made by some Congressman's constituent)? You wouldn't be able to tell them to flake off. And then what if the government mandates some vaccine which later turns out to cause birth defects. Sue them? Good luck with that.
Of course by the same token, a severely limited number of competitors doesn't work too well either e.g. Cable TV versus Satellite since it's in their mutual interest to collude on prices and content.
"administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures"
That's a big part of the problem right there. Back in the late 80s, the HMO was created on the grounds that it was going to reduce costs. How'd that work out? Clearly if that worked, we wouldn't be debating this issue.
There is now a mandate that everyone buy insurance or pay a fine. Aside from the blatant unconstitutionality of that, the IRS now says it needs to hire 16,500 new agents at a cost of 10 billion dollars. $600k per agent? That damn well better be over ten years. But the point is that there will be massive growth of bureaucracy all of which has to be paid for. One trillion dollars and the taxpayers STILL have to buy insurance. Even if everyone paid an equal share, that's over $300 a year. So what makes you think that people's insurance bills are going to go down?
I haven't seen a single thing here that proves that costs are going to go down. 30 million people are now going to have to buy insurance or get a federal subsidy. Of those 30 million, how many have existing conditions that will cost more to treat than their monthly insurance bill could cover?
Pointing to life expectancy and healthcare dollar expenditures is a classic case of "correlation is not causation." The argument that the U.S. spends twice as much on healthcare per capita than Canada yet has a lower life expectancy doesn't follow. By that logic, spending even less or nothing would result in an even longer life expectancy. Life expectancy is not guaranteed by the application of dollars.
Our government is supposed to be a representative one. In my district, the population is roughly 60% Republican. Our congresswoman chose to ignore her constituents who were far and away opposed to this bill as is evidenced by every single town hall meeting on the subject and the fact that she walked out of several in the middle.
As for California's referendum votes on things, consider the fact that gay marriage was voted down but the minority chose to overturn it in the courts. Regardless of the moral validity of either side's position on the subject, one judge would end up deciding the issue. Would you accept this bill being overturned by 5 members of SCOTUS?
As for denying treatment, if the only place you can go to get it is the government and they tell you "sucks to be you", what then? You can't even go spend the money yourself which Canadians used to be able to do in privately-owned clinics until the government outlawed them.
That statement is a classic case of "correlation is not causation." The argument that the U.S. spends twice as much on healthcare per capita than Canada yet has a lower life expectancy doesn't follow. By that logic, spending nothing would result in an even longer life expectancy. Life expectancy is not guaranteed by the application of dollars.
Perhaps, but that doesn't justify passing this thing against the will of the people. And single-payer is a really bad idea because the consumer then has no choice left if the government denies a particular treatment.
The problem with everyone paying into a system that covers everyone is that the federal government is the bottleneck. The flow is from taxpayer to the IRS to the insurance companies who are now contracted by the feds to administer the expenditure of the dollars. But every dollar must pass through the government's hands and that government has many other things it spends money on.
When it was created, the Social Security taxes were not placed into the General Fund. The money could only be spent on Social Security payments. But the Democrat-controlled Congress under Johnson said "We'll never spend all that money. Let's put it to better use." which turned out to be paying for Medicaid and the Vietnam War. Now, the amount of Social Security money owed to the citizens far exceeds the amount of money allocated to it from the General Fund. That's called "unfunded liability." It really means it's bankrupt.
The mechanics of this bill taxes the people for 4-6 years before any healthcare funds are disbursed. That money isn't going into a sole-purpose fund. It's going into the General Fund. And let's not forget that 20% of the citizens pay 80% of the taxes. The "poor" don't pay any and the "rich" find ways of sheltering it. That leaves the middle-class footing the bill. The bill also taxes unrealized capital gains meaning ANY investment or savings you have is going to be taxed to pay for this whether or not you cash out. The small investor (read: the middle-class) gets screwed again. Oh, and by the way, capital gains tax goes up too which means investors are going to think twice about selling. That's going to stagnate the market. But I digress.
Since the 100 billion per year this is going to cost passes through the sticky fingers of Congress, you can bet they'll discover that they can't pay for everything they promised. And if you think "Oh, well, surely it'll be spent on more useful social programs," ask yourself how you'd feel if the money was spent on things Republicans like to spend money on once they return to power.
The problem is that you don't know how much of the US per capita spending doesn't go to actual diagnosis and treatment. The fact is that docs are having to practice a lot more CYA (cover-your-ass) medicine here if for no other reason than to prevent some ambulance-chaser from coming back later to milk the doctor for money. Then add in the cost to maintain the bureaucracy that lies between the doctor and the patient. Neither of these two problems is being addressed by this bill.
* For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
* For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.
Actually, our representative refused to take calls, issued a statement that she was going to vote for it, and said she'd only grant an interview to the local media after the vote took place. She didn't show up in person for the last town hall meeting which wasn't even on a topic that anyone cared about. And every town hall meeting this past year where she did appear in person, she walked out of when people voiced their opposition to this bill. All of this has been documented and publicized.
Wrong. Look up the mortality rate of colon cancer in Canada for one example. Much higher than the U.S. And tell me why is it that hospitals on our side of the border get tons of Canadians coming in for specialist care? And for the record, I am an independent businessman twice over. I paid for my healthcare like normal people do. I've needed emergency care. I took care of my own damn problems and I refuse to be beholden to a government that tells me to go pound sand for six months before I can get an appointment. Oh, and by the way, why was it that private health clinics in Canada were doing a land-office business...until the government shut them down? Do you really think that zero competition is a good thing? Where are you going to go when the government tells you they won't treat your condition?
I'm not saying that our system doesn't have its flaws. Tort reform should have come before this piece of sh*t but that's nowhere to be found in the bill. Opening up insurance competition across state lines should have also been in there. There are over 1500 insurance companies in the U.S. Why should only 6 be allowed to sell in California? Ludicrous.
There's your misconception. It doesn't work in other countries. I offer into evidence the fact that mortality rates for diseases such as cancer are much higher in every country that has socialized medicine. I also offer into evidence the fact that when people in other countries need specialist care, they come here. And finally, I offer into evidence the fact that my grandfather died of a burst appendix because the socialized healthcare system he was living under told him to wait. And it isn't a few hundred million dollars. It is currently one trillion (yes, with a T) in the first ten years and the benefits don't start for the first four yet they have to tax the people for those first four. Do you really think that 400 billion dollars is going to be left untouched? And no government social program has ever cost what they said it was going to cost. So you can comfortably double or triple those numbers.
Yeah, too bad those so-called "representatives" chose to think of themselves as "rulers" and blew off 56% of the population whom they're supposed to represent. That, sir (spelled with a c and a u), is not democracy. Contrary to popular belief, we do not live in a democracy in this country. This is a republic at best and an oligarchy at worst. If this were a true democracy, a national vote would be held on the subject.
Never never never confuse the moral value of something with the practicality of the implementation. Let's just try out a little math here. Ten percent of the population who is uninsured will now be insured at the expense of the taxpayers who, by the way, you'd better be one or you have no dog in this fight. So that roughly translates to an increase in the premiums of the insured by 10%. But in the "progressive" tax system we currently have, at least half of the population doesn't pay taxes and most economists will tell you that 20% of the taxpayers pay 80% of the taxes. So guess what, those 20% are now saddled with 100 billion dollars every year in additional taxes. And surprise surprise these people are able to vote with their feet so the the whole enterprise is untenable. Massachusetts was supposed to be the model for this piece of sh*t but guess what, the thing is totally broken. 7 community hospitals are suing the government because they're not getting paid. The only reason it's still afloat is because the state medicaid got bailed out by the feds. Who is going to bail out the feds when this thing is bankrupt?
I felt a great disturbance in The Force...as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. Welcome to crappy Canadian healthcare. There is no "right" to healthcare. Nowhere does it even hint at this in the Constitution. This is all being shoved up our collective ass through the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, too bad Obama publicly stated he wanted this. He also publicly stated that he wants a federal police force that answers only to him. Besides, since people think Bush was so evil, why didn't he do this? He certainly had enough time and a congressional majority to do it.
The difference between martial law and this is that martial law takes a lot of time and manpower to implement on a national scale. This takes a few hours.
And martial law violates Posse Comitatus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
I'm sure this cybersecurity thing does too. Communications lines aren't federal property.
This is akin to putting people on the no-fly list for no reason. IMHO, this is a blatant abuse of power and violates the 1st amendment in a big way. Can anyone remember when shutting down the opposition in the name of security was done last? Oh, yeah, Hugo Chavez. Oh yeah. the Chinese government. Oh yeah, the Iranian government. Oh yeah, the Burmese government (scuse me Miranmar). If people being pissed about the Patriot Act contributed to a change of power, this will do the same in the other direction. "Oh, but our beloved president Obama would never do that do me only to those evil right-wing militias (that nobody ever heard of until now)." Yeah, keep thinking that. Would you want a president with an opposing ideology to have this power?
We have no reason to hate humans!
All the more reason to keep my awesome 1986 Toyota 4Runner in shape. I get to tell the nanny state to go pound sand.
That's all well and good but the issue is translating a mathematical formula for say basic particle physics into C code. You might read a paper that says the formula for a spring network for cloth simulation is this and there will be a fancy formula with lots of fancy symbols. Last time I checked, C didn't have these symbols in it. I have also seen the code for a rigid-body dynamics engine and I look at the code for the solver and I'm left scratch my head going "How the hell do you go from a pure paper mathematical formula to this bit of code?"
And then you sit in a SIGGraph course on rigid body dynamics and they show you how to do Euler which anybody with basic algebra can grok and then they say "More advanced solvers are left as an exercise to the reader" but yet the remainder of the course exercises and examples only work if you pitch your Euler solver for a fancier one.
"And then a miracle occurs"
"I think you need to be more explicit in step 2"
See this is what happens when uneducated morons (read: the government) come up with "consensus" that something is bad for you and they have the solution. Sugar BAD! You MUST use HFCS instead. Oops, our bad. Saturated fat BAD! Use transfat instead. Ooops, our bad. How long will it be before we discover that Sea Salt (or whatever they plan to replace regular salt with) is bad for you?
I heard Alton Brown say that the reason hot sauce is so popular is that as we age our taste buds sort of wear out. But people have been aging since the year one so that theory is bunk, IMHO. If you have parents in their 80s, ask them what food was like 30, 40, 50 years ago and they'll tell you things like "Pork used to be really delicious." Now it's like chewing on a mouse pad because everyone decided that fat pigs were bad for you. Technically, you might argue that "Fat Pig" is no longer an insult.
Never paid much attention in Diff Equ's class and I wish I had. Or rather I wish the material was presented in a much more practical applications way. Every time I went to a SIGGraph course or paper presentation on dynamics, the speaker would say something nebulous like "We implemented a 4th order adaptive Runge-Kutta solver" or "We implemented the Navier-Stokes equations". Sure you did. Let me see the damn source code, smartass.
Once again, anecdotal evidence doesn't hold water with me. I live in a fairly rural district. It wouldn't be cost-effective for corporations to send people here. In addition, people know their neighbors here so it would be risky for an outsider to spout off. Besides, the insurance companies aren't complaining too much about this since their customer base is going to increase by roughly 10% because of this. The fact is that our congresswoman is arrogant to think that she doesn't have to sit through an entire meeting. Her disrespect for her constituents (read: employers) is well documented via our local paper and radio stations.
The problem I have with that is that you have no recourse whatsoever if there is no choice of provider. Once you remove competition in the marketplace, you remove all incentive to do things better or cheaper. Why do you think FedEx and UPS are able to thrive? I personally ditched UPS because they're a pain to deal with. Imaging if you could only go to the post office to ship a package and their attitude was "It'll get there when it gets there and too bad if it gets trashed in the process." If your insurance provider gives you lousy service, you can pitch them and go with somebody else. If the government gives you lousy service and you can't pitch them, you're SOL. And then what if their basis for decisions isn't founded on sound medical grounds but for ideological reasons? Take for example the concept of kosher food or not eating meat on Fridays for Catholics. Sure, originally, kosher was intended to deal with disease in the food supply. But it's far from necessary now. And not eating meat on Fridays was originally a way to prop up the fisherman. What if some civil servant with no medical or scientific training comes along and tells you that you won't get medical treatment unless you agree to take vitamins (made by some Congressman's constituent)? You wouldn't be able to tell them to flake off. And then what if the government mandates some vaccine which later turns out to cause birth defects. Sue them? Good luck with that.
Of course by the same token, a severely limited number of competitors doesn't work too well either e.g. Cable TV versus Satellite since it's in their mutual interest to collude on prices and content.
"administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures"
That's a big part of the problem right there. Back in the late 80s, the HMO was created on the grounds that it was going to reduce costs. How'd that work out? Clearly if that worked, we wouldn't be debating this issue.
There is now a mandate that everyone buy insurance or pay a fine. Aside from the blatant unconstitutionality of that, the IRS now says it needs to hire 16,500 new agents at a cost of 10 billion dollars. $600k per agent? That damn well better be over ten years. But the point is that there will be massive growth of bureaucracy all of which has to be paid for. One trillion dollars and the taxpayers STILL have to buy insurance. Even if everyone paid an equal share, that's over $300 a year. So what makes you think that people's insurance bills are going to go down?
I haven't seen a single thing here that proves that costs are going to go down. 30 million people are now going to have to buy insurance or get a federal subsidy. Of those 30 million, how many have existing conditions that will cost more to treat than their monthly insurance bill could cover?
Blue screen of HOLY MOTHER OF...
Seriously though, this is a good idea. And these should power water-treatment and desalination plants.
Pointing to life expectancy and healthcare dollar expenditures is a classic case of "correlation is not causation." The argument that the U.S. spends twice as much on healthcare per capita than Canada yet has a lower life expectancy doesn't follow. By that logic, spending even less or nothing would result in an even longer life expectancy. Life expectancy is not guaranteed by the application of dollars.
Our government is supposed to be a representative one. In my district, the population is roughly 60% Republican. Our congresswoman chose to ignore her constituents who were far and away opposed to this bill as is evidenced by every single town hall meeting on the subject and the fact that she walked out of several in the middle.
As for California's referendum votes on things, consider the fact that gay marriage was voted down but the minority chose to overturn it in the courts. Regardless of the moral validity of either side's position on the subject, one judge would end up deciding the issue. Would you accept this bill being overturned by 5 members of SCOTUS?
As for denying treatment, if the only place you can go to get it is the government and they tell you "sucks to be you", what then? You can't even go spend the money yourself which Canadians used to be able to do in privately-owned clinics until the government outlawed them.
That statement is a classic case of "correlation is not causation." The argument that the U.S. spends twice as much on healthcare per capita than Canada yet has a lower life expectancy doesn't follow. By that logic, spending nothing would result in an even longer life expectancy. Life expectancy is not guaranteed by the application of dollars.
Perhaps, but that doesn't justify passing this thing against the will of the people. And single-payer is a really bad idea because the consumer then has no choice left if the government denies a particular treatment.
Sorry, gotta call bullsh*t on anecdotal evidence. Until you can show me a journal reference, I'm not buying it.
The problem with everyone paying into a system that covers everyone is that the federal government is the bottleneck. The flow is from taxpayer to the IRS to the insurance companies who are now contracted by the feds to administer the expenditure of the dollars. But every dollar must pass through the government's hands and that government has many other things it spends money on.
When it was created, the Social Security taxes were not placed into the General Fund. The money could only be spent on Social Security payments. But the Democrat-controlled Congress under Johnson said "We'll never spend all that money. Let's put it to better use." which turned out to be paying for Medicaid and the Vietnam War. Now, the amount of Social Security money owed to the citizens far exceeds the amount of money allocated to it from the General Fund. That's called "unfunded liability." It really means it's bankrupt.
The mechanics of this bill taxes the people for 4-6 years before any healthcare funds are disbursed. That money isn't going into a sole-purpose fund. It's going into the General Fund. And let's not forget that 20% of the citizens pay 80% of the taxes. The "poor" don't pay any and the "rich" find ways of sheltering it. That leaves the middle-class footing the bill. The bill also taxes unrealized capital gains meaning ANY investment or savings you have is going to be taxed to pay for this whether or not you cash out. The small investor (read: the middle-class) gets screwed again. Oh, and by the way, capital gains tax goes up too which means investors are going to think twice about selling. That's going to stagnate the market. But I digress.
Since the 100 billion per year this is going to cost passes through the sticky fingers of Congress, you can bet they'll discover that they can't pay for everything they promised. And if you think "Oh, well, surely it'll be spent on more useful social programs," ask yourself how you'd feel if the money was spent on things Republicans like to spend money on once they return to power.
The problem is that you don't know how much of the US per capita spending doesn't go to actual diagnosis and treatment. The fact is that docs are having to practice a lot more CYA (cover-your-ass) medicine here if for no other reason than to prevent some ambulance-chaser from coming back later to milk the doctor for money. Then add in the cost to maintain the bureaucracy that lies between the doctor and the patient. Neither of these two problems is being addressed by this bill.
I beg to differ.
* For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
* For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.
Source: Lancet Oncology 2007 No. 8
Actually, our representative refused to take calls, issued a statement that she was going to vote for it, and said she'd only grant an interview to the local media after the vote took place. She didn't show up in person for the last town hall meeting which wasn't even on a topic that anyone cared about. And every town hall meeting this past year where she did appear in person, she walked out of when people voiced their opposition to this bill. All of this has been documented and publicized.
Wrong. Look up the mortality rate of colon cancer in Canada for one example. Much higher than the U.S. And tell me why is it that hospitals on our side of the border get tons of Canadians coming in for specialist care? And for the record, I am an independent businessman twice over. I paid for my healthcare like normal people do. I've needed emergency care. I took care of my own damn problems and I refuse to be beholden to a government that tells me to go pound sand for six months before I can get an appointment. Oh, and by the way, why was it that private health clinics in Canada were doing a land-office business...until the government shut them down? Do you really think that zero competition is a good thing? Where are you going to go when the government tells you they won't treat your condition?
I'm not saying that our system doesn't have its flaws. Tort reform should have come before this piece of sh*t but that's nowhere to be found in the bill. Opening up insurance competition across state lines should have also been in there. There are over 1500 insurance companies in the U.S. Why should only 6 be allowed to sell in California? Ludicrous.
There's your misconception. It doesn't work in other countries. I offer into evidence the fact that mortality rates for diseases such as cancer are much higher in every country that has socialized medicine. I also offer into evidence the fact that when people in other countries need specialist care, they come here. And finally, I offer into evidence the fact that my grandfather died of a burst appendix because the socialized healthcare system he was living under told him to wait. And it isn't a few hundred million dollars. It is currently one trillion (yes, with a T) in the first ten years and the benefits don't start for the first four yet they have to tax the people for those first four. Do you really think that 400 billion dollars is going to be left untouched? And no government social program has ever cost what they said it was going to cost. So you can comfortably double or triple those numbers.
Yeah, too bad those so-called "representatives" chose to think of themselves as "rulers" and blew off 56% of the population whom they're supposed to represent. That, sir (spelled with a c and a u), is not democracy. Contrary to popular belief, we do not live in a democracy in this country. This is a republic at best and an oligarchy at worst. If this were a true democracy, a national vote would be held on the subject.
Never never never confuse the moral value of something with the practicality of the implementation. Let's just try out a little math here. Ten percent of the population who is uninsured will now be insured at the expense of the taxpayers who, by the way, you'd better be one or you have no dog in this fight. So that roughly translates to an increase in the premiums of the insured by 10%. But in the "progressive" tax system we currently have, at least half of the population doesn't pay taxes and most economists will tell you that 20% of the taxpayers pay 80% of the taxes. So guess what, those 20% are now saddled with 100 billion dollars every year in additional taxes. And surprise surprise these people are able to vote with their feet so the the whole enterprise is untenable. Massachusetts was supposed to be the model for this piece of sh*t but guess what, the thing is totally broken. 7 community hospitals are suing the government because they're not getting paid. The only reason it's still afloat is because the state medicaid got bailed out by the feds. Who is going to bail out the feds when this thing is bankrupt?
I felt a great disturbance in The Force...as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. Welcome to crappy Canadian healthcare. There is no "right" to healthcare. Nowhere does it even hint at this in the Constitution. This is all being shoved up our collective ass through the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.