liberal's causes than they realize at the moment ... they may have well been
Roberts did three things:
- He told the people and the legislature to decide what's good law and
not ask SCOTUS to make that decision - he umpired and didn't play
- He showed judicial independence and thereby took away Obama's
ability to whine about how the courts are interfering with his
- To your point - he stomped on the brakes to prevent the Congress
from its current behavior of using the Commerce Clause to justify
every bit of legislative overreach and chicanery. The Commerce
Clause is so abused as to make the limits on Federal power irrelevant.
That came to a grinding halt yesterday.
My only beef with the whole thing is that Roberts could have and should
have thrown out the individual mandate because it is flatly wrong.
The most important thing that happened yesterday is that this ignited
the fires and people will now be galvanized to replace this administration.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
Yep. One commentator opined that the other justices are playing checkers
while Roberts is playing chess.
There are several cases scheduled for next term where his rationale in the
ACA case will come back to bite the liberals. Chief among these cases are
those having to do with voting rights and civil rights.
The bottom line on the ACA case, according to Roberts, is that a LEGISLATIVE
solution is the proper path. That looses a massive political effort for the
Hold my beer and watch this!
I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will
be paying for those who do.
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln
I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing. Until
now, if your insurance or lack of it does not cover a needed expense, you
are at the mercy of the doctor or other healthcare provider. Of course
you could negotiate to get what you need for less than half of the
"charge", and sometimes you might be successful, but usually you'd need
to pay twice or more of what the insurance company pays for the same
treatment. Now everyone pays the same in healthcare insurance, and the
insurance companies negotiate with the providers. We "only" need
databases to find out actual amounts paid for each condition to decide
where a certain treatment is most economical (and best, of course).
At the moment, the cost of care often includes a surcharge to help pay
for indigent caren (in NY City, there is a 8.5% or so surcharge that
insurance covers, but that deals with the cost of under and uninsured).
There wil be no more COBRA where it would cost $1000 plus/month to get
insurance if your hours were reduced to the extent that you don't have
benefits anymore, or get laid off. Skip on the insurance for a while,
and then you have a pre-existing condition, and no more insurance,
Of course, I would think that a nationwide single payor insurance system
would cut out most of the duplications in administering insurance, but it
would also cut what little competition there is left, so it is doubtful
which is worse. I am all in favor of good wages for healthcare
personnel, but currently much of the costs are associated with needless
bureaucracy, duplicating "state of the art" care that doesn't help more
than regular exercise, and I could go on. Let's focus on that, and on
the question how much end of life care should cost, in comparison to the
quality of life. I know I tread perhaps on sensitive toes, and I would
like to submit that at that time, insurance and treatment choices should
be made. I have a living will etc set up. Do you? In the absence of
proper instructions, the doctors and hospitals will clean you out.
While there are problems with our health insurance system it is still
the best and most responsive in the world, bar none. If the plan for
government review of the medical procedures a person gets, were in
effect today when my wife retina torn loss, she would be blind today, as
the surgery had to be done within hours not the months it would take the
bureaucrats to decide if she should be treated. Check the time frames
to get care under the European Socialist systems. You will be shocked.
As your European friends on Facebook.
However do you really think a bill that duplicates the FDA, adds taxes
on medical devices, and taxes to those who are least able to pay them,
is the solution to this dilemma.
With government limits on medical care, do you think any one would have
developed the spin off from The Star War program into the laser surgery
techniques we use today.
The government regulation has burden the medical industry with a system
that takes 10 to 20 years for the FDA to review and approve a new drug.
Do you think having two government agencies doing the same review is
going to make drugs safer or get new drugs to the doctors faster.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:00:25 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
I do realize this is a waste of bandwidth, but here's one comparison:
"Direct comparisons of health statistics across nations are complex. The
Commonwealth Fund, in its annual survey, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall",
compares the performance of the health systems in Australia, New Zealand,
the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the U.S. Its 2007 study found
that, although the U.S. system is the most expensive, it consistently
underperforms compared to the other countries. A major difference
between the U.S. and the other countries in the study is that the U.S. is
the only country without universal health care. The OECD also collects
comparative statistics, and has published brief country profiles."
Another study a few years back by the World Health Organization, ranked
the US first in amount paid for health care, but 37th in quality. Right
behind Costa Rica and ahead of Slovenia.
Could you please reference reputable sources that support your claim of
"the best and most responsive in the world"?
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
As a born Dutchman, firstly I have nothing against Social Democrats (most
often called socialists over there). I have something against
communists, since they are dictatorial, whichtrue socialists aren't.
Secondly, the Dutch healthcare system is a single payer type national
healthcare system, although there are many companies offering insurance
I broke a leg in an amusement/zoo type park (Dolfinarium) in Harderwijk,
a very small city, formerly more a fishing village on the inland sea arm
the Zuiderzee. It is also where Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy and the
system of nomenclature for animals and plants, developed his system
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linaeus>. But it had a first-class
hospital and trauma surgeon on staff. I broke the leg at 10:30 AM, it
took a while for an ambulance to get me to the hospital. I was seen in
the ER almost immediately and the trauma surgeon was called in. By 2:30
PM I was back in a hospital bed after surgery to put a couple of plates
on the 2 broken bones near the ankle, and a dozen or so screws. I spent
3 nights in the hospital. The total costs for ambulance, surgery
hospital stay and doctors was around $9000. The bill for the ambulance
was a 1-liner. The bill for the rest was 2 lines. Because I didn't have
Dutch (or EU) insurance they asked me to pay the bill, and get the money
back from my insurance company (they knew the difficulties dealing with
US insurance). It all worked out for me in the end, with not much more
than my deductible to be paid by me (they screwed me on the exchange
Here in the US, the orthopedist I used for follow-up was amazed at the
way the Dutch surgeon had inserted one of the plates by not cutting the
leg and placing the plate, but by inserting it under the skin and sliding
it in place. Note that I have now full use of the leg, and (so far) no
sign of the possible arthritic complications which I was told can happen.
So in my personal experience, the Dutch system was very efficient, highly
professional and "modern", and probably quite cheap.
There are things the FDA isn't very good at, and I don't know exactly how
it could be better. There is a trade-off between safety, approving new
treatments and doing careful followup. The tax on medical devices is
2.3%, I believe, well within the yearly cost increases for healthcare
related items. Those least able to pay don't pay at all now, for various
reasons. Having them pay something is a conservative's dream.
Huh?? Limits on medical care?? What limits? The discussion of what
care a person should get, is and should be between the patient and the
doctor. The doctor shouldn't have to worry about misplaced malpractice
suits, or about getting paid for his services, and the patient should be
assured to get the most appropriate medical care. Now, the insurance
company might suggest hydrochlorothiazide for high blood pressure (a
diuretic costing a few dollars per month) over the latest new blood
pressure pill that has all kinds of side effects and costs $60 plus per
month. Plus I think (and have said so elsewhere several times), people
should ahead of time make their wishes for end of life care known (living
will, advanced directives, whatever). That should be in discussions with
their loved ones, and in written down, notarized and deposited with their
physician formats. And those are difficult questions, that can cause
heartache for years afterwards.
I was involved in this area as a researcher, doing preliminary research.
I have knowledge of the problems, the bureaucracy and indirectly of the
falsifications during the processes. My considered opinion is that the
FDA should strive to bring new (really new, not me-too or slight
modifications of old drugs) medications and devices to the market place.
But there also should be a more formalized and stricter system of follow-
up. The Vioxx/Celebrex type anti-COX2 antiinflammatories are an example
how a celebrated new class of (expensive) drugs has had minimal effects
on treatment (a gross generalization) and some troublesome and still not
quite understood side effects. The statins have effects that cannot
really be explained by cholesterol-lowering (originally the way they were
designed and thought to act), they appear to have side effects for some
that are bad, but overall they are (I think) good. I'll have to look up
what this new law might do to a corollary of the FDA, because I hadn't
really heard about that aspect other than that the FDA is a heap of
Seems there should be a mechanism for unemployed to keep up with the
insurance. Probably is in the law. If not, there should be some subsidy
to keep you in the system.
There is something wrong with a system that doesn't give you a living
wage, and that includes health insurance premiums. Similar to the
complaints that "poor" people don't pay taxes, even if they were working.
"Welfare" is what they get in the form of tax rebates because of being
poor. If people need to pay taxes (and I am in favor of that), then we
need to pay them wages that would cover those taxes (and health insurance
premiums). Either a recipe for inflation or class warfare, take your
Please tell me where a "regular ol' doctors" make 4K a hour. I'll try to
convince my wife to move.
She is a family practice physican (about as "regular ol'" as you can get).
Her take home averages about $110k a year. Fair money, but no-where near
$4K an hour especially when you take into on-call hours.
Please don't confuse primary care doctors with specialist. Specialist make
lots more money because, well, they have special skills. I will agree that
many of them are perhaps over-paid, but that is the the nature of our
'pay for procedure' (verses "pay for outcome") insurance system.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:18:22 +0000 (UTC), Frank Stutzman
Grants Pass, OR and Concord, CA. My oral surgeon @ $4k and my
sister's appendectomy surgeon who got $22k for near-outpatient (no
overnight stay) service. Granted, those were the clinic/hospital
charges, but CHRIST, $22k for 3 hours work and a change of sheets?
OK. Does "regular ol' surgeons" work better for you two? <wink>
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln
I can't belive that Grants Pass would be to any significantly way different
than Boise, ID (where we are) or White Salmon, WA (where we were).
What you are not seeing in those itemized bills is how much the surgeon
is took home. Nor what the the anesthesiologist took home. Nor what the
surgical nurse took home. Nor what the vast legions of support nursing staff,
medical records clerks, billing clerks, insurance relations staff,
administrators and janitors. In the tiny 20 bed hospital in White Salmon
I daresay that every surgery was paying the salaries of easily 30 people.
Again, don't heap the entire bill upon the guy doing the actual work. He
may be getting a good chunk of it, but to some degree he earned it. After
all the lowest of general surgeons spent 4 years as a undergradate education,
4 years of medical school and 5+ years of residency and internship. Thats to
say nothing of required annual continuing edation. If I had 13+ years of
education, I'd like to be paid a bit more too.
By the way, according to
the median income of physicans and surgeons is about $80 an hour. I used to
make more than that doing private computer consulting.
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.