O/T: Amazing

Page 9 of 10  
On 7/1/2012 1:06 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

the common welfare, NOT PROMOTE the general welfare.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe I know enough English to conclude that the PPACA promotes welfare (in that sense).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/1/2012 12:25 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/1/2012 11:06 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

founders didn't consider those things to be "rights."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They did not seem to see the government's role as being to steal from the rich and give to the poor. They didn't include a right to food or water or a job, so why would they include a right to medical treatment?

The adjustment that is needed is Constitutional amendment that establishes the rules of interpretation far more narrowly than the courts have done.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 07:55:22 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

One idea I heard the other day (sorry, don't remember where) was a Constitutional amendment allowing Congress, with a supermajority, to overrule SCotUS decisions within a set amount of time (say, one year).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Can't the Congresscritters do that now? They can pass a bill that revokes whatever the Supremes have said. If it becomes law, that should have the same effect, unless the law is declared unconstitutional.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

They can. Congress can, moreover, pass a law not reviewable by the courts. Seldom happens, but it's possible.
For example, Section 8 of the $700 billion bailout in late 2008 reads:
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of the Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or administrative agency."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/4/2012 2:41 PM, HeyBub wrote:

which is entirely different than judicial review of the constitutionality of the law itself.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@NOSPAMgmail.com says...

The act itself is reviewable and if the courts do not like that provision then out it goes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, not on matters of Constitutional interpretation. SCotUS is the final word.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/4/2012 8:30 AM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

The amendment process itself is just that, only the power is in the hands of the States rather than Congress, which I think is a safer place to entrust such a power.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interpretation <> amendment
In this instance, the suggestion was that with a supermajority, Congress can overrule SCotUS. SCotUS doesn't (in theory) write the constitution.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Have to look into that. Thanks.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It likely _is_ possible, but it would require legislation with the primary purpose of benefit to the people, rather than the health care and insurance industries.
--
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/29/2012 2:51 PM, Larry W wrote:

exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes, and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/29/2012 6:30 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

Let start the cost analysis with the cost of government imposed regulations. When I worked in a Pharmaceutical nearly a third of their total staff was devoted to regulatory compliance.
That is just in on the manufacturing side. I have no experience with the providers, but know they are also hit hard with government regulations.
Next let explorer the cost of law suits. The first thing some will do is total the payouts in the current year and say that these cost are insignificant. When considering these cost you have to consider the preventive cost, adult resistant lids, label that say a fire is hot and will burn you, and other nonsense. There are many expenses that a company makes to avoid law suits.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

The compliance regulations and the time it took to comply with the nonsense (changing every 3 months) is what drove me to retirement. No miore faldera for me!
(much snipped)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:02:26 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

Agreed.
You forgot to mention the drug companies. You know that R&D expense they're always harping on? Turns out most of it is spent analyzing how to modify a competitors product just enough that they can bring out their own version. Very little is spent on developing new drugs.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/30/2012 12:29 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

the drug through the FDA approval process, the cost of the required testing to demonstrate the drug is effective, safe, and a host of other things, such as the lethal limit testing, environmental test require for manufacturing discharges, etc. When you consider that to get a drug through FDA review and approval, there must be 100 of animal test, and many people must use the drug and the data collected analyses.
If the drug is a biologic the organism must be created and it must be characterized. Long chain protein characterization is not easy with 1000's of carbon atoms in the molecule.
Before a drug can become approved, multiple lots of the drug must be manufactured by the planned procedures that are submitted to FDA review and the manufacture drug shown it is equivalent to the lab drug. These lots can not be sold and are destroyed.
Before manufacturing can begin other permits must be obtained, or reviews made the EPA, OSHA, and a host of other alphabets agencies on the local, state, and federal level.
This does not include the R&D expense of the many drugs that are found and never make it to be consider as a possible candidate for the medical system. For every one drug the is seen as a potential candidate for the drug industry, 1000 are required to be chemically constructed, and evaluated.
If these cost could not be deducted from the drug sales, new drugs would be prohibitively expensive and would not come on the market.
YES there is a lot of patient avoidance research, but where do you think the generic drugs that are approved comes from? They too have development cost.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.