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

[Frank Ernest]

What they really did was strike down all laws that restrict abortion.

What they did was create a right to privacy which is narrow and discriminatory. One of the effects of the ruling was to declare state laws prohibiting abortion to be unconstitutional, true.

We have plenty of rights that are not enumerated specifically in the constitution.

I suppose we do. Unfortunately, since the Lincoln administration, the 9th and 10th Amendments have been ignored.

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.

It created a "right", which by strict legal definition, would be a privilege. That is the problem with it.

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?

It isn't and doesn't have to be. That argument is a Red Herring. The First Amendment also protects freedom of the press. Know any presses that operate without financial support?

Do you think Plessy v. Ferguson (the decision that forced desegregation throughout the country) was a bad decision?

It's Ploessy v Ferguson (1897) and what does that have to do with anything? I consider it in light of Brown v School Board. Thanks for asking.

It was a complete reversal of earlier precedent and practice. It was inherently activist, but it was right.

Skip the bloviating bullsnot. The Court reviewed a previous ruling and overturned it, which is within the Constitutional power of the Court. Notwithstanding, it encouraged some states and localities to foster laws and ordinances which were dictatorial and extortive, to say the least. Result, after 58 years? Nothing has essentially changed.

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

No. It was a First Amendment issue. The Court treated it as such and that's the way it is.

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

Nothing. I don't have to guess.

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.

:darwinsm: What you're advocating here is free speech for the politically favored. No sale, :Commie:.

 

[nicholsmom]

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.

You will have to prove the assertion about "worse health outcomes" and the waiting issue - other than that, I see only the issues that I mentioned were the actual issues - costs. I don't grasp why you are waiting so long when there are so many doctors available to you. I never wait. I have chosen doctors who take fewer clients so that they can take us with less wait and take more time and care with each. In a nation where you have choices from among so many doctors and hospitals, where price is negotiable, where quality may be found, there is no excuse for all that waiting. Surely you don't have to wait a week for an appointment for illness or injury? That is unacceptable. Or doctors get us in within a couple of hours (only because it takes me half an hour to drive to their offices - otherwise I could get in much sooner) when someone is sick, and we go to the critical care places for injury - just have to make sure that they know it if stitches are needed since so many are there for physicals and the like.

Stop and do some actual research on healthcare and stop spewing the party line.

I have friends who live in Canada and in GB who have kids with Down syndrome. That is where I get my information - from people who try to get their kids the medical attention that they need in countries where they have socialized medicine..

Sooo we've been violating the amendment with medicaid for all these years?

Yes we have.

Why isn't anyone up in arms about it?

We are - those of us who care about such things as the Constitution.

Of course you take the interstate restrictions off of healthcare and it comes under the commerce clause. :chuckle:

Yes it does. Did I not mention that. The federal government is not to make laws hindering interstate commerce. And states are denied the right to levy tariffs from other states, so the denial of the states to accept products from other states is also a violation of the Constitution.

Plenty of republicans had NO issue with the mandate (including the newest senator from Mass.) until magically the republicans closed ranks around obstructionism.

Don't have a clue what you mean by this, but I will tell you that Republicans are pretty much just as bad as Democrats at overstepping the Constitution in obtaining power. I hate it no matter who does the dance.

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.

I don't get Foxnews. I don't have cable or satellite. I have an antenna in my attic and get about 12 channels, mostly useless ones. I watch only the local news to get the weather occasionally, but mostly to see how wrong they will be :chuckle: I pretty much have a TV so that I can watch the Colts :cheers:

<lots of baloney cut out>

The problem is if you go without insurance, you're taking your chances on going bankrupt

It is my risk to take, and is the reason for my desire for extremely low-cost/high-deductible, emergency-only coverage.

and insurance companies can come up with all kinds of reasons to deny you coverage.

Not for healthy people - that is a good gamble for them.

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.

Again, my risk to take. And again, those "chronic conditions" typically are had by poor lifestyle choices - COPD, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, etc. The rest are rare and certainly not worth the further destruction of the Constitution to manage. In fact, my hospital (my choice) is a Catholic Hospital that is attached to a Catholic charity that picks up costs incurred in such instances. I'd much rather take charity willingly given by the Catholic Church than from unknown taxpayers against their will.

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

Have you ever been to Las Vegas? Do you know anything about calculating risk? Insurance is only a wager - that is all that it is. You are betting your premiums on the bet that you will get sick more than would be covered by your premiums, and the insurance company bets that you won't. It would be a bad bet on their part if they ignored pre-existing conditions that would alter the odds

Do you know how much profit the insurance industry makes? Don't guess - look it up. I dare ya.

 

[WizardofOz]

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.

Should they still receive medical care? If they have no insurance, guess who gets stuck with the bill? :think:

Times this by the number of people without insurance going bankrupt when they have medical problems. That aspect of the health care industry IS socialized already, whether you like it or want to acknowledge it. Just pass the loss on to those who are paying.

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.

What bills?

I think this was covered in my chat with NM.

those "chronic conditions" typically are had by poor lifestyle choices - COPD, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, etc.

Should they still receive medical care? If they have no insurance, guess who gets stuck with the bill? :think:

Times this by the number of people without insurance going bankrupt when they have medical problems. That aspect of the health care industry IS socialized already, whether you like it or want to acknowledge it. Just pass the loss on to those who are paying.

Have you ever been to Las Vegas? Do you know anything about calculating risk? Insurance is only a wager - that is all that it is. You are betting your premiums on the bet that you will get sick more than would be covered by your premiums, and the insurance company bets that you won't. It would be a bad bet on their part if they ignored pre-existing conditions that would alter the odds

It's not that simple. If the insurance industry had tens of million more people paying into the system, premiums would go down across the board.

Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Alate_One]

You will have to prove the assertion about "worse health outcomes" and the waiting issue - other than that, I see only the issues that I mentioned were the actual issues - costs.

Do some actual research instead of believing what you are told.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/etc/graphs.html

Take some time and watch this. They present each countries system with pros and cons.

Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy.3 These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?

From the New England Journal of Medicine.

I don't grasp why you are waiting so long when there are so many doctors available to you.

There aren't enough doctors and that's the problem. I live in a small town of about 10,000. Specialists make all the money in medicine. There are fewer primary care physicians and extremely few in more remote areas. We either use government to change the economics of primary care vs. specialists or people like me get to either wait days and weeks as well as hours or drive an hour or two to a larger city for a doctor.

I have friends who live in Canada and in GB who have kids with Down syndrome. That is where I get my information - from people who try to get their kids the medical attention that they need in countries where they have socialized medicine.

My spouse and family are from Canada they are all very happy with their medical system. That said, have you investigated the medical systems of countries OTHER than the two you listed? You know there are many different sorts of systems out there, right? Not all of them are "socialized medicine".

Don't have a clue what you mean by this, but I will tell you that Republicans are pretty much just as bad as Democrats at overstepping the Constitution in obtaining power. I hate it no matter who does the dance.

Republicans had no problem with mandating people buy health insurance UNTIL the leadership determined that the only answer to that was "no".

I don't get Foxnews. I don't have cable or satellite.

Well you're getting your information from the same source. You're spouting the lines rather than thinking for yourself in my opinion.

It is my risk to take, and is the reason for my desire for extremely low-cost/high-deductible, emergency-only coverage.

NO it is NOT your risk to take. You take that risk and lose *I* pay for it in increased premiums. That's right, your "right" takes MY money. And frankly that's not right and it isn't allowed with car insurance, why should it be allowed in health where the costs. This is why healthcare IS like car insurance. Its simply unfair to the rest of us to have freeloaders gaming the system. Sure you pay your bills when you can but when you lose and run out of money, the rest of us pay.

Again, my risk to take. And again, those "chronic conditions" typically are had by poor lifestyle choices - COPD, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, etc. The rest are rare and certainly not worth the further destruction of the Constitution to manage.

Hogwash. You talk about the families with down syndrome (which is hardly cause by poor lifestyle choices) and then turn around and say this? You're being doubleminded here. Some chronic conditions ARE the result of lifestyle choices, but many aren't.

My sister in law has psoriatic arthritis, there's no lifestyle choice that gave her the condition and yet her joints cause her plenty of pain and stiffness, she can barely walk without medication (and she's only 27). The medicines to treat it are incredibly expensive. Were she in the United States without health insurance she would be bankrupt.

In fact, my hospital (my choice) is a Catholic Hospital that is attached to a Catholic charity that picks up costs incurred in such instances. I'd much rather take charity willingly given by the Catholic Church than from unknown taxpayers against their will.

So you'd rather take MY money against my will NOW? By not having insurance? Even if a charitable org pays for your bill, my insurance premiums still go up.

Have you ever been to Las Vegas? Do you know anything about calculating risk? Insurance is only a wager - that is all that it is. You are betting your premiums on the bet that you will get sick more than would be covered by your premiums, and the insurance company bets that you won't. It would be a bad bet on their part if they ignored pre-existing conditions that would alter the odds

If healthcare is only a simple wager, you're playing roulette with people's lives and financial future.

Healthcare is not a normal good or service. Everyone must pay in because everyone is ultimately paying in one way or another already. An organized system will make health care cheaper for all.

If you wanted true "free market" healthcare you'd have to let people die on the streets when they got sick. But nobody wants to do that, we treat the extremely ill and try to save them no matter how far gone they are if they show up in the ER. That's what drives prices up for those of us that PAY our premiums.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Should they still receive medical care? If they have no insurance, guess who gets stuck with the bill? :think:

Already know who gets stuck with the bill. Taxpayers. And there are still institutions which fund care through voluntary donations.

Times this by the number of people without insurance going bankrupt when they have medical problems. That aspect of the health care industry IS socialized already, whether you like it or want to acknowledge it. Just pass the loss on to those who are paying.

it doesn't matter whether the government forces the insurance companies to foot the bill or subsidizes it or both. Under government control, there would be no guarantees that government can or would deliver the services it promises. That is your problem.

It's not that simple. If the insurance industry had tens of million more people paying into the system, premiums would go down across the board.

Hence, government wants to say "buy our insurance or go to jail."

Do you agree or disagree?

With what? That people should fund health care by being forced to do so?

 

[Ecumenicist]

Already know who gets stuck with the bill. Taxpayers. And there are still institutions which fund care through voluntary donations.

it doesn't matter whether the government forces the insurance companies to foot the bill or subsidizes it or both. Under government control, there would be no guarantees that government can or would deliver the services it promises. That is your problem.

Hence, government wants to say "buy our insurance or go to jail."

With what? That people should fund health care by being forced to do so?

I know a guy who is intimately involved in the financial management of a local NFP hospital system. He said that medicare pays 80% of the cost of hospital treatment, and medicade pays 60%. Uninsured and indigent people pay 0%.

Do you know who makes up the difference? Paying patients with insurance. That's why costs are going up so rapidly.

Healthcare is rationed now, and the have's are paying for the have nots, in an open loop system that is out of control.

Everyone is paying now, whether they are aware of it or care or not. The house is burning down. The question is, do we all grab a bucket, or do we just let the whole thing collapse?

 

[Alate_One]

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.

Firstly there should be a legal distinction between companies formed purely to make money and those formed specifically to represent individuals. Giving protection from illegal search and seizure to the former has allowed them to dodge environmental and work safety regulations. I see no reason for a corporation that has its only basis as making money to have these kinds of protections.

For a group of individuals specifically designed for representation, the NRA, AFL-CIO, NWF etc. I don't have a problem extending them some first amendment protections since they're intended to represent the interests of real people.

No one other than the top executives has any real control or say in what for profit organizations do with their money. If you join a not for profit its through freedom of choice (any mandate for joining unions is wrong)whereas you can give plenty of money to big corporations simply by living your life.

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.

That's not what anyone has been saying. There's still limitations on donating to political parties or candidates but corporations are free to run ad campaigns covering whatever candidate they like up until election day.

Indeed there's a liberal corporation that's decided to run for office itself.

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.

Yes I got my court cases mixed up . . . . Still, if the decision wasn't activist, why did it have to be enforced by such strong federal enforcement?

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.

Lets hope they do so. From what I've read, lawmakers were fairly stumped as to what could be done.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

They knew plenty. The democrats asked the republicans "what would you like to see in this bill" The republicans answered. The democrats put said provisions in the bill then they all voted against it. How is that not obstructionism?

Maybe they realize that the majority of their constituents don't want this bill. If that's obstructionism, then so be it.

 

[Frank Ernest]

I know a guy who is intimately involved in the financial management of a local NFP hospital system. He said that medicare pays 80% of the cost of hospital treatment, and medicade pays 60%. Uninsured and indigent people pay 0%.

Do you know who makes up the difference? Paying patients with insurance. That's why costs are going up so rapidly.

Healthcare is rationed now, and the have's are paying for the have nots, in an open loop system that is out of control.

Everyone is paying now, whether they are aware of it or care or not. The house is burning down. The question is, do we all grab a bucket, or do we just let the whole thing collapse?

I can't make any sense out of what you're saying. If there is such a system that is out of control, it's because of government interference. You, and others, are trying to convince me that the solution to government profligacy and incompetence is more government profligacy and incompetence.

No sale.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Alate_One:
My sister in law has psoriatic arthritis, there's no lifestyle choice that gave her the condition and yet her joints cause her plenty of pain and stiffness, she can barely walk without medication (and she's only 27). The medicines to treat it are incredibly expensive. Were she in the United States without health insurance she would be bankrupt.

My brother has that. At least, he says he does. I don't believe much of anything he tells me these days.

 

[Alate_One]

Maybe they realize that the majority of their constituents don't want this bill. If that's obstructionism, then so be it.

The voters don't want the bill because the same republicans have told them its socialism/communism (because they're obviously interchangable) or as Obama called it "a bolshevik plot". The bill is actually relatively centrist with reforms that only tangentially involve the federal government. Most of what is in the current bills are things that were SUGGESTED by republicans as alternatives during the Clinton-era health care debate.

The right is being dishonest with the facts and appealing to emotion instead of reason. If you're given nothing but misinformation of course you'll be against whatever is on offer. Indeed if you inform people as to exactly what is in the healthcare bill they spontaneously decide they want it.

 

[Alate_One]

My brother has that. At least, he says he does. I don't believe much of anything he tells me these days.

So you're insinuating she's lying? I saw her leg wither away and become completely immobile. But now she's able to walk around again.

 

[minuteman]

Firstly there should be a legal distinction between companies formed purely to make money and those formed specifically to represent individuals. Giving protection from illegal search and seizure to the former has allowed them to dodge environmental and work safety regulations. I see no reason for a corporation that has its only basis as making money to have these kinds of protections.

For a group of individuals specifically designed for representation, the NRA, AFL-CIO, NWF etc. I don't have a problem extending them some first amendment protections since they're intended to represent the interests of real people.

Don't you see how foolish that is? What if your company makes pencils and some bureaucrat decides to attempt to outlaw pencils so his buddy who manufactures pens will make more money? Your company doesn't have the right to take out an ad in a newspaper to expose that bureaucrat? That's absurd.

What about newspapers? Most of them are for-profit corporations. I guess they don't have any right to free speech either?

 

[Ecumenicist]

I can't make any sense out of what you're saying. If there is such a system that is out of control, it's because of government interference. You, and others, are trying to convince me that the solution to government profligacy and incompetence is more government profligacy and incompetence.

No sale.

You can argue that the system is out of control because of medicare and medicaid, I'll buy that. And getting rid of them would restore the system to a "pay for cost plus profit" norm, without forcing hospitals to act as "benefits redistribution" centers.

If that's what you really want, then be honest and push for it. I think it would be inhumane to take away these benefits from elderly and disabled people, but I see your point that these "government interference" programs are messing up the whole capitalistic system.

So, abolish them. Also abolish state borders and monopolies in the insurance industry. While your at it, abolish the AMA's control of how many people can apply for medical school every year. That's nongovernment interference with supply and demand, it creates artificial demand and raises doctor rates. And sure, abolish all medical malpractice too.

Doing all that will lower prices over time, but it has to all be done together. Abolishing some controls while leaving "government interference" programs like medicare and medicaid in place only feeds the imbalance and makes things worse.

 

[Alate_One]

Don't you see how foolish that is? What if your company makes pencils and some bureaucrat decides to attempt to outlaw pencils so his buddy who manufactures pens will make more money? Your company doesn't have the right to take out an ad in a newspaper to expose that bureaucrat? That's absurd.

And it would be absurd if that were at all what I am suggesting. And even if it were there's nothing to stop the CEO, Employees or consumers (who I'm sure would be upset at the banning of pencils) from defending said company.

However I'm not suggesting corporations be completely muzzled in regards to political speech. Only that their spending on said speech be capped so that there is not an unfair advantage for a corporation over actual living breathing human beings. Because only actual PEOPLE should have a full right to free speech.

What about newspapers? Most of them are for-profit corporations. I guess they don't have any right to free speech either?

Heard of freedom of the press? The laws that were struck down specifically exempted the press. However, I wonder if there is a real distinction between "the press" and political advocacy anymore. Considering at least 3 Fox news commentators are giving addresses to Republican and other right wing political organizations.

 

[minuteman]

And it would be absurd if that were at all what I am suggesting. And even if it were there's nothing to stop the CEO, Employees or consumers (who I'm sure would be upset at the banning of pencils) from defending said company.

However I'm not suggesting corporations be completely muzzled in regards to political speech. Only that their spending on said speech be capped so that there is not an unfair advantage for a corporation over actual living breathing human beings. Because only actual PEOPLE should have a full right to free speech.

So you already have a group of people that all work together to make pencils. But you don't think that group of people should be able to spend "too much" of their profits defending their right to make pencils.

Instead, you want this same group of people to form a whole other "free speech" group first before they can spend any money on advertising. In other words, just add more paperwork and bureaucracy.

Your ideas are arbitrary and not based on any kind of reasonable principle of right and wrong. Quintessential liberalism.

 

[minuteman]

Liberals know it is wrong to stifle valid speech, so they think they can thwart groups they don't like by creating "regulations" making it harder for those groups to be heard.

 

[WizardofOz]

Liberals know it is wrong to stifle valid speech, so they think they can thwart groups they don't like by creating "regulations" making it harder for those groups to be heard.

How many millions of dollars does it take to "be heard"?

 

[Alate_One]

So you already have a group of people that all work together to make pencils. But you don't think that group of people should be able to spend "too much" of their profits defending their right to make pencils.

No, because then they drown out people that might be hurt by their products or other smaller businesses that are harmed by their behavior. No one should be able to wield money like a hammer to beat people into submission. Its that simple.

Instead, you want this same group of people to form a whole other "free speech" group first before they can spend any money on advertising. In other words, just add more paperwork and bureaucracy.

I didn't actually say any of this. :idunno: what's to stop the presumably rich CEO to go out as an individual and defend his livelihood?

Your ideas are arbitrary and not based on any kind of reasonable principle of right and wrong. Quintessential liberalism.

Huh? how is it equal or fair for Wal-mart to be able to spend millions of dollars to promote or decry ANYTHING they want while, an actual human being like myself can only afford to spend a small percentage of my hard earned dollars is drowned out of the conversation. It becomes not a conversation but a shout down.

These kinds of limitations are hardly "liberal". The McCain-Feingold law which was struck down had plenty of bipartisan support. Conservatives that do something other than spout the most extreme party line agree that there should be limits on corporate speech and influence.

 

[Ecumenicist]

So you already have a group of people that all work together to make pencils. But you don't think that group of people should be able to spend "too much" of their profits defending their right to make pencils.

Instead, you want this same group of people to form a whole other "free speech" group first before they can spend any money on advertising. In other words, just add more paperwork and bureaucracy.

Your ideas are arbitrary and not based on any kind of reasonable principle of right and wrong. Quintessential liberalism.

The pencils are all made in China. What are you going to say when the campaigns start advocating candidates who support totalitarian enforcement of social order? How about the abolition of religion? How about the disarming of the populace? How about candidates that just want to forget that Tibet was ever an independent culture of its own? Or that the US once had an independent culture of its own?

Two edged swords guys. You're always looking at the forward swing, never anticipating the backswing. The fact that money buys votes in America is our greatest weakness, because we're not the only ones with money.