Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Health care      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 DeliveryRN
Joined: 8/26/2007
Msg: 335
view profile
History
Health CarePage 14 of 46    (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)
Golf,
We do not have to wait for the future healthcare." Women who are trapped in a Man's body" continue to get their daily dose of female hormones, while doing their time in the Male prison. And, if they were in the middle of their sex change process when sentenced, the state must finish the process. I know this sounds too outrageous to be true, yet it is.
I worked in an ER which serviced the community and the nearby Prisons. I had patients on ventilators in the ER for days because the entire ICU was occupied with prisoners, 90% dying from hepatitis and AIDS, derived from drug and alcohol abuse.
Just a little old fashioned common sense is what we need here.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 336
view profile
History
Health Care
Posted: 4/3/2010 12:20:08 AM
I heard a couple constitutional law professors and Virginia's Attorney General all saying they believed the health care mandate is unconstitutional. To be exact, they all agreed forcing individuals to buy any good or service is beyond Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause.

Hugh Hewitt said he thought Virginia's suit would eventually reach the Court, and that it would decide 5-4 to strike down the law. It's not clear to me if that part is "severable," so that the rest of the law would survive--but it might not matter. The mandatory purchase (or tax penalty in lieu) is the mainspring that makes the whole law work.

That's why Justice Kennedy is so important--he's the swing vote. A couple months ago, I heard a prominent lawyer who had been a law clerk for Kennedy say he thought he may have such a low opinion of Justice Sotomayor that he can't stand to vote with her. If he's right, her appointment may have been a blessing in disguise. In her Senate hearing, she made clear by her comments that she completely misunderstands the Court's abortion decisions--and don't think the other Justices didn't notice.

By the way, good news: the Iraqi military is doing well. Notice how the official version is that the jihadists fired first at the Iraqis and the U.S. forces with them.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/04/iraqi_forces_strike.php
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 337
view profile
History
Health Care
Posted: 4/3/2010 9:22:17 AM

Prisoners have more rights than their victims. grrrrrrrr!!! And, that stems from the fact the gov. controls them


The 5th and 14th Am.'s say government can't deprive a person of liberty without due process of law. And holding someone in captivity is about as clear a deprivation of liberty as there is. Due process usually means a *fair hearing* and *fair notice.* Or, the government can also violate it by doing something to you that "shocks the conscience."

The problem with leaving it up to courts is that judges always tend to inflate due process rights. They don't want to see their decisions overturned on appeal because something that happened in their court denied a defendant due process. I don't know, but I'm guessing a prisoner might claim the law put him on notice he could be incarcerated for breaking it, but that he had no way of knowing he couldn't get his usual brand name medications once he was inside.

It wouldn't hurt for a state legislature to put everyone on notice by saying, in a law, that as part of its policy of spending public funds responsibly, it didn't intend the bureau of corrections to issue brand name medications to prisoners. It would also help if the legislature had reviewed scientific research on the safety of generic medications, on relative costs, etc., and found they were safe and saved the state a lot of money. These findings could be summarized right in the law.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 338
view profile
History
Health Care
Posted: 4/12/2010 3:49:55 PM
There basically is no enforcement to pay the penalty.


If that were true, the whole law would be just a mound of paper. The IRS will enforce this mandate--according to the IRS official who discussed it recently--by withholding the money from whatever tax return you had coming.

But I don't think the opponents of this law will just leave it up to the Court to decide whether this mandate's constitutional. That strategy is too passive and too uncertain. They'll probably try at the same time to repeal as much of the act as possible.

I'm interested in learning more about that religious exemption. I'd like to know how Congress can favor one religion over the others without violating the First Amendment.
 DeliveryRN
Joined: 8/26/2007
Msg: 339
view profile
History
Health Care
Posted: 4/12/2010 8:34:43 PM
There is a quote that goes something to this effect "It is not evil men that I fear, it is when good men no longer stand against evil, that I am afraid". In my mind it is goes for men and women.
We need to find ways to make changes. My American heritage goes back over 200 year
s. My own family history has taught me that this country did not become the best in the world by just talking. It takes action.
I personally have chosen to take issue with any further forms of waste, that comes my way, in the hospital. I dare to ask the question, Why, to the people who make stupid decisions. And as soon as I can find my way to whom ever is making the decisions for the California Prison Healthcare System, I will persistently and loudly ask them why.
Perhaps if we could get back to the "United we Stand..." we might be able to slow down the velocity of Our fall.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 340
view profile
History
Health Care
Posted: 4/12/2010 9:36:02 PM
The health care law does exempt members of religions that forbid insurance--apparently both the Amish and Muslims. And after thinking more about it, I realize it's constitutional, just like the CO provision in the draft law. It may even be necessary--if the health care law didn't exempt members of certain religious groups, it could violate their right to free exercise of religion.

But why only *some* groups, and which ones? Even if making a religious exemption is OK, there still seems to be a problem. How is it constitutional to exempt some religions, but not others? It's like saying draftees can be CO's if they're Amish, but not if they're Quakers.

Someone I was reading raised a good point--why aren't Catholics also exempt, considering that the insurance the law requires will cover abortions? It seems to me Catholics (and others who believe abortion is a sin) shouldn't be forced to support it.

This law exempts members of groups whose religion forbids insurance, but does not exempt members of a group whose religion even more strongly forbids the abortions that insurance pays for. Will the law also force Jehova's Witnesses to pay for blood transfusions? Will Christian Scientists have to buy insurance for medical treatments their religion forbids them to use?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 341
view profile
History
Health Care
Posted: 4/13/2010 3:51:55 AM
^^^^^I think it could be the basis for a suit, too--and if some public law firm thinks it is, I hope they bring one. The mandate to buy health insurance is what this whole law relies on. And in turn, that mandate relies not only on the Commerce Clause, but also on the Necessary and Proper Clause.

As Justice Scalia pointed out in Raich, it's the N & P Clause (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 18) that gives Congress authority to regulate activities which substantially affect interstate commerce, but aren't part of it themselves.

In an 1819 decision, the Court set out the test it still uses to decide if a federal law complies with the N & P Clause:
“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”

Say the N&P Clause *does* give Congress authority to make us buy government-approved health insurance, because not buying it is an activity (or inactivity) that substantially affects interstate commerce. Even if so, doing that in a way which respects some religious beliefs but disrespects others that are at least as valid doesn't seem consistent with the "letter and spirit" of other parts of the Constitution. And if it's not, then the mandate fails the Court's N & P Clause test.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 342
view profile
History
Shortages predicted
Posted: 4/14/2010 12:21:24 AM

while you are beating up the Muslim faith for not having to buy health insurance.


I notice you're quiet about the fact the bill requires Catholics to buy it--even though that means part of their money's going to pay for abortions, which they believe are a sin. Shouldn't American Catholics have as much right to an exemption as American Muslims or American Amish?

Why should anyone be exempt just because he calls himself a Muslim ? And exactly what teaching of Islam forbids all Muslims to buy insurance, anyway? Should the fact some Muslims believe it does, by itself, be enough? Unlike Christianity, Islam has never undergone a Reformation. And it's notorious for having very few doctrines and traditions that almost all Muslims believe in. It depends on what mosque you attend.

There is no official, central doctrine. And yet Catholicism has one. It also has a structured system of leadership and a Pope, and every so many years it has an ecumenical council. The Church has an official position on almost everything. And its position on abortion is very clear: It is a sin, and a very serious one.

If this law's mandate to buy insurance were going to exempt either Muslims or Catholics, but not both, it would make far more sense for it to exempt Catholics. Could the fact it does just the opposite reflect anti-Catholic, pro-Muslim bias?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 343
view profile
History
Shortages predicted
Posted: 4/14/2010 11:27:07 AM
I, for one, will be outraged if the religious exemption doesn't include the church of Lukumi Babalu. Its members don't believe in buying medical insurance. They consider it a kind of blasphemy, because it pretends to take the place of faith in juju and mojo. They know the real way to stay healthy is to ward off the evil spirits that cause all illness. What these spirits want is blood--and you need to make sure it's not yours. Sacrificing a few goats and chickens now and then takes care of this, with an occasional black cat thrown in for good luck (and good barbecue.)
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 344
view profile
History
Shortages predicted
Posted: 4/14/2010 2:53:47 PM
^^^^^^I doubt there's even a consensus among the world's Muslims that Islam forbids insurance. And yet this law treats it as well- established doctrine. At the same time, by requiring Catholics to take part in funding abortions, it blithely disregards the unquestionably well-established Catholic doctrine that abortion is a sin.

I know it's hard to imagine, but this could be even more unfair than making non-Christian schoolchildren listen to Christmas carols or view a manger scene in a school Christmas play. Why is it so predictable that the people who drafted this blueprint for socialized medicine would favor a religion so many of their ilk trip over themselves apologizing for, while disfavoring one they never tire of attacking?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 345
Shortages predicted
Posted: 4/14/2010 3:07:52 PM

Either way we are going to go through it.
I just don't understand why all people on the left and right don't see it.


I don't either. If we don't get off the dime to develop greater resilience and less reliance on organizations that don't have our best interests at heart, when things get tight we'll be in trouble.

So let's stop bickering and get off the dime. Localizing food production would be a good place to start. Weatherizing our buildings would be another. Anything we can do to reduce our ongoing need for increasingly costly fuel will help us in the long run.

I honestly don't give a damn why people do what needs to be done--whether it's because they don't trust big government or because they don't trust big corporations, or because they do. Those arguments are all just a wast of time and so much hot air.

It's spring. Time to plant. So stop reading my bullshit, get some seeds in the ground, and enjoy the pleasures of planting for a great harvest!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 346
view profile
History
Shortages predicted
Posted: 5/1/2010 9:28:32 AM
^^^^^But just think of all the jobs those programs will create! If not for government programs like these, all that money would just be going to private businesses. And *they* wouldn't create any jobs with it, now, would they?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 347
view profile
History
Shortages predicted
Posted: 5/1/2010 2:02:51 PM
^^^^^If we prepare for November and do our job then, he may not be able to get much done at all. I don't believe any longer that what this administration is doing is accidental. I think we're in the midst of a slow-motion coup. What they're trying to do is use amnesty, the extra seats from treating Puerto Rico like a state, and the bullying of everyone who disagrees with them to lock in a permanent one-party rule.

The idea is to buy off so many votes with handouts that they get a permanent majority. Then they can keep going until they've turned the U.S. into a country run by a totalitarian national government. There will still be elections, but they won't change anything. If Republicans get a majority in the House, I think they should seriously consider impeaching this President. Representative government of the people is very quickly being killed off.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 348
view profile
History
Shortages predicted
Posted: 5/2/2010 10:44:44 AM

just as it happened here at home.


I haven't heard any of the knowledgeable people who have analyzed this recession say the banking and finance industry was responsible for it. I wonder what makes you so sure that's where the blame lies.

How you can describe this administration's ruinous economic policy as taking stock of our finances or correcting our course, I suppose only you know.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 349
view profile
History
Shortages predicted
Posted: 5/2/2010 9:08:33 PM

The government was an instrument in crashing the economy, specifically with their ability to construct laws, or lack thereof. It in itself cannot do so.


I don't know what that means. What makes you think the federal government itself can't ruin the economy? If it couldn't, I don't know why anyone would ever concern themselves with an administration's economic policies. Most economists believe the Smoot-Hawley Act, which became law during Hoover's administration, was one of the main causes of the Great Depression.

It is you who are deluded about the invasion of Iraq, but I'm not going to waste time trying to explain it to you. That's a weak argument economically, as well. The whole annual budget for the Defense Department is usually between 5 and 7 % of GDP--only a fraction of what the U.S. now spends on social welfare programs, It's a much smaller fraction yet of the unprecedented deficits this administration's unconstitutional attempts to nationalize much of our economy have already created--they are in the trillions of dollars.

The usual way governments take care of messy little problems like overspending is by creating inflation. Because it's a covert way of taxing people, the pinch is less obvious--makes it easier to rob them. But why care about ruining the standard of living of people who are only kids now, or haven't even been born yet,when giving away money now to everyone who has their hand out makes us feel so nice, caring, and virtuous?
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 350
Shortages predicted
Posted: 5/2/2010 11:21:42 PM
The whole annual budget for the Defense Department is usually between 5 and 7 % of GDP--only a fraction of what the U.S. now spends on social welfare programs


Hey everyone!

Interesting comment. I find your quote difficult to believe. Mind helping me out with some kind of reference?

Great to see this thread is still going..
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 351
view profile
History
Shortages predicted
Posted: 5/3/2010 7:28:13 AM
^^^^^The U.S. spent much less on defense during the 1930's than usual--or than the worsening situation in the world called for. In the mid-'30's, Germany began to re-arm with a vengeance. Japan also continued to build up its military. In the battle of Midway in June, 1942--which the outgunned U.S. won through skill and daring--its torpedo squadrons were still flying biplanes. Trying to torpedo a ship with them was almost suicide. In one attack by twelve of these antiques, flying in dead level at about 100 mph, the Japanese ship shot down all twelve. Only one of the airmen survived.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 352
view profile
History
Are you sure the Tea partiers are the source of violence?
Posted: 5/3/2010 8:00:51 AM
^^^^^The statists are going to go all out on this theme. It wouldn't surprise me to see them stage a Reichstag Fire to try to portray ordinary, responsible Americans as wild-eyed terrorists. I think the whole thing is working against them--the Tea Party people KNOW Obama's lying about them, and I think millions more don't like the idea of a U.S. president trying to defame and silence everyday, normal American citizens. Neither do I, and it would be just as un-American if he were conservative and they were liberals. This man has the instincts of a dictator, and the sooner the country's rid of him, the better.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 353
Are you sure the Tea partiers are the source of violence?
Posted: 5/6/2010 8:49:25 AM
As usual it's the looney left whoi attacks other's ideas and persons.


ROFLMAO. You've got to be kidding. This is all you do, and you do it all the time! Libtard this, commie that. Give me an effing break! You conservative hacks are the most disrespectful louts imaginable!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 354
view profile
History
Are you sure the Tea partiers are the source of violence?
Posted: 5/8/2010 3:16:58 PM

may have majorities that acted in their worst interests.


Maybe so. So what? Why are their poor decisions anyone else's business? It's not for a federal court to second-guess what any state does, unless it violates some federal law or treaty, or the U.S. Constitution. The fact the Supreme Court hears a case involving a state law, by itself, doesn't necessarily mean that state's government didn't know the needs of its citizens. Anyone who thinks it's a legitimate function of the federal government to tell the people of every state what their best interests are doesn't understand the most basic principles of the Constitution.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 355
view profile
History
Are you sure the Tea partiers are the source of violence?
Posted: 5/8/2010 4:35:13 PM

Like how the conservatives told the state of Florida what their laws are worth in the Terry Shiavo affair?


I don't know what conservatives you mean, or what they had to do with Florida law. Are you referring to something the federal government did?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 356
view profile
History
Are you sure the Tea partiers are the source of violence?
Posted: 5/10/2010 11:35:39 PM

hat's why the biggest ones that take down the shareholders are often actively involved in acounting fraud.


That's a pretty serious accusation. Do you have any evidence that corporations "are often actively involved in accounting fraud?"
There should be all sorts of cases where they were prosecuted for it. Or maybe you're claiming the prosecutors and courts are violating their sworn duties and conspiring with them.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 357
view profile
History
Healthcare
Posted: 7/15/2010 8:15:06 PM
Hail to heroic dear leader Kim!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 358
view profile
History
Healthcare
Posted: 7/26/2010 10:19:17 AM
I hope the Republicans take not just the House, but the Senate, too--this thing needs to be repealed before it can do any more harm. And that includes all these other provisions like this tax. It may have to wait, though, until we can get this jerk out of the White House. That's another reason to impeach him.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 359
view profile
History
Healthcare
Posted: 7/27/2010 7:05:21 PM

Even if Republicans gain control over both houes, it's impossible they can obtain the majority necessary to overturn the bill.


If Mr. Obama had the stones to get into an all-out war with a Republican Congress, despite his mediocre popularity ratings, he could veto every repealer bill they presented to him. And they wouldn't have the two-thirds majority of both houses needed to override those vetos. But at that point, what would make him so sure he wouldn't be impeached? Or even impeached and convicted?

I don't see that happening, but if Obama loses both Houses of Congress, he'll have to be careful how hard he pushes. A hostile Congress can push back--all the harder, when a President's not protected by his popularity. Even a Republican majority in the House will open the way for a lot of hearings that could well hurt Obama's popularity even more, by exposing things his administration has done. And a Republican Congress could refuse to vote the funds needed for programs the President favors. His veto would be no good then--he can't veto a *refusal* to pass a bill.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Health care