tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post4098227820536036367..comments2023-10-24T11:23:31.580-04:00Comments on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel"William A. Jacobsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16433685588536441422noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-11866504299414940712009-09-16T00:16:44.762-04:002009-09-16T00:16:44.762-04:00Death Panels are REAL. Please check out this inte...Death Panels are REAL. Please check out this interview:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQE0vNEcb8kvictormisrockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02620912667980881294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-74848412045555651112009-08-16T14:40:13.565-04:002009-08-16T14:40:13.565-04:00Let's let computers decide:
http://www.thedea...Let's let computers decide:<br /><br />http://www.thedeathpanel.comUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05301975811923894012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-84031470637985382462009-08-15T12:32:42.837-04:002009-08-15T12:32:42.837-04:00But Dr. Emanuel, who and where are these angels th...But Dr. Emanuel, who and where are these angels that are going to run this government program of yours? I don't even trust YOU to do that.<br /><br />RIP Milton Friedman!Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09118297728732108722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-59266397024602538722009-08-14T15:35:45.525-04:002009-08-14T15:35:45.525-04:00"...no Government has the right, whether to f..."...no Government has the right, whether to flatter fanatics or in mere vagueness of mind to forge an instrument of tyranny and say that it will never be used." -- W. B. YeatsThe Sanity Inspectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04808433661634318393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-88386148843864047562009-08-14T12:10:49.817-04:002009-08-14T12:10:49.817-04:00Did anyone read what Palin said? "And who wil...Did anyone read what Palin said? "And who will suffer the most when they ration care?" Where did that come from? She went from talking about what economist Thomas Sowell said (nothing to do with rationing) and then she changed the subject to rationing. Reminds me of the last administration, to defend their war in Iraq leading up to it, whenever they spoke of Saddam, the next line was always about al Qaeda - as if the two went together. Eventually, even though they never said the two were related, the public began to think they were the one and the same.veggiedudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17675445216840639498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-65134525861666081332009-08-13T05:39:36.048-04:002009-08-13T05:39:36.048-04:00No one seems to be addressing the fact that there ...No one seems to be addressing the fact that there will be a future problem with the allocation of scarce resources. Just as your HMO makes decisions today, there will be decisions in the future that will be made by bureaucrats attempting to save money. This will inevitably mean that operations and medications will be denied to people. It might be to the elderly or it might be some very severely disabled person. The fact is that there are people who are very much into eugenics and if the proposals go forward there will be less chance to prevent the elderly and the disabled being rounded up and given the German solution. <br /><br />What most of you do not seem to understand is that prior to World War 2, when the final solution was implemented, Hitler rounded up the disabled, took them to hospitals and gassed them. That of course is an extreme method of dealing with the problem, and I do not forsee that happening in the USA but what can happen is that the denial of medical care will ensure that people will face a shorter life expectation than would be the case without that bill.<br /><br />Some commentators on this blog do not seem to be able to comprehend that this is possible. Well, I am living in Australia where there is a government health plan. There are limited resources and there is real interference with our health care. In Australia it is the states that are responsible for the budget of public hospitals, and in every State there is a crisis because not enough money is being allocated. This means the closing down of hospital beds, it means overworked doctors and nurses and a system that cannot cope with the demand by patients - a lot of people do not need to go to the emergency room and it is these people who are placing pressure on scarce resources. <br /><br />With a bill that relies on all sorts of committees for additional rules and regulations anything can happen. This is not good. You should be outraged over this proposal. <br /><br />I think it can be said that there is a need for reform, but the proposals are definitely not the kind of reform that you need.Maggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532250145038548627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-17537693718189610572009-08-12T09:17:01.708-04:002009-08-12T09:17:01.708-04:00I am not a Democrat or Republican. I am an America...I am not a Democrat or Republican. I am an American. On the Section 1233 debate I think some people are so passionate about being against Obama that they are reading too much into this section. Just read Section 1233. It's not that long or hard to understand. I don't understand how some people are getting confused about what it actually says. I don't see how people believe this section will get interpreted as saying kill all seniors to save money. It's OK to stay abreast of all the left and right wing commentary, but read it for yourself and do your own fact checking.<br /><br />Advanced Care Planning Consultation<br />http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:2825Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18089480968074676379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-18985888818145539472009-08-11T23:42:41.261-04:002009-08-11T23:42:41.261-04:00So arguably, both insurance companies and a MedPAC...So arguably, both insurance companies and a MedPAC bureaucracy would benefit by allocating 'withholding' medical resources. They both save money.<br /><br />The difference though seems that insurance companies would gain/capitalize from your livelihood as opposed to government, which basic and efficient as it is doesn't benefit from giving costly and unnecessary procedures. Note the word "unnecessary" is often being thrown out to label this and that for whatever procedure for economical means to make the whole system work.<br />Obama even just recently anecdotally listed tonsillectomies as a causeless procedure pediatricians performed on a regular basis to profit from. Matter of fact, physicians who often make the suggestions don't always perform the operation and 'profit', but the point is this is essentially what government does, standardize/contract out of cost of effectiveness and necessity.<br /><br />Although the current system is not perfect, no one can deny the developments in medicine that are now available due to free market and pharma companies. It's a marvel how many people come around the world to see specialists in this country. This whole castigatory mindset against doctors certainly isn't aiding healthcare either...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09964776836083529978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-64744445572102147502009-08-11T22:11:34.523-04:002009-08-11T22:11:34.523-04:00Ms. Graas said: Mr. Darrell, our rights under the...Ms. Graas said: <i>Mr. Darrell, our rights under the Constitution are negative. They aren't about what the gov't MUST do FOR us. They are about what the gov't must NOT do TO us. For instance, I have a right to own a gun. This doesn't mean the gov't must buy me a gun. I have a right to health care, but this doesn't mean the gov't must provide it.</i><br /><br />Our Constitution establishes limited government, yes. That doesn't make rights negative (as if that has meaning . . .). If someone moves to interfere with your right to vote in elections, the government has a duty to act to preserve the rights. "Governments are established among men" for just such purposes.<br /><br /><i> Because I have a right to health care, if the gov't plan causes ONE SINGLE DEATH whether by rationing or any other method that results in that death, it is unConstitutional.</i><br /><br />And I am Marie, the Queen of Romania.<br /><br />That's about as bizarre a claim in law as I've ever seen.<br /><br /><i> The gov't is about to embark on a health care plan ostensibly to save the economy, not to save lives. That is Obama's reasoning for it. </i><br /><br />Right, which is why Truman worked on the idea, Johnson worked on the idea, Nixon worked on the idea, and Clinton worked on the idea. They were trying to save the economy in 2009. <br /><br />There is ample evidence of the need to fix our health care system -- in only in this: The 50 million Americans who don't have access to health care? We pay $300 billion to buy them care. They just don't get it.<br /><br />If we could stop that wastage, it would be a very, very good thing.<br /><br /><i>If, in the name of efficiency, one single person is harmed by it, it (ironically) defies my right to health care. </i><br /><br />Today in Dallas "death panels" made decisions in more than a dozen cases. Same with every other major city in America. Why don't those actions, driven by a private system of rationing, defy your right to health care as well?<br /><br />Why is a private bureaucrat who works for a lot of money more holy than a public bureaucrat wh works to be fair?<br /><br />I'll take fairness over fat profits for business execs any day.<br /><br /><i>It's a perversion, what this president is going to do to our Constitutional rights all while the American people have forgotten what "rights" ARE.</i><br /><br />Really? How does any part of H.R. 3200 do that?<br /><br />Some Americans have forgotten their rights, I'm sure. As you've amply demonstrated, others never had a grasp on what they were, or how or why they should be protected.Ed Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-14806334491285340392009-08-11T19:03:05.036-04:002009-08-11T19:03:05.036-04:00There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what Eu...There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what Euthanasia means. First, there are several types of euthanasia. "Active" euthanasia, the type most people think of when they hear this term, refers to physician-assisted suicide. Simply put, a physician "actively" causes death through sometype of intervention. There is also "passive-active" euthanasia. This is when the treatment rendered can accelerate/cause death. The hospice modal of end-of-life care abounds with this type of euthanasia. This is usually associated with pallitive care, such as adminsitration of narcotics for pain management. It is a well known fact that narcotic angelisic lead to increased tolerance, meaning that, over time, more of the substance is needed to provide the same level of relief. It is also a known fact that long-term use and high doses of narcotics lead to respitory supression (slowing of breathing). This places a physicain in a delima: Continue to manage the patients pain with high dose narcotics, which lead to respitory supression and evantual death. Or discontinue the narcotics, allowing the patient to suffer in pain; but life is prolonged. Finally, there is "passive" euthanasia, which means that life-saving medical treatment is withheld and the natural course of the diease leads to death. An example of this was the common practice in the early 70's and prior not to treat newborn children with Down's Syndrome for a common condition where the stomach and intestines were blocked by a growth. THe treatment for this was a simple surgical procedure that open-up the blockage allowing the digestinal track to function normally. Oftentimes, the condition was not treated and the newborn died a few days after birth from starvation. This practice was ended with a Supreme Court ruling that mandated the life-saving treatment. I believe the case was Baby Doe v. Blossom Indiana Hospital (or something simular)and was decided shortly after Roe v. Wade. The legal princible was that that quality of life was individual and parents or hospitals did not have the right to make that decision on behalf of a child, if a clear and safe medical procedure was avaible that would save the infants life (the premise was that the deicision to forego minor stomach surgery common in infants with Down's Syndrome, was rendered because of the reiduals associated with Down's Syndrome, not the easily treated stomach condition).<br /><br />The current healthcare bill being debated by Congress contians provisions supporting two of the three types of euthanasia: passive-active and passive (witholding care). <br /><br />I guess 2 out of three ani't bad.....Bluegrasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13028528336146728259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-20073076888402995632009-08-11T14:54:09.912-04:002009-08-11T14:54:09.912-04:00Mr. Darrell, our rights under the Constitution are...Mr. Darrell, our rights under the Constitution are negative. They aren't about what the gov't MUST do FOR us. They are about what the gov't must NOT do TO us. For instance, I have a right to own a gun. This doesn't mean the gov't must buy me a gun. I have a right to health care, but this doesn't mean the gov't must provide it. Because I have a right to health care, if the gov't plan causes ONE SINGLE DEATH whether by rationing or any other method that results in that death, it is unConstitutional. The gov't is about to embark on a health care plan ostensibly to save the economy, not to save lives. That is Obama's reasoning for it. If, in the name of efficiency, one single person is harmed by it, it (ironically) defies my right to health care. It's a perversion, what this president is going to do to our Constitutional rights all while the American people have forgotten what "rights" ARE.Lisa Graashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13330383394315891646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-82318792662821799582009-08-11T14:47:54.668-04:002009-08-11T14:47:54.668-04:00I just want to say thanks for this article and I f...I just want to say thanks for this article and I feel for you. I've posted on it, as well, and those critical haven't generally bothered to read the evidence. Keep up the good work. Oh, and I linked back.Lisa Graashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13330383394315891646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-67222603326787777942009-08-11T14:03:07.600-04:002009-08-11T14:03:07.600-04:00The public discussions of “death panels” and healt...The public discussions of “death panels” and health care allocation schemes are often being conducted so far away from reality that it’s a wonder they haven’t been vaporized by Klingon death rays. I ran with an emergency squad for more than three decades, and (not frequently but often enough to worry about) we would have to act as a de facto “death panel” (in the idiot conception that Sarah Palin conceives of it) on a multi-victim accident scene, deciding who would be treated immediately and who would be left to die while others are being treated.<br /><br />That’s called “triage” and it’s a necessary component of any medical care system in which the needs exceed the resources. The only valid question at issue is <i>how</i> limited resources will be differentially allocated across patients, not whether they will be differentially allocated.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-18920109502413172852009-08-11T12:52:35.667-04:002009-08-11T12:52:35.667-04:00So, first, you assume without any warrant that an ...So, first, you assume without any warrant that an article discussing <i>current allocation systems</i> is part of some you-cannot-name Democrat proposal because the author happens to be related to someone in politics. <br /><br />Then you ignore the fact that he's talking about allocation of scarce resources now on the basis of how fat your wallet is.<br /><br />So, in sum, you think rich people should live and poor people should die. <br /><br />Is that a fair summary of your plan?<br /><br />You avoid a "death panel" by assuming all poor people should die! <br /><br />How clever.Ed Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-11736948116225965042009-08-11T11:23:41.005-04:002009-08-11T11:23:41.005-04:00@ William (August 10, 2009 10:15 PM):
I think the...@ William (August 10, 2009 10:15 PM):<br /><br />I think the point of that "talking point" is, what Dr. Emanuel wrote in the embedded article isn't what's in the health care bill. What Rep. Isaakson wrote, is. What Sarah Palin said about "death panels," was in reference to Isaakson's addition to the bill. The whole question of Dr. Emanuel's article or judging anyone by their "level of productivity in society" is kinda moot--except as an intellectual exercise--because nothing in the embedded article is actually in the health care bills being proposed.<br /><br />@ alwaysfiredup (August 10, 2009 11:56 AM): As regards your definition of death panels - What you describe exists in every health insurance company and most hospitals already. It's not just a part of every single-payer system; it's a part of EVERY system. Decisions are made by the providers of the actual health care (doctors & administrators), and providers of the money to pay for it (insurance company bean-counters and bureaucrats). To whatever extent the government (us) is paying for the health care, we have a right to decide under what circumstances the money starts and stops. (Personally, I trust we, the people, more than folks who're beholden to profits and shareholders.)<br /><br />And again, Dr Emanuel isn't talking about every aspirin and band-aid. His article is about acute, life or death situations where "who's paying for it?" isn't the issue. There's only one heart, and more than one person who will die in the next 24 hours without one. (Except black market, I guess), one can't just run down to "hearts-r-us" and pick one up, regardless of whether they can pay for it out of their own pocket, have private health insurance, or the government is picking up the whole tab.<br /><br />The way I see it, this is about creating a floor, not a ceiling. Those who can pay for it can and will always be able to get the "best" health care. These reforms are about getting adequate care for everyone else. Yeah, I suppose there will be procedures and drugs that the government won't pay for, but as someone who's had insurance companies disallow drugs that my doctor prescribed, I don't see this as a big change. Some pencil-pusher is already getting between me & my doctor and determining my care.<br /><br />As for suing your insurance company, the unfortunate fact is it'll likely be your next of kin brining the lawsuit, and unless s/he's well-heeled enough to afford a team of lawyers, probably losing the case, besides. I don't know the facts about not being able to sue the government (but your claim sounds "fishy" to me--I'll read up), but I'd imagine the public outcry over denials that cause folks to die would bring about changes in a government plan quicker than in a private plan. (No non-disclosure settlements.)<br /><br />Now as far as those "end-of-life" chats, I'm against any language making the chats themselves or their content mandatory. I wouldn't (at this stage, anyway) be opposed to signage and a document stating the facts about living wills and whatnot, specifying that the patient can discuss this such things with their doctor, and that if cost is an issue, the government will pay for that discussion. A take home hand out for everyone over 18--because anyone can be hit by a bus & left in a coma--and a yearly signed receipt of having received it would be fine. I wouldn't be opposed to a doctor choosing to bring it up, either. But I don't believe the government needs to be in the room mandating the conversation. (Of course, I feel the same way about abortion providers and those mandatory counseling sessions some states propose or have written into law.) Here are the facts about your options, and we'll be glad to discuss them with you ("at gov't expense," in the case of living wills & end of life care), if you so desire. Please sign & return this page stating that you received this pamphlet.repsac3https://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-11142404779242750582009-08-11T08:16:55.619-04:002009-08-11T08:16:55.619-04:00I like what Squid said, but Congress is past the p...I like what Squid said, but Congress is past the point of caring what the Constitution permits or prescribes. <br />It is easy to see why critics would attack Palin for her statements. Controversial to say the least. But then, many of her critics would jump all over her for saying anything. So when a statement should actually make someone think/ponder the ramifications of government run health care, the pain would too much for most critics and they would jast as soon attack.<br />Now for the interesting part,,,,and it is simple. Would there be a govt. body that makes policy and financial decisions based upon budgets? You betcha. How would the resources be allocated? That' is what the Democrats DON'T want to talk about. Even Obama drifted off message and indicated that a pain pill might be the only choice instead of life-saving operation for an elderly grandmother.<br />To believe that ANY commission won't be politically swayed or manipulated is riduculous also. The FCC has made policy changes in order to put a strangle hold on radio stations that carry programs with conservative, rightest views. All in the interest of the PUBLIC GOOD.<br />We have neither the financial capitol nor the health care infrastructure to support the deformed health care system proposed by congress, yet they would push it through for the enormous amount of political leverage they would have once a large portion of Americans are beholding to the govt. for their "free" care. Instantly, a good 30% (and growing, thanks to provisions in the bill) of our population will be scared at every election that the Repulicans will take their health care away. Next, of course, comes amnesty for illegal aliens. Instantly, 10-20 million new voters for Dems. Somewhere in that time frame, talk radio is reduced in scope and availability. Not completely because the Dems will be careful to say they did NOTHING to STOP free speech. It's in the cards and has been planned for a long time. The power brokers just needed someone who could sway a huge portion of the population with smooth talking and a nice face. Hillary wasn't going to get it done,,,,,but this guy Obama looks to be the ticket. <br />Bottom line: Universal health care is a populist idea that is not grounded in any sort of reality. Cost decisions must be made. Some will be left out. Who will they be?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02432809500432041485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-23869453900562209352009-08-10T22:15:21.493-04:002009-08-10T22:15:21.493-04:00Ah, the latest talking point. Found a Republican ...Ah, the latest talking point. Found a Republican in favor of end of life planning, but if you read Palin's entire statement she cites Dr. Emanuel by name. Did Isaakson ghost write the embedded article?William A. Jacobsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16433685588536441422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-44503713504144995912009-08-10T22:10:44.637-04:002009-08-10T22:10:44.637-04:00Wacky Hermit, what are you doing leeching off the ...Wacky Hermit, what are you doing leeching off the government? Do what the Republican Party wants you to do and go die somewhere.TrueBluehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03247629724349664650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-32666256051812553532009-08-10T22:09:14.319-04:002009-08-10T22:09:14.319-04:00Turns out that the Death Panel came from a Republi...Turns out that the Death Panel came from a Republican. Specifically, Johnny Isaakson of Georgia. Ha! Nutcases!TrueBluehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03247629724349664650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-6692356399269812092009-08-10T20:48:09.255-04:002009-08-10T20:48:09.255-04:00@Squid,
Why, that would be somewhere around Artic...@Squid,<br /><br />Why, that would be somewhere around Article I, Section 8. Something about "general welfare" and all that.Berthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06147535317169942997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-25941215406478610902009-08-10T20:20:24.631-04:002009-08-10T20:20:24.631-04:00Wacky Hermit: "It's not about what the la...Wacky Hermit: "It's not about what the law requires, it's about what you're likely to get at your local office."<br /><br />Yes, one can run into recalcitrant government bureaucrats. One can, and does, also run into recalcitrant administrators for private insurance companies.<br /><br />Yes, some things might change with health care reform. But some things might change with your life situation without health care reform. Like your share of the premium keeps rising faster than your pay increases. Or your employer stops offering it because it's too expensive. Or you lose your job and can't find another one that offers insurance. And if you have a preexisting condition and lose your job, forget about being insurable.<br /><br />I'd advise that it may be worth "expanding your time horizon" beyond present circumstances, which may not last forever.dsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01997716795133693794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-3831206989920279532009-08-10T19:03:48.081-04:002009-08-10T19:03:48.081-04:00My family has spent some time on a government prog...My family has spent some time on a government program called WIC (Women, Infants, and Children). It provides vouchers for milk, eggs, cheese, and other foods for children under 5 and pregnant or nursing women who meet their income guidelines. In theory this is to help them get sufficient nutrition.<br /><br />My son is lactose intolerant, so when we went to the WIC clinic we asked if they could give us vouchers for soy milk instead of regular milk. On the WIC website it said this was possible. Our WIC office said they would not do it because it was too much paperwork. So for my lactose intolerant son they gave us vouchers for milk, all the milk we could possibly want him to drink if he could drink milk.<br /><br />Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of the pro-Obamacare people on here keep saying that the law doesn't require this and the law doesn't require that. It's not about what the law requires, it's about what you're likely to get at your local office. And your local office may be staffed with the most loving, caring people who will go to any lengths to help you. But the smart money's on your local office being staffed with people ignorant of their own policies and merely responding to their own incentives, or even worse, people who just don't give a crap about you because there are 11 more people just like you in line behind you and the job pays the bills. This is how government works when the size of the bureaucracy expands past the size of the competent and caring population.<br /><br />It's all very well to sit in your armchair and with erudition expound on the technicalities of how the law would be administered if you were in charge of every detail. You may feel perfectly comfortable with Dr. Emmanuel making your health care decisions. But since neither he nor you are available to staff every office, you should at least consider whether you would want this law if it were administered by Linda The Petty Office Manager, Monica The Childless 21-Year-Old Social Worker and Patty The Vindictive B!tch. Because they're the ones going to be staffing your local office.<br /><br />Also, I'm really sick of the argument "We don't have 4, silly Teabaggers, we just have 1 and 1 and 1 and 1. Maybe you're thinking if we arranged the 1's in the shape of a 4? How cute, what grade are you in?" Kindly expand your time horizon to farther out than 30 seconds after the bill becomes law, please, and don't insult my intelligence by telling me nothing about my health plan will ever change since it won't change in the 30 seconds after passage.Nom de Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05153700215201399299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-48863845563826845422009-08-10T18:55:54.584-04:002009-08-10T18:55:54.584-04:00First appointment to Death Panel.
See:
http://...First appointment to Death Panel.<br /><br /><br />See:<br /><br /><br />http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/paula-abdul-named-to-obama-death-panel/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-89654917839826368412009-08-10T18:37:47.347-04:002009-08-10T18:37:47.347-04:00@Maggie/squid:
I don't think you folks know t...@Maggie/squid:<br /><br />I don't think you folks know the Constitution very well. Supreme Court precedent makes it pretty clear that the federal government has the authority to do what is being proposed.<br /><br />Farm subsidies are not unconstitutional (and that has been the case since the New Deal). Medicare is not unconstitutional. Subsidies for medical insurance would not be unconstitutional, nor would incentives for more efficient delivery of medical services. Medical care is certainly a part of interstate commerce, and therefore falls under Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.<br /><br />It helps to read the case law before making assertions about what is or is not allowed under the Constitution. You may not like it, but that's the law as it stands today.<br /><br />And Squid, the question is not "Does the White House have the Constitutional authority to provide health care to the electorate, and does Congress have the power to fund it?" That's not how the government works. Congress passes a law, and then the executive branch carries it out.dsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01997716795133693794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-31372604230039000022009-08-10T16:47:35.447-04:002009-08-10T16:47:35.447-04:00@squid,
that is an excellent point. So why is it t...@squid,<br />that is an excellent point. So why is it that most Americans are not aware that the Federal government does not have the constitutional authority to be so meddlesome in the first place?Maggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532250145038548627noreply@blogger.com