toldailytopic: Obama's State of the Union speech. What did you think of it?

[Ecumenicist]

Why am I not surprised that you didn't hear anything about it? The mainstream media certainly didn't want to report on the common sense ideas coming from the right.
And throw in all the stuff that isn't as well. The only thing that is broken about health care is the cost - not the care itself. The USA has fantastic health care - loads of doctors and specialists from which to choose, unparalleled technology, accurate testing, extremely short waiting periods for needed surgeries, procedures and therapies, only minutes or hours (as opposed to days, weeks, or months) of waiting for emergency care, outlets for critical care (stitches, antibiotics, and the like). Why does the gov't want to mess with all of that stuff that is working beautifully?

It is a violation of the 10th amendment, among other Constitutional violations. That anyone voted for it shows how little regard they have for the limitations of government imposed by that Constitution.

:smokie: Smokin' again, I see. Have a look on the net and quit bowing to the mainstream media.

It's a beginning, and I never suggested that one or two things will be enough - I gave examples of some of the things that have been suggested. It's like eating an elephant one bite at a time. There is no sense in swallowing the beast whole. Let's implement a few common sense reforms and see how it goes - it's bound to get better at least a little. Then we can look again to see what else we can do to make things better.

It isn't as though all the hospitals are going to shut down or all the critical care outlets. There is no mass exodus of doctors out of the Union nor nurses turning to welding or ditch-digging. People continue to get outstanding care; doctors and hospitals are managing; the technology continues to advance; new drugs are still being developed and tested. I simply don't think that a bunch of illegal aliens not having health insurance is a crisis, nor do I think that forcing people, who will not benefit from it and cannot afford it, to purchase (think of that for a moment - the national government forcing the purchase of any product or service :dead health insurance will help anyone. Honestly, before my husband got a job that paid the premiums, we found it much cheaper to just pay for services out of pocket - the premiums were far and away more than any amount we would ever get out of them. If we are ever in that situation again, we will want to find a high-deductible, low cost, emergencies-only type of insurance. That kind of insurance would ensure that costs in excess of our ability to pay - unforeseen tragedies - will be paid, won't break the budget, and is an encouragement to us to mind our health - to live a healthy lifestyle, limiting health risks. The only trouble is, there aren't any really cheap ones in our state. I'd surely love to be able to buy one from a state that has them. That would save me bundles, and assisting smooth interstate commerce is among the federal government's Constitutional duties :banana:

My family and I have been denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions. We had the highest deductible lowest cost insurance available until it ran out. It cost us 12,000 per year in premiums and 6000 per year out of pocket, $18,000, before insurance would pay a dime.

Without any insurance, if I had a heart attack or my wife got cancer, it would have driven us into bankruptcy. We would have lost our home and all our assets.

We've recently been accepted into the state high risk pool. It will cost is $12,000 in premiums plus 10,000 deductible, plus 12,000 max out of pocket if anything serious happens to any of us. That's up to the $5,000,000 max, which could get used up pretty quickly.

Until you live in other people's shoes, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[WizardofOz]

Now, that's a persuasive argument! :darwinsm: It appears that the "obstructionist jerks" have been attempting to participate all along. BUT, it is difficult to participate in closed-door meetings with "Democrats ONLY" signs on the door. Making participation even more difficult is the routine dismissal of "obstructionist jerk" ideas and amendments to legislation. And then there are even more "obstructionist jerks" who are routinely dismissed as "angry right-wing extremists" by the socialists/communists who currently inhabit the halls of power.

Nice try, Dave. Hey! Maybe you can follow the Iranian Way. Hang a few of them. By golly, that'll keep 'em in line. :rotfl:

Yeah! Or roll a tank over them, the Chinese way? Oooooooh how the shoe pinches when it's on the other foot! bybee

Honestly, for being two intelligent people, your partisanship and demonization has you sounding like spoiled children.

If you're not a part of the solution......

For bybee

 

[Alate_One]

Why am I not surprised that you didn't hear anything about it? The mainstream media certainly didn't want to report on the common sense ideas coming from the right.

Right . . . the evil meedia . .. tell me the number of the Bill the republicans introduced with their ideas. I'm willing to bet you can't find one.

And throw in all the stuff that isn't as well. The only thing that is broken about health care is the cost - not the care itself. The USA has fantastic health care - loads of doctors and specialists from which to choose, unparalleled technology, accurate testing, extremely short waiting periods for needed surgeries, procedures and therapies, only minutes or hours (as opposed to days, weeks, or months) of waiting for emergency care, outlets for critical care (stitches, antibiotics, and the like). Why does the gov't want to mess with all of that stuff that is working beautifully?

It ISN'T working beautifully! You have NO idea what the facts are. You've swallowed a lie. We pay more for healthcare than any other industrialized nation and yet, we have worse health outcomes, people go bankrupt every day from medical costs. I have to wait at least a week or two for an appointment and I wait two HOURS to see the doctor once there. In other countries they can see their doctors the same day. Stop and do some actual research on healthcare and stop spewing the party line.

It is a violation of the 10th amendment, among other Constitutional violations. That anyone voted for it shows how little regard they have for the limitations of government imposed by that Constitution.

Sooo we've been violating the amendment with medicaid for all these years? Why isn't anyone up in arms about it? Of course you take the interstate restrictions off of healthcare and it comes under the commerce clause. :chuckle: Plenty of republicans had NO issue with the mandate (including the newest senator from Mass.) until magically the republicans closed ranks around obstructionism.

Smokin' again, I see. Have a look on the net and quit bowing to the mainstream media.

Been watching Fox news again? I get plenty of news that isn't "mainstream" I'm quite willing to bet that I listen to a far greater range of sources than you do.

It's a beginning, and I never suggested that one or two things will be enough - I gave examples of some of the things that have been suggested. It's like eating an elephant one bite at a time. There is no sense in swallowing the beast whole. Let's implement a few common sense reforms and see how it goes - it's bound to get better at least a little. Then we can look again to see what else we can do to make things better.

The essence of the Obama reform - removal of preexisting conditions and a mandate for everyone to get healthcare are necessary in a package. You can't have one without the other.

I simply don't think that a bunch of illegal aliens not having health insurance is a crisis, nor do I think that forcing people, who will not benefit from it and cannot afford it, to purchase (think of that for a moment - the national government forcing the purchase of any product or service :dead health insurance will help anyone.

A mandate WILL cut the costs of healthcare. Because the cost for uninsured people that get sick is huge and all of us have to pay it NOW in higher premiums and worse care. Illegal aliens are hardly the only ones without coverage - and many illegal aliens DO purchase coverage.

Honestly, before my husband got a job that paid the premiums, we found it much cheaper to just pay for services out of pocket - the premiums were far and away more than any amount we would ever get out of them. If we are ever in that situation again, we will want to find a high-deductible, low cost, emergencies-only type of insurance. That kind of insurance would ensure that costs in excess of our ability to pay - unforeseen tragedies - will be paid, won't break the budget, and is an encouragement to us to mind our health - to live a healthy lifestyle, limiting health risks. The only trouble is, there aren't any really cheap ones in our state. I'd surely love to be able to buy one from a state that has them. That would save me bundles, and assisting smooth interstate commerce is among the federal government's Constitutional duties

The problem is if you go without insurance, you're taking your chances on going bankrupt and insurance companies can come up with all kinds of reasons to deny you coverage. Say you or your husband comes down with a chronic condition and then lose your job. Good luck buying that high deductible low cost insurance. You may be denied coverage completely or be offered insane premiums. Then what happens if you then need some kind of expensive surgical intervention? You go bankrupt.

The President's reforms would have stopped all of the silliness with preexisting conditions.

 

[WizardofOz]

the bill is in the womb

the bill is in the womb

Do a little research, man. It isn't even hard when you have Google Here's a little hand-holding for you:

:dunce:
You're obviously the one who hasn't done research or even read your own links.

Let me take the lead for you since you are too lazy to even attempt an articulation of what the GOP has suggested thus far. Other than the "allow people to shop for insurance across state lines", of course

You're obviously just throwing out links like you know something. You didn't even mention the current GOP "bill". Get with it if you're going to be condescending.

A Spring 2009 article

You support universal access regardless of financial ability? Because from that legislation...

U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D., of Oklahoma, and Richard Burr, of North Carolina, along with U.S. Representatives Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Devin Nunes of California introduced legislation that shares the goal of the opposite party: the promotion of universal access to quality, affordable health care. The public option has been opposed by health insurers, agents and conservative groups. Some of the other features discussed by Democrats are adopted in the Republican plan, such as the concept of a health insurance exchange, assistance for low income insureds and building on the existing employer-based system.

So, maybe you support universal coverage and other ideas suggested by democrats, just as long as it's a Republican who drafts the legislation? (I support Tom Ryan in WI BTW, because I am not a partisan hack)

Either you support universal access or you do not. Do you?

Current status of H.R. 2520 Patients Choice Act. "Referred to committee". :juggle:

Would Republicans even support this? You might want to look into that.

Direct from the GOP

It's not the GOP, so much as John Boehner through Tom Price. But hey, they've got R's next to their name, so it must be good. The current legislation being crafted, is H.R. 3400 "Empowering Patients Act". But, you obviously didn't know that, otherwise you might have mentioned it. :thumb:

It isn't that hard when you have Google. Educate yourself on your parties own legislation before you give me a condescending attitude.

But, before we get to that, let's look at how productive the GOP has been on health care thus far.

First of all. This is all rhetoric (From your "direct from the GOP"). It will do this, it will do that, HOW will it do it? That's the trillion dollar question. In fact, almost everything found on the GOP "solutions" site is rhetoric.

* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines. * Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do. * Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs. * Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

That's like 4 Post-It notes. Wow, I'm impressed.

The Boehner bill in the womb

11-1-09

The Republican Minority Leader in the House was pushed on Sunday to explain just why the party had not introduced a counter-proposal to Democrat-led efforts to overhaul the health care system. Rep. John Boehner's (R-Ohio) reply was to direct viewers to the GOP's House website, where they could "see our eight or nine ideas about how to make our current health care system better." :rotfl: In a contentious interview with CNN's "State of the Union," Boehner insisted that the Republican Party would produce an actual piece of legislation that would be scored by the Congressional Budget Office. "What I am hopeful for is to take these eight or nine ideas and put them together in a bill that is being scored right now by the CBO and presented on the House floor during this debate," he said. But, when pressed, Boehner largely danced around the details. It has been more than 135 days since the GOP leadership in the House promised to produce an alternative health care bill for the American people to debate.

What took them so long? They were too busy whining about Obama to get anything done apparently. To their credit, at that point they had "8 or 9 ideas". Something to really brag about. :hammer:

The Boehner bill

The bill leaves out a number of the key features of the Democrats' 1,990-page legislation, such as new requirements for employers to insure their employees and for nearly all Americans to purchase insurance. It also doesn't block insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions, as Democrats would do. Instead, the Republican plan increases incentives for people to use health savings accounts, caps non-economic jury awards in medical malpractice cases at $250,000, provides various incentives to states with the aim of driving down premium costs and allows health insurance to be sold across state lines.

A Fall 2009 article about the cost savings of the GOP plan

I love when people post links to blogs. here is a response to your Washington Examiner piece. But, don't let facts get in your way.

Enough of this nonsense about the GOP not contributing.

Yes, some great "contributions", those lain:

Are you done patting yourselves on the back yet so something can actually be accomplished?

The current GOP legislation being crafted that NM failed to mention is, you guessed it; in committee. :juggle:link

Track it if you're truly interested.

 

[WandererInFog]

* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines. * Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do. * Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs. * Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

That's like 4 Post-It notes. Wow, I'm impressed.

So just because it's simple it must be bad? Those four things would lower the cost of health insurance, something that is desperately needed. Now, as for how much they would universalize coverage, that's much harder to say as there is no system exactly like the one it would result in which we can look at as an example. However, it does actually address many of the problems that prevent people from obtaining coverage, number two for example cuts right at the problem of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

But let's say it doesn't universalize coverage sufficiently and still leaves a significant, though smaller, portion of the population uninsured. Well, then if you want to look to more government involvement you would be able to do so at a much lower price tag that what it would take to universalize the present, deeply broken system. See, that to me would represent the most rational, bi-partisan sort of approach. It essentially boils down to reduce costs and expand coverage through the market first, then be able to cover the remainder of the population in a more fiscally responsible manner.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Right wing input and compromise is the reason the healthcare bill (and medicare) is the mess it is now, sending taxpayer money to private insurance companies.

Um-uh, that was done solely by Obama and the Democrats. They paid out some tax money bribes to get private sector support for their health scare monstrosity. It worked well enough for propaganda purposes.

Sorry if Dems are tired of catering to a bunch of "death panel" reactionist liars who are bought and paid for by the private insurance industry.

Sorry if you bought into the :Commie: party line and can't see anything else. I know it's easier to do that than consider the facts and reach a reasoned conclusion.

As a Christian, I am a pacifist. I'll leave it to your automatic weapon toting teabagging right wing obstructionist jerk types to threaten and commit violence in the name of Christ and democracy.

:rotfl: Like your god Obama, you can't resist promoting yourself. Another persuasive argument for voting out the Demo:Commie:s in November, but, if being a pinko sock puppet makes you happy, so be it. :chuckle:

 

[Frank Ernest]

Honestly, for being two intelligent people, your partisanship and demonization has you sounding like spoiled children.

If you're not a part of the solution......

For bybee

:darwinsm: So Above It All, eh, Wiz? Triangulation worthy of Bill Clinton.

 

[bybee]

For one thing

For one thing

Specifically, which ones? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd love to hear some examples.


:sigh:
That's a terribly partisan attitude to hold. "We'll obstruct your guy about these issues because they obstructed our guy over these other totally unrelated issues."

Let's consider the issues one at a time rather than obstruct just for the sake of it.



This is the current republican platform.

How does this help solve problems? Heck, how does it even help offer potential solutions? What would you like to see him accomplish? Obama seems to be wiling to listen to all ideas, including those on the other side of the isle.

Who is offering ideas? Anyone?

Negotiating behind closed doors goes against what President Obama promised he would do. By putting forth a monstrous 2000 page health care proposition hackles automatically go up because it takes time to digest such a proposal and there ought to be time for questions and suggestions. I believe we need a foundation health care organization which can be funded by the federal government. It might be better introduced in a very simple form that doesn't exclude union members or some states or the congress itself! To add threats of fines and jail time to those who do not wish to participate was the wrong approach. You always put the live lobster into a pot of cold water! Resources are finite. Just how much taxation do you think the middle class will tolerate before anarchy sets in? bybee

 

[Alate_One]

So just because it's simple it must be bad? Those four things would lower the cost of health insurance, something that is desperately needed. Now, as for how much they would universalize coverage, that's much harder to say as there is no system exactly like the one it would result in which we can look at as an example. However, it does actually address many of the problems that prevent people from obtaining coverage, number two for example cuts right at the problem of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

And Gee #2 is what's already in BOTH the house and senate bills.

* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines. * Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do. * Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs. * Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

Number three sounds like meaningless babble to me. Number 1 and 4 are the only things that are actually things that could help solve the problem. They're not bad ideas but they are not enough.

Universal coverage isn't just "a nice idea" they are what increase cost for all of us when these people show up in emergency rooms as a train wreck case and we all have to pay for them anyway. Health care is a situation where EVERYONE must be invested in it. If you don't have everyone costs can balloon and people go bankrupt. Every other industrialized nation has figured this out. Why do we think we are different?

 

[Alate_One]

Roberts didn't write the majority opinion, Kennedy did. Have you actually read any part of it?

I went back and read part of it. Good luck reading an entire 184 page document. It didn't change my opinion of the decision.

Here's a direct quote that's particularly telling in my opinion.

That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.

Riiight. What are they smoking? The appearance of influence of corporations over individual interests is already one of the number one concerns of the American public.

The repeated assertion that a ruling upholding the two previous decisions would cause a "chilling effect" over speech. I think the fairest thing to do would be to allow a limitation of a certain amount of money for each individual, corporation etc. in any election cycle. If unlimited spending allowed for all participants, the ones with the most money will drown out everyone else. That hardly promotes a free exchange of ideas.

I ask this because there has been an enormous amount of exaggeration in the press of what the decision actually did. The decision struck down specific portions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act, and overruled portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), and that's it.

Indeed those are the only two opinions specifically mentioned in the opinion. However the reasoning behind the overruling means that any restriction of corporate speech around elections could be in jeopardy.

The real problem is of course Corporate personhood. Nowhere in the constitution are corporations mentioned or given rights. That's based on a later precedent which itself is questionable. Certainly the PRESS is given rights. But its hard for me to understand how someone that's supposedly an originalist is going to connect corporations to first amendment rights.

Just think about this . . . .

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism, because it is the merger of corporate and state power." - Benito Mussolini

The doctrine of "corporate personhood" is based on a legally meaningless "obiter dictum," or offhand remark, made by Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite before the decision was read in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886). It was not the decision. It was not part of the decision. But it subsequently found its way into the court reporter's summary, of the case. Just three years later, in Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Beckwith (1889), Justice Stephen Field cited Santa Clara as precedent, giving it the force of law when the Court ruled that a corporation is a "person" for both due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. But Justice Field knew that he was lying as he cited the obiter dictum that corporations were "persons" for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, because he was there when Justice Waite made the offhand remark. Nevertheless, this fallacious precedent is still cited as if it were the law of the land.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17201

Here is what Justice Stevens said in his dissenting opinion

. . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

 

[amosman]

I saw Obama trying to appeal to the right wing to participate in legislation rather than acting as a bunch of obstructionist jerks.

The Dems did not need the Repubs to pass their bill. It was the hold outs on the left side that kept the bill from being passed. Good thing there were a few Dems with some sense of right and wrong. Thankfully the system works sometime.

 

[amosman]

As did I. I think he spoke the truth, he attacked republicans for obstructionism and the pure partisanship that has been played for the last year by the right. He attacked the recent supreme court ruling, as he should have. The idea that liberal justices are the only activists is dead.

It was not the partisan Repubs that kept the bill from passing, it was the holdouts on the Dems side. Nancy just could not get all the Dems to go along with Obama care.

The supreme court only ruled as to the constitutionality of a bad law, they did not make new law. Making new law from the bench is activism.

 

[Ecumenicist]

With regard to the whole healthcare litigation question:

The fact is, litigation is the quality control process for the healthcare system.

Protocals are put in place in hospitals and in clinics because of lawsuits and lawsuit potential.

Doing away with litigation for damages in the medical system gets rid of the incentive for continuous improvement.

The best way to mitigate litigation costs is to control healthcare costs, not controlling litigation.

A person who is permanently injured during a procedure in a way that requires a lifetime of medical care literally needs millions to cover the cost, plus the cost of the wage earning potential the person loses.

If universal healthcare were available, there would be no continuing care cost to sue over, just wage earning potential. That would drop the cost of litigation, and insurance, by 10x.

 

[WizardofOz]

So just because it's simple it must be bad?

Not at all. Like Alate pointed out, it's not the simplicity that's the problem. However, simply writing a few ideas down on piece of paper or broadcasting them on a website does not translate to legislation.

What good are ideas if they are not acted on?

However, it does actually address many of the problems that prevent people from obtaining coverage, number two for example cuts right at the problem of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Thus far, that is one of the major differences between the dem bill and the evolving GOP legislation. #2 does not really have anything to do with preexisting conditions. Although groups will be able to buy at a savings due to the volume of coverage, each individual would still be granted, or not granted insurance based on their own health history.

The bill leaves out a number of the key features of the Democrats' 1,990-page legislation, such as new requirements for employers to insure their employees and for nearly all Americans to purchase insurance. It also doesn't block insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions, as Democrats would do.

source

But let's say it doesn't universalize coverage sufficiently and still leaves a significant, though smaller, portion of the population uninsured. Well, then if you want to look to more government involvement you would be able to do so at a much lower price tag that what it would take to universalize the present, deeply broken system. See, that to me would represent the most rational, bi-partisan sort of approach. It essentially boils down to reduce costs and expand coverage through the market first, then be able to cover the remainder of the population in a more fiscally responsible manner.

Who knows what changes the legislation will go through during committee evaluation, etc.

What your saying makes sense, but I don't see the GOP legislation really being concerned with what you're saying and it would still leave a pretty large chunk of the population in the lurch.

:darwinsm: So Above It All, eh, Wiz? Triangulation worthy of Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton? Your thought process is clearly stuck in partisan mode.

I'm not "above" criticizing politicians. But, I am not going to criticize all republicans just because they're republicans as you do to democrats. There are democrats I support and there are republicans I support (and supported a Republican candidate in the last election, Ron Paul).

It is all fine and well for us on the sidelines to criticize just for the sake of it. But, since it mirrors the overall bad attitude found within the party at the present, it is especially frustrating to hear so many parrot it.

Negotiating behind closed doors goes against what President Obama promised he would do.

It probably did not send the right message to the public, but I think more is made out of it than should be. It certainly didn't get them anywhere and only emboldened the opposition.

By putting forth a monstrous 2000 page health care proposition hackles automatically go up because it takes time to digest such a proposal and there ought to be time for questions and suggestions.

It's really moot anyway as that particular bill is all but buried. I am personally glad it wasn't rushed through just to create legislation.

I believe we need a foundation health care organization which can be funded by the federal government.

That sounds like government takeover and I doubt the GOP will agree with you.

It might be better introduced in a very simple form that doesn't exclude union members or some states or the congress itself! To add threats of fines and jail time to those who do not wish to participate was the wrong approach. You always put the live lobster into a pot of cold water! Resources are finite. Just how much taxation do you think the middle class will tolerate before anarchy sets in? bybee

The whole premise behind any universal plan is volume. A simple form limited to a smaller percentage of the population, won't do what we need it to. That's why insurance company stock soared after hearing about the dem plan, premiums would go down across the board because there would be tens of millions more paying into the system. If you're worried about finite resources then you shouldn't support universal coverage. However, if that's what you prefer you must realize that premiums will remain high under this approach. There wouldn't be any significant change.

Insurance companies will not lower premiums because the government wants them to. We have to manipulate the market, either by flooding it with buyers, by giving buyers more options, allowing them to group together and buy in bulk, etc.

We know what the "8 or 9 ideas" are, we need legislation that will get passed and actually do something. However, if it is so watered-down as to not make any significant change, what's the point of it?

Either it's a problem or it's not. If you think it is a problem, then you must agree that the time is past for knuckle dragging.

 

[Alate_One]

It was not the partisan Repubs that kept the bill from passing, it was the holdouts on the Dems side. Nancy just could not get all the Dems to go along with Obama care.

The house PASSED a bill, they don't want to go along with the senate bill, which is far more corporatecare than "obamacare". However there is still a good chance they will come up with a compromise, probably through budget reconciliation and fix the rest of the senate version later. The central points of it aren't bad, it's the funding and special bonuses that are so bad.

The supreme court only ruled as to the constitutionality of a bad law, they did not make new law. Making new law from the bench is activism.

You cannot ACTUALLY make new law from the bench. Activism is about striking down longstanding precedents, i.e. multiple previous and lower court rulings at once. However not all activism is bad. Sometimes it is necessary to change the country. In this case though, in reaffirming corporate personhood, its far more bad than good.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Pre-existing conditions. I see this more and more when it comes to health insurance. Well, folks, pre-existing conditions are not an insurable risk. It is the same as buying automobile liability insurance after one has had an accident and expecting the insurance company to bear the loss. Of course insurance costs will go way up under such conditions.

 

[Frank Ernest]

You cannot ACTUALLY make new law from the bench.

Yes, you can. Roe v Wade (1973) created a right which does not exist and never did exist under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Activism is about striking down longstanding precedents, i.e. multiple previous and lower court rulings at once.

No, it is not. Activism in the courts is about making the law say whatever one wants it to say.

However not all activism is bad. Sometimes it is necessary to change the country.

I have no idea what that means, however, I expect you mean using the force of law to get certain political views entrenched in the system under threat of penalty.

In this case though, in reaffirming corporate personhood, its far more bad than good.

By this you mean that it didn't go the way you wanted it to go. Sorry about your luck, but the First Amendment won.

 

[Alate_One]

Yes, you can. Roe v Wade (1973) created a right which does not exist and never did exist under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

What they really did was strike down all laws that restrict abortion. We have plenty of rights that are not enumerated specifically in the constitution. The problem with Roe is it struck down a long history of restrictions on abortion. And of course the decision jumped way ahead of where the states were and still are.

No, it is not. Activism in the courts is about making the law say whatever one wants it to say.

Where in the constitution are corporations given first amendment rights, most specifically the right to free speech. Where in the constitution is money equated with free speech?

I have no idea what that means, however, I expect you mean using the force of law to get certain political views entrenched in the system under threat of penalty.

Do you think Plessy v. Ferguson (the decision that forced desegregation throughout the country) was a bad decision? It was a complete reversal of earlier precedent and practice. It was inherently activist, but it was right.

By this you mean that it didn't go the way you wanted it to go. Sorry about your luck, but the First Amendment won.

Companies are not people. Money is not speech. The first amendment should never have entered into it. Mkay?

If you let corporations and unlimited cash into the political arena, guess what happens to the free speech rights of you and me? We get drowned out and ignored. The country becomes We the Corporations instead of We the People. There was too much influence peddling BEFORE the decision now it appears to be (almost) no holds barred.

 

[WandererInFog]

Where in the constitution are corporations given first amendment rights, most specifically the right to free speech.

The constitution grants the right of a free speech, like all of the other rights it grants, to individuals. What the courts have repeatedly found is that the rights possess ed by these individuals extend to the associations and organizations formed by these individuals. And while, yes, it's certainly easy to envision the myriad ways in which corporations can abuse first amendment protection, have you ever considered the legal alternative?

If corporate personhood is denied, then corporations and similar sorts of entities (which includes the ACLU and the United Auto Workers every bit as much as it does Exxon) have not only no right to free speech, but they also cease to have any constitutional protection against unlawful search and seizure, and no right to due process. The things that the government would gain the ability to do in order to stifle dissent would grow astronomically.

Where in the constitution is money equated with free speech?

That to some degree the ability to spend money to air ones views is an integral part of free speech is a long established precedent. This is something believed by conservative and liberal jurists alike. In terms of the amount that can be spent, especially on political campaigns, is where the argument comes in, and the courts have ruled that limitations can be established on the amount without fundamentally denying that freedom. (see Buckley v. Valeo) This is something that United Citizens v. FEC in no way affected.

Do you think Plessy v. Ferguson (the decision that forced desegregation throughout the country) was a bad decision? It was a complete reversal of earlier precedent and practice. It was inherently activist, but it was right.

I would imagine you're thinking here of Brown v. Board of Education, as Plessy v. Ferguson was the case that fully legalized segregation. The decision handed down in Plessy v. Ferguson was a deeply activist decision that sought to render impotent the various amendments which had been passed in the post-Civil War era. Brown v. Board of education represented a much more straightforward interpretation of the Constitution as it had been amended to protect the rights of minorities.

If you let corporations and unlimited cash into the political arena, guess what happens to the free speech rights of you and me?

And tomorrow the Congress can pass a law placing more limitations on the amount that can be spent and in no way run afoul of the decision handed down in Citizens United v. FEC.

 

[WandererInFog]

Not at all. Like Alate pointed out, it's not the simplicity that's the problem. However, simply writing a few ideas down on piece of paper or broadcasting them on a website does not translate to legislation.

What good are ideas if they are not acted on?

Bills containing those provisions were put forward both last year and again this year. That's effectively all the minority part can do in order to act.

Thus far, that is one of the major differences between the dem bill and the evolving GOP legislation. #2 does not really have anything to do with preexisting conditions. Although groups will be able to buy at a savings due to the volume of coverage, each individual would still be granted, or not granted insurance based on their own health history.

The bill leaves out a number of the key features of the Democrats' 1,990-page legislation, such as new requirements for employers to insure their employees and for nearly all Americans to purchase insurance. It also doesn't block insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions, as Democrats would do.

source

Actually it does address it indirectly. The group insurance policies purchased by larger corporations right now have no exclusions based on pre-existing conditions. Allowing small business and other groups to bargain collectively with insurance companies rather than having to do so individually would allow them to obtain those same sorts of terms for their insurance policies. Again, like much of the Republican proposal it would not fully fix the problem, it would just make the problem smaller where what remains could then be addressed by the government at a lower cost.

The biggest problem with the legislation that was passed last year (and doubly so with the Senate version) is that essentially it just brings more people into the present broken system without doing anything to fix the problems that lead to American Health Care costing radically more than anywhere else in the Western world.