It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush-appointed federal judge strikes down health insurance mandate

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
If I need antibiotics for instance, I have to pay a government approved doctor, not only for a permission slip to take the medicine, but also for a visit with this doctor.


Well, that's kind of the problem -- how do you know that you need antibiotics? Do you know how to tell the difference between a bacterial infection and a viral one? Do you think that the average person does? Overprescription of antibiotics is a huge problem, because of the aforementioned development of resistant bacteria, and you think it's wise to just allow anyone with the sniffles to take them?

If you have a headache, it is reasonable that you should go up the druggist and demand morphine? If you've back pains, should you self medicate the pain away, not realizing that you've gall stones, liver failure or any number of other conditions that a reasonable diagnosis might uncover?

I can certainly understand the aggravation at the out of control costs and corporate malfeasance that seem to pervade this industry, but simply removing all controls would result in chaos and a significantly less healthy populace, it seems to me.




posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Air Spoon makes a very good point. Often times a simple antibiotic can be a life saving remedy, but only liscensed doctors can dole these out. AS is definitely on to something, if doctors had to compete for our patronage the prices would stay down and medical services would be forced to streamline their costs and services. I would think that specialty services such as surgery and transplants would still be their gravy, but we might not be charged excessive prices on remedial medical supplies.

I am curious, doesn't the government provide affordable insurance at the state level for those who can't afford it? Arizona has recently nixed transplant coverage from ACCHS insurance do to funding conflicts in the new obamacare, is this the begining of rationing? I suppose I am one of the scared conservatives that just doesn't understand and it would be fantastic if one of the superior liberals could explain the benefits and openly discuss the faults of socialized medicine- but, remember to dumb it down for me.

Oh, liberals - just in case you our not a hardline communist, it is important that you understand that obamacare is just the governments means of recouping the money they are already spending on healthcare. It would be great to believe that the government is taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but this is not the case, obamacare is the mechanism to take from the people and circumvent our choice. Ask yourself, when the power scales tip from the people towards government, what need does the government have for unproductive people? None, just ask Castro!



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Well, that's kind of the problem -- how do you know that you need antibiotics?


Well for one, it's nobody's business but my own, as to how I would know that. Second of all, it doesn't take government approval for someone to know when they have an infection, when they have pain or when they have a stomach ache. What you are basically saying is that only Medical Doctors should have knowledge about medicine and that restriction of knowledge should cost everyone who isn't an MD thousands of dollars (even millions over a lifetime).

The point is, is that it is my body. I should not be forced to pay someone in order to keep it healthy or to heel myself. Because this is an absolute needed service, it is in effect a monopoly when their are political laws preventing people from doing it themselves.

Lets use an analogy with water. What if in the future, the government restricts people from gathering and drinking their own water? They do this because water may not be clean and normal people don't know how to sanitize this water. They then outlaw milk and any other beverage besides water. They do this becuase these beverages (milk included) are fattening. In order for you to drink, therefore live, you need to hire someone to give you permission to then go to the store and buy water. Now these agents of the government (we'll call them "woctors") know that without their permission to purchase this water, people will die. So, these "woctors" can then charge any price because you need this service to live. You need this water to live. However, even if a "woctor" is a good guy and decides he isn't going to take advantage of your need, he really has no choice but to charge at least the status quo, due to operating and licensing costs, not too mention that he is probably forced to work for a corporation, since a business on his own can't compete with the corporations (which run thousands of "woctors"). You would basically be screwed as you need water to survive, yet the law prevents from getting this water yourself, in spite of the fact that you know how to sanitize water. Everytime you need to drink, say a day's supply of water, you have to go pay someone $100 to give you permission to go to the store to buy then buy this water at another 5,000% mark-up, not to mention that you now have to run all over town, just to get a drink of water. Now obviously you won't be able to afford this, so then "XYZ" insurance company calls you up and says "hey, we know how expensive it is to get your beverage needs, how about you purchase our insurance for $300 a month. That sounds like a great deal to you, as otherwise you would have to pay $150/day otherwise. However, when you add this up over a lifetime, you realize that you have given these scoundrals millions of dollars. You might even get this "insurance" as a "benefit" in your pay, though you still pay for it, either as a monthly cost, or as a subtraction to your pay because your work has to pay someone for it.

You then have half the population arguing that the government should provide free water, or pay for our water. The other half thinks that the government should but out of the water/drinking industry and they don't want trillions of their taxes spent on water for other people. Meanwhile, the population is absolutely indoctrinated to believe that there is noway that we ourselves can provide our own water for pennies on the dollar. You don't need government spending trillions of tax-dollars, nor do you need government to regulate the water/drinking industry. If you allow people to sanatize and drink their own water, then the water/drinking industry wouldn't be able to put such a mark-up on the water because people would have another option. They would be forced, by the market, to offer competitive prices.

This scenario sounds pretty absurd, doesn't it? I can guarantee that this sounds no more absurd to you, then the medical issue does to someone 100 years ago. Just as we need water to live, we also need medicines and medical services (most that people can do on their own). Because this is a necessity of life and we are prevented by law from providing ourselves with this service, it can and is taken advantage of, as people are going to pay whatever they can to live.

If you want to pay thousands of dollars for professinal advice or permission to take a certain medicine, then fine but that shouldn't be forced on the rest of us. Some people, like myself, don't believe that it is worth the money, especially when I trust my own judgement over that of someone else, particularly someone I don't know who has a ton of conflicts of interest. Our bodies are our own and we should be able to do what we choose with these bodies. Nobody was born with an edict of ownership of anyone else's body and thus an industry to serivce these bodies should not be forced upon the people. That is just absurd, yet people still manage to stay so hypnotized and indoctrinated with the only thing they know.

This isn't a conspiracy. It's just the way that it is. It's reality.


--airspoon



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by onthedownlow
Air Spoon makes a very good point. Often times a simple antibiotic can be a life saving remedy, but only liscensed doctors can dole these out.


Yes, and there's a reason for that -- see my post above, or read this article. Particularly this bit:


The most important ways to prevent antibiotic resistance are:
Minimise unnecessary prescribing and overprescribing of antibiotics. This occurs when people expect doctors to prescribe antibiotics for a viral illness (antibiotics do not work against viruses) or when antibiotics are prescribed for conditions that do not require them.


What is the likelihood that antibiotic use and misuse will go DOWN when "only licensed doctors" are no longer part of the equation to determine if their use is appropriate?


AS is definitely on to something, if doctors had to compete for our patronage the prices would stay down and medical services would be forced to streamline their costs and services.


I don't know where you live, but I live in a midsized city and we have two hospitals, three clinics and a number of independent doctors. Not sure how much more competition you would expect to find.

Personally, I found a doctor that I like, I trust, and who has indicated that he knows what he's doing. I have a life threatening chronic health condition, so it is important to me that I have a doctor who is competent and understands my condition, how some of the medicines that I take interact with each other, and what my outlook is.

You've only one life, it boggles my mind that some of you would put that life in the hands of rank amateurs just to save a few bucks. I suspect, though, that if it came down to it, there would be few who would refuse to visit a "licensed doctor" to fix them.


I am curious, doesn't the government provide affordable insurance at the state level for those who can't afford it?


I think that it varies by state, but it's usually not created for lower costs, it's created to provide group coverage for people who can't otherwise get it.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by adjensen
 



Well, that's kind of the problem -- how do you know that you need antibiotics?


Well for one, it's nobody's business but my own, as to how I would know that. Second of all, it doesn't take government approval for someone to know when they have an infection, when they have pain or when they have a stomach ache. What you are basically saying is that only Medical Doctors should have knowledge about medicine and that restriction of knowledge should cost everyone who isn't an MD thousands of dollars (even millions over a lifetime).

The point is, is that it is my body. I should not be forced to pay someone in order to keep it healthy or to heel myself. Because this is an absolute needed service, it is in effect a monopoly when their are political laws preventing people from doing it themselves.


And no one says otherwise. Like I said, you're welcome to treat yourself as you see fit, so long as it doesn't involve dangerous or controlled substances.

Ironically, Big Pharma would be in your court as far as taking their medicines to OTC status, because their profits would go through the roof without any intelligent screening as to whether an 18 year old needed Plavix or not. Boniva and Celebrex for all! I can hear it now -- AstraZeneca shareholders would be in ecstasy.

Your suggestion that anyone who fancies himself knowledgeable in the ways of medicine, regardless of how much they actually know, or the source of that knowledge, should be free to diagnose disease, recommend drugs and do surgery is the equivalent of suggesting that a PFC who read "The Art of War" should be promoted to General and allowed to plan the next war.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
What they need to do is make everything health care related non profit OR have a very small profit margin. That's everything from hospitals and doctors to medicine and insurance.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



And no one says otherwise.


You obviously don't even know the limits of your freedom. The law says otherwise. It's the law.


Like I said, you're welcome to treat yourself as you see fit, so long as it doesn't involve dangerous or controlled substances.


Actually, you aren't allowed to treat yourself as you see fit, though lets just suppose you are. Most medicines are controlled substances, through the DEA classifications I-V (I believe). The point made is obviously lost on you. The fact that I am prohibited from medicating myself, means that I am forced to patronize a government approved doctor, even when the substance, chemical or medicine is easily found in nature. Such an idea is the very anti-thesis of liberty and freedom.

Not one single man has the authority to control another and when they do, it's called tyranny and that tyranny is no different than if it was coming from Hitler, Stalin, Castro or Nero.

Easy solution to force people to cede control over their health and body for the purpose of extracting labor or wealth, is simply control the chemicals and medical processes. Control of our health is already complete and if you can believe it (which obviously you can), people don't mind allowing others to charge them for what should otherwise be free of charge. In fact, not only do people allow others to charge for their own right to be healthy, but they allows others to completely break their bank over it. In fact, we can see the beginning of the same process happening with food and some even say water.

What or who gives anyone the right to decide which medicines a person can or can't use? Were they born with a charter from their creator? I think we were all born unto this world buck naked.

In fact if we look at what is happening with our food, the way it is beginning to be controlled like our medicine, it's kind of crazy. In Great Britain during the 12th and 13th centuries, the King of England enacted and enforced what is called "forest law", where people weren't allowed to hunt the King's animals. It was basically a control on the food, or at least some of the food. Eventhough the people of England weren't even under the illusion that they were free, they still absolutely wouldn;t stand for this forest law, thus is was eventually struck down. What we have now with our food system, is far, far worse or much more restrictive than any "forest law" and sadly, we are under the illusion of freedom -and that's just with food.

It's pretty sad and to be frank, I'm absolutely ashamed and embarrassed for the human race when ignorance blinds them so much that they somehow think it's okay to cede control over themselves to some entity who has a huge conflict of interest, especially when it is something so obvious as say your health or your food. Our founding fathers, who sacrificed so much to give us an oppurtunity to avoid what's happening now, would be absolutely ashamed and embarrassed for these people who somehow think such a system is okay, especially when they base this opinion on pure ignorance bread from complacency.

Just because something seems to have always been a certain way, surely doesn't mean that this percieved way is right. This kind of ignorance is what leads children who were molested, to start molesting other children. Luckily though, at least with such a scvenario, as soon as their minds mature enough they wisen up to realize that this isn;t okay, though some do it anyway, most don't.

In fact, what seperates us humans from most other animals, is our ability to think in the abstract and in order to do that, our brains have to be capable of reevaluating situations. However, it has become apparent that many people do not reevaluate situations and instead, just accept them as they are, no matter how absurd. This kind of ignorance is what tyranny thrives on.


--airspoon



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon

Like I said, you're welcome to treat yourself as you see fit, so long as it doesn't involve dangerous or controlled substances.


Actually, you aren't allowed to treat yourself as you see fit, though lets just suppose you are. Most medicines are controlled substances, through the DEA classifications I-V (I believe). The point made is obviously lost on you. The fact that I am prohibited from medicating myself, means that I am forced to patronize a government approved doctor, even when the substance, chemical or medicine is easily found in nature. Such an idea is the very anti-thesis of liberty and freedom.


I don't know, maybe it's just an aspect of the "nanny society" that we've worked ourselves into, but, while I can see your point of controlled medicines being contrary to freedom, I see it as the saner of the two options. They aren't controlled in order to extract money from you, they are controlled because they are dangerous if they are misused, which is almost guaranteed to happen if such medicines are obtained and used in ignorance.

Do you recognize the danger of misuse or overprescription of drugs, whether anti-biotics or anything else? Do you really see no need for any sort of "gatekeeper" on that sort of thing, who might stand up and say "for your headache, you should take aspirin, not morphine?" You are speaking of yourself -- your liberties, your abilities -- but do you hold a similar view for someone who does not have the ability to discern, in any way, whether an antibiotic is appropriate when her baby has a cold, but she's heard that it might make him feel better?

Do you hold similar views of things like licensing -- if you want to drive a semi-tractor with a gasoline tanker trailer, is there no reason that you need to have training or demonstrate that you know how to drive such a vehicle? Just hop in the cab and off you go?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
The ruling should stick simply because the Federal Government had to go to court and argue that this healthcare law falls under the taxing laws and therefore they can mandate it....

I don’t follow. If that’s your test to determine what legislative measures are constitutional or not, then it’s completely inadequate, since the federal government is frequently challenged by citizens and private organizations regarding statutory and even constitutional matters. More surprisingly, the outcome of a case, apparently, doesn’t even play a part in your consideration — or need I remind you that this matter is far from settled?



I laughed the most when I found out that the Fed's lawyers actually had to argue that it is a tax...

If the Courts accept the individual mandate as a tax, then the probability of the government‘s argument winning is increased. The political and public speech, the terms and euphemisms used to describe the mandate, are of little or no significance and, quite frankly, if it doesn’t qualify as a tax, I have no idea what it could qualify as.



Interestingly enough, this does not nullify the entire thing. Rather, only section 1501 (?) was found to be unconstitutional -- the personal mandate clause.

The health care bill in question didn’t include a severability clause in its language, thus, if the individual mandate is, ultimately, ruled to be unconstitutional then the whole thing will most likely fall.



The only thing left, after going all the way to the Supreme Court with this thing, would be for Obama to create a specific tax that everyone has to pay, and then allocate those funds to pay for his healthcare plan.

What’s the difference between that and the individual mandate? The terms used to describe them?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Yeah you know nationalized health care is the best way to do things. Just ask the politicians from Canada, Europe, and all around the word that fly here to get treated. When it comes time for open heart surgery or some new and "experimental" surgery people come here.

You are talking about issues of expertise, the health care bill in question tries to address the issues of cost and coverage — those are distinct issues. And, health care in the United States is already great... for those that can afford it.



How many things does our government do cheaper than private companies?

Is there still anything the government does that doesn’t contract out? And who does that contract work?



Originally posted by scoutsniper
You wrote and asked: "How many things does our government do cheaper than private companies?
Any one or any company that is willing to pay $300.00 for a screw driver is "sick".
Answer: "NONE"

This ties in with my question above. In your hypothetical scenario, whom did the government buy that $300 screw driver from?

What you are describing is actually the scheme that corporations use to basically steal taxpayer funds. Or are we pretending that private corporate interests haven’t corrupted and influenced decisions when it comes to government procurements and acquisitions?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join