Page 79 of 143 FirstFirst ... 2969747576777879808182838489129 ... LastLast
Results 1,561 to 1,580 of 2855
  1. #1561  
    7/25/09 Neil Cavuto and guest said health care reform will impose universal euthanasia like "Soylent Green."

    Boycott FOX News Advertisers | Democrats.com
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  2. #1562  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    7/25/09 Neil Cavuto and guest said health care reform will impose universal euthanasia like "Soylent Green."

    Boycott FOX News Advertisers | Democrats.com
    Funny. When I heard that some democrats were trying to boycott Wholefoods because their CEO came out opposed to Obamacare, I told my wife that despite avoiding Whole Foods stores all this time I would start to go to the local store and buy something to support them. Fortunately, didn't see any protestors here yet....expensive store if you ask me....I don't want to have to start shopping there. A friend of mine said the same thing....he went out of his way to see if there were any boycotts going and was prepared to go in and buy something.

    As for FOX....LOL....it wouldn't surprise me if loyal FOX viewers didn't start giving these advertisers even more of their own business. Trying to mess with FOX? Good luck with that.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  3. #1563  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Funny. When I heard that some democrats were trying to boycott Wholefoods because their CEO came out opposed to Obamacare, I told my wife that despite avoiding Whole Foods stores all this time I would start to go to the local store and buy something to support them. Fortunately, didn't see any protestors here yet....expensive store if you ask me....I don't want to have to start shopping there. A friend of mine said the same thing....he went out of his way to see if there were any boycotts going and was prepared to go in and buy something.

    As for FOX....LOL....it wouldn't surprise me if loyal FOX viewers didn't start giving these advertisers even more of their own business. Trying to mess with FOX? Good luck with that.
    Don't have to mess with Fox, just mess with the radical and lying right. Beck has now lost 20 sponsors for calling Obama a racist. Even Walmart, where most of Beck's listeners probably work, pulled out, along with CVS, Geico, Best Buy, Radio Shack (Hmmm. Two Pre dealers. Interesting), and plenty of others. Excellent. He is scum.

    Beck Sponsors
  4. #1564  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Well said, and a lot less condescending than many of your previous posts. Not attacking just commenting.
    While I agree that there are problems with our healthcare system, I don't agree that unicare is necessarily the answer nor, more importantly, do I think Obama's rush to enact a new system is it either. I am more the "tackle the pieces one at a time' type.
    Quick analogy. I see this healthcare bit much like a car. My 95 BMW has some issues. While I could just scrap it and buy a new care that will likely cost more and I may not like the new car as much. So instead I'll look into the cars specific issues and fix them one at a time, or two if it's affordable. I'd rather not go into debt for years to come.

    Not the perfect analogy I admit but I think you get the point. Enjoy the gulf.
    The reason I disagree is that there is only one piece that needs to be "tackled". Offer Medicare to anyone if they don't have insurance, or if they are dissatisfied with their current insurance; if they do and they like it, keep it. Not really all that complicated, is it? Of course, congress and divisiveness would never have anything that simple get through without 1000 amendments.
    Last edited by davidra; 08/23/2009 at 02:39 PM.
  5. #1565  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    We will just have to agree to disagree, but it does explain why folks like my father and myself believe the whole concept of federally supported healthcare is unconstitutional.
    Your father must be very patient, since I imagine he's been pissed off since 1964. By the way, is he not going to accept Medicare when he gets to 65, given that it's unconstitutional? Do your grandparents use it, just out of curiosity?
  6. #1566  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    What act did Congress enact that involved slackening rules regarding qualifications? To my knowledge (and I'll admit that economics isn't my strength), Congress didn't force Freddie and Fannie to lower their lending standards - they simply didn't strongly enforce any real regulation to prevent it.

    When control moved from Republicans to Democrats in 2007, Frank's work led to the Federal Housing Reform Act and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act. A summary of some of the legislation Frank supported to provide more regulatory control of Fannie / Freddie can be seen here: Limbaugh falsely asserted "Banking Queen" Barney Frank "created" subprime mortgage crisis | Media Matters for America

    If you know of any act Barney Frank enacted that exerted pressure on Fannie / Freddie to make bad loans (other than just saying "Congress did it"), I'd certainly like to know. As I posted above, the main excuse to blame Frank simply wasn't valid, according to factcheck.org.
    I'm not as up on all this....I admit....guilty as charged....and did not spend my beautiful Sunday searching the internet (too nice here on the coast for that), but, I did do a tad bit of research. I feel more comfortable discussing health care than mortgage biz.

    First, Bujin did teach me something, and that is that the legislation going on was to allow the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) to crack down on the lax loan qualifications at Freddie and Fannie. So yes, this would be in a sense more "rules" and controls. However, based on the info I was able to gather, it appears the Republicans were trying to get more stringent laws to prevent these loans being given to people who shouldn't qualify, while the democrats were fighting this.....including Rep Barney Frank:

    The Tax Foundation - Barney Frank on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003

    Barney was quoted as saying: "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing." In other words, this is working beautifully....why end it?

    Even more amusing were quotes from Rep Maxine Waters (D - CA) who was bragging how good it was that so many people were getting loans and she saw no reason to enact additional rules to prevent this easy access. Click the above link and listen to her....quite amazing.

    So, it appears, based on my very brief search that the democrats were the ones that were pushing these loans to not be restricted. Oh....and I won't even get into the fact that Rep Frank was apparently dating Herb Moses, an executive with Fannie Mae. I'm sure Rep Frank would not let his professional career interfere with his personal life and helping out his partner. You asked if I knew of an "act" Barney Frank committed...well....let's just leave that one alone, deal? LOL But the democrats clearly did not want to stop the lending practices.....what crisis?.....it was compassion, correct?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  7. #1567  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Your father must be very patient, since I imagine he's been pissed off since 1964. By the way, is he not going to accept Medicare when he gets to 65, given that it's unconstitutional? Do your grandparents use it, just out of curiosity?
    Not sure why people assume we won't take a benefit we've paid for? If you paid into a system your whole life, one in which you could NOT opt out of, why wouldn't you accept benefits? That is crazy to think you would be forced to pay for something and then turn it down. With that said.....my father is 81, has health insurance from the employer he retired with, plus he is retired reserves (Lt. Col). I can't say for sure, but I believe Medicare would be his 3rd option. My parents also have individual LTC policies should they need additional help in their later years. My grandparents are deceased, but I believe they accepted Medicare....why not....they paid into the system.

    Oh...and no....my Dad is not the most patient person
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  8. #1568  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Don't have to mess with Fox, just mess with the radical and lying right. Beck has now lost 20 sponsors for calling Obama a racist. Even Walmart, where most of Beck's listeners probably work, pulled out, along with CVS, Geico, Best Buy, Radio Shack (Hmmm. Two Pre dealers. Interesting), and plenty of others. Excellent. He is scum.

    Beck Sponsors
    The Huffington Post, huh? LOL Well, there's certainly a fair minded place to get your info from. Everytime that ***** shows up on CNBC I email them and tell them I turn the channel.....and I hope I'm not the only one. If Glenn is "scum"....hmmm....not sure I could really put a word in here for Huffington.

    Anyway....if this loss of advertisers hurt FOX, they will likely replace Glenn, but, if Obama's approval ratings continue to drop like they have, well, something tells me these advertisers will come back. I also believe they will get other advertisers willing to risk the wrath of the Huffington folks. Time will tell....my wife watches him everyday and I now others that do as well. I would but am normally not able to watch him at that time of the day.

    So are you boycotting Whole Foods? That evil CEO....horrible person....he gave up his entire salary as CEO and applies it to charities I believe. He obviously is not a caring person. I'm looking forward to seeing how calm these protestors are compared to the rowdy Republicans at the town hall meetings. Still no protestors at my local Whole Foods though.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  9. #1569  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    The Huffington Post, huh? LOL Well, there's certainly a fair minded place to get your info from. Everytime that ***** shows up on CNBC I email them and tell them I turn the channel.....and I hope I'm not the only one. If Glenn is "scum"....hmmm....not sure I could really put a word in here for Huffington.

    Anyway....if this loss of advertisers hurt FOX, they will likely replace Glenn, but, if Obama's approval ratings continue to drop like they have, well, something tells me these advertisers will come back. I also believe they will get other advertisers willing to risk the wrath of the Huffington folks. Time will tell....my wife watches him everyday and I now others that do as well. I would but am normally not able to watch him at that time of the day.

    So are you boycotting Whole Foods? That evil CEO....horrible person....he gave up his entire salary as CEO and applies it to charities I believe. He obviously is not a caring person. I'm looking forward to seeing how calm these protestors are compared to the rowdy Republicans at the town hall meetings. Still no protestors at my local Whole Foods though.
    Here. Try Colbert. He's your countryman. Certainly you agree with him. Of course, this was before WalMart dropped the hammer.

    Oh...and no Whole Foods here. I do support Fresh Market, though. I would rather support Carolina. The good Carolina. Go Heels.

    Colbert
  10. #1570  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Not sure why people assume we won't take a benefit we've paid for? If you paid into a system your whole life, one in which you could NOT opt out of, why wouldn't you accept benefits? That is crazy to think you would be forced to pay for something and then turn it down. With that said.....my father is 81, has health insurance from the employer he retired with, plus he is retired reserves (Lt. Col). I can't say for sure, but I believe Medicare would be his 3rd option. My parents also have individual LTC policies should they need additional help in their later years. My grandparents are deceased, but I believe they accepted Medicare....why not....they paid into the system.

    Oh...and no....my Dad is not the most patient person
    The only reason I could imagine someone not taking it would be if they felt strongly it was unconstitutional. You know, against their personal philosophy or something like that. Strongly held beliefs are like that.
  11. #1571  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    The only reason I could imagine someone not taking it would be if they felt strongly it was unconstitutional. You know, against their personal philosophy or something like that. Strongly held beliefs are like that.
    That would just be plain stupid to pay for something over what, 50 years in my Dad's case, and then say no to it. But again, I believe in his case it is his 3rd option. It will likely not be around for me anyway under the existing format.

    Oh....I did have a question for you doc....sincere question. If Medicare ends up cutting back fees....will some doctors just decide to not accept the fees? The governement doesn't force doctors to accept Medicare patients, correct? So does there get to a point where a current doctor, who is now accepting Medicare patients and the set price, decides it just isn't feasible to practice with that level? Serious question....no trick....I've just read a few articles that seem to indicate that some doctors are already dropping medicare patients due to low payments:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/bu...alth.html?_r=1

    I've heard that if part of the Obama plan is making Medicare reductions, either reimbursements would have to decrease or rationing of benefits. So, if some doctors are already bailing now, won't more if payments decrease further. Please, no sarcastic answer, seriously wondering your thoughts. I know you would accept lower payments, but what about other doctors?
    Then, if fewer doctors, would make sense that seniors would have log jams at doctors offices....correct?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  12. #1572  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Here. Try Colbert. He's your countryman. Certainly you agree with him. Of course, this was before WalMart dropped the hammer.

    Oh...and no Whole Foods here. I do support Fresh Market, though. I would rather support Carolina. The good Carolina. Go Heels.

    Colbert
    Colbert? Really? Why would I trust him.....you might as well have sent me a link to the John Stewart show. Although I don't watch either of those shows, I have actually seen clips of John Stewart busting on Obama a little lately. I guess he is missing Bush! LOL

    Hey....and watch that Tar Heel talk. Now you're starting to get under my Tiger skin with those "blue" jabs.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  13. #1573  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Oh....I did have a question for you doc....sincere question. If Medicare ends up cutting back fees....will some doctors just decide to not accept the fees? The governement doesn't force doctors to accept Medicare patients, correct? So does there get to a point where a current doctor, who is now accepting Medicare patients and the set price, decides it just isn't feasible to practice with that level? Serious question....no trick....I've just read a few articles that seem to indicate that some doctors are already dropping medicare patients due to low payments:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/bu...alth.html?_r=1

    I've heard that if part of the Obama plan is making Medicare reductions, either reimbursements would have to decrease or rationing of benefits. So, if some doctors are already bailing now, won't more if payments decrease further. Please, no sarcastic answer, seriously wondering your thoughts. I know you would accept lower payments, but what about other doctors?
    Then, if fewer doctors, would make sense that seniors would have log jams at doctors offices....correct?
    As is usual in the American health care system, and hopefully this will be true in the future, it's all supply and demand. Those people they reference who have "opted out of the insurance system" are mostly concierge-type prepaid practices for the wealthy. But there are lots of docs who don't take Medicare, and their justification is exactly as was said in the article. But you won't find a lot of those docs in Florida, for instance, if their practice depends on treating the elderly....and there are a lot of elderly people in Florida. Not only that, but there are going to be many many old people, not only in Florida, but everywhere. The aging of the population is the real concern for the future of Medicare, not just the costs of care per person. Internists, vascular surgeons, urologists....anybody who has a significant portion of their practice as the elderly cannot afford to not "accept assignment" (which means they agree to accept Medicare payment as their total payment and not bill the patient extra, essentially). Those that don't accept assignment will charge the difference, and that's the reason for Medicare supplements like AARP's and others. The reimbursement for Medicare is yards better than the reimbursement for Medicaid. Many many docs do not see Medicaid patients because the reimbursement is even worse. However, things are changing. Medicaid reimbursement in Florida, for instance, was increased to the point that hospitals are now seeking these patients. They know they will get paid; you can't say that about many patients admitted through the ER, because you have to take care of them, insurance or not. I'd be willing to bet the gynecologist they quoted has plenty of young patients with insurance so dropping the marginal reimbursement from Medicare will likely not affect her practice....but she is in the minority. Most docs are glad to see Medicare patients....not so much for Medicaid. So what does this have to do with health care reform? Depends on how many people end up in a Medicare-type plan, if it gets passed. The AMA seems to think the public option is no problem, because of the fact that a number of states who offer a public option have not had a lot of people switching to them at all. That would be fine with me; I really don't care if people want to have their own private insurance....as long as they can afford it. But private premiums continue to go up and up, and employers are covering less and less. Without redistribution of money (think bail-out) to insurance companies, they may not be able to survive taking care of sick people.

    I figured that since he's a South Carolina boy, you and Colbert would have a lot in common. And as for me, I was a Tarheel before I was a gator. With that in mind I have been fortunate enough to be in cities where I have first-hand watched four national championships in basketball and three in football. And the parties afterwards are quite a blast, even for old farts. But don't worry. Clemson will get there at some point. Maybe not in your lifetime, but maybe sometime. Meanwhile, we will gladly do our best to beat our old coach's **** if that will make you feel better.
  14. #1574  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    As is usual in the American health care system, and hopefully this will be true in the future, it's all supply and demand. Those people they reference who have "opted out of the insurance system" are mostly concierge-type prepaid practices for the wealthy. But there are lots of docs who don't take Medicare, and their justification is exactly as was said in the article. But you won't find a lot of those docs in Florida, for instance, if their practice depends on treating the elderly....and there are a lot of elderly people in Florida. Not only that, but there are going to be many many old people, not only in Florida, but everywhere. The aging of the population is the real concern for the future of Medicare, not just the costs of care per person. Internists, vascular surgeons, urologists....anybody who has a significant portion of their practice as the elderly cannot afford to not "accept assignment" (which means they agree to accept Medicare payment as their total payment and not bill the patient extra, essentially). Those that don't accept assignment will charge the difference, and that's the reason for Medicare supplements like AARP's and others. The reimbursement for Medicare is yards better than the reimbursement for Medicaid. Many many docs do not see Medicaid patients because the reimbursement is even worse. However, things are changing. Medicaid reimbursement in Florida, for instance, was increased to the point that hospitals are now seeking these patients. They know they will get paid; you can't say that about many patients admitted through the ER, because you have to take care of them, insurance or not. I'd be willing to bet the gynecologist they quoted has plenty of young patients with insurance so dropping the marginal reimbursement from Medicare will likely not affect her practice....but she is in the minority. Most docs are glad to see Medicare patients....not so much for Medicaid. So what does this have to do with health care reform? Depends on how many people end up in a Medicare-type plan, if it gets passed. The AMA seems to think the public option is no problem, because of the fact that a number of states who offer a public option have not had a lot of people switching to them at all. That would be fine with me; I really don't care if people want to have their own private insurance....as long as they can afford it. But private premiums continue to go up and up, and employers are covering less and less. Without redistribution of money (think bail-out) to insurance companies, they may not be able to survive taking care of sick people.

    I figured that since he's a South Carolina boy, you and Colbert would have a lot in common. And as for me, I was a Tarheel before I was a gator. With that in mind I have been fortunate enough to be in cities where I have first-hand watched four national championships in basketball and three in football. And the parties afterwards are quite a blast, even for old farts. But don't worry. Clemson will get there at some point. Maybe not in your lifetime, but maybe sometime. Meanwhile, we will gladly do our best to beat our old coach's **** if that will make you feel better.
    Thanks for your insight on that....it will be interesting to see if doctors in areas where the elderly population isn't quite as high as FL will be as willing to accept possibly lower rates. I can see where doctors in an area with high elderly populations would be nervous about dropping Medicare patients...but...sometimes (even though you hate this thought) it comes down to what makes financial sense. Time will tell once we see what actually makes it through, huh?

    I have to correct you on one thing....Clemson did win a National Title in football my freshman year up there, 1981. We beat Nebraska in the Orange Bowl to go 12-0! So, no where near the mark of the Gators, but, we have experienced that euphoria once! Knowing you also went to Chapel Hill explains a good bit though, LOL.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  15. #1575  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Thanks for your insight on that....it will be interesting to see if doctors in areas where the elderly population isn't quite as high as FL will be as willing to accept possibly lower rates. I can see where doctors in an area with high elderly populations would be nervous about dropping Medicare patients...but...sometimes (even though you hate this thought) it comes down to what makes financial sense. Time will tell once we see what actually makes it through, huh?

    I have to correct you on one thing....Clemson did win a National Title in football my freshman year up there, 1981. We beat Nebraska in the Orange Bowl to go 12-0! So, no where near the mark of the Gators, but, we have experienced that euphoria once! Knowing you also went to Chapel Hill explains a good bit though, LOL.
    The key to whether it makes sense for a doc to take Medicare depends in part on how much overhead and staff it takes to bill tons of different insurance companies with different forms and requirements. Simplify billing (like with a single payor) and it would become much more attractive.

    Yeah, I forgot Clemson beat Herschel Walker. They also beat Carolina barely, I think the team that had Lawrence Taylor. Even a blind hog, you know, finds an acorn every once in a while.
  16. #1576  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    The key to whether it makes sense for a doc to take Medicare depends in part on how much overhead and staff it takes to bill tons of different insurance companies with different forms and requirements. Simplify billing (like with a single payor) and it would become much more attractive.

    Yeah, I forgot Clemson beat Herschel Walker. They also beat Carolina barely, I think the team that had Lawrence Taylor. Even a blind hog, you know, finds an acorn every once in a while.
    Just spoke to a fellow Tarheel grad of yours, a dentist, and he was going on about the whole health care thing and I told him that I had been communicating with a Tarheel that was on the other side. Anyway, he is in his late 60s and he said "good luck" finding a Medicare doctor locally here. Anyway....time will tell. Maybe the remaining old people in the country will just have to move to Florida and you can take them in as patients.

    Just as a reminder....the last time the Tigers played the Heels in football, 2006, the score was 52-7 (Tigers). We have to pound you guys on the football field to make up for the whooping you give us on the court. By the way, 1981, we squeeked out a win at Chapel Hill....10-8. Your guys had a good team that year and were 10-2.
    Last edited by clemgrad85; 08/23/2009 at 07:19 PM.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  17. #1577  
    By the way....a little known fact in Clemson football lore....Herschel never crossed our goal line, nor did George Rogers of the Gamecocks. I won't trash talk against your Gators....not much can be said there.....if you guys don't win every game by at least 14 pts, you should be disappointed.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  18. #1578  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I understand that this is your belief. But that doesn't make it legal reality. Your strict interpretation of the Constitution is not shared by everyone, and that the general consensus is that there are some rights not expressly stated in the Constitution that are covered under "implied powers".
    You seem to be binding several disparate concepts here. The Federal Government does not have rights. The Elastic Clause does give it some flexibility in enabling it to exercise the powers granted to it in the Constitution. The Federalist view was certainly upheld by the Marshall Court when the Second Bank of the US was challenged.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshall
    We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. 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 consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional
    The issue is whether medical services are within the scope of those limits, and if so, which medical services. It is certainly not explicitly enumerated, and can only be placed there by an extremely lenient view of 'general welfare', not held by either the Federalists or Anti-federalists, and really the reason that the Elastic Clause was opposed by the Anti-federalists.

    However, that is a separate issue from whether there are rights which the citizens hold which aren't defined in the Constitution. There is little doubt that we have rights which are not defined in the Constitution. There was much debate among the Federalists and Anti-federalists on the subject. It was the reason the Bill of Rights was amended to it. Ironically, it was Hamilton who considered a Bill of Rights as being unnecessary since he held that enumerating specific rights might diminish the non-enumerated ones and make them (the non-enumerated ones) likely to be denied at some point.

    Yet again, though, the issue is whether having one's medical services to be paid for by others is one of these rights. Generally, rights do not place a burden upon others. I have the right to speak my mind on many subjects. However, I do not have the right to walk into your living room and force you to listen. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose.
    People can disagree about exactly what issues (health care, education, the US Air Force) fall under "implied powers".
    The Air Force can easily be interpreted to fall under the enumerated power of defense. It seems appropriate to discuss education, though. No doubt, when the Federal Government took up Education, there was certainly debate. I'm sure that it was in many ways similar where proponents wanted vast powers, but only proposed small steps initially. I'm sure they said that it was only going to monitor statistics and make suggestions for uniformity. I'm sure that if people were to claim that one day they might be forcing standards similar to today's NCLB without providing funding to support it were dismissed as kooks and idealogues.
    But it's hard to ignore the fact that case law doesn't support an absolute Originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Examples include
    - Roe v. Wade (of course),
    - Griswold v. CT (which challenged a silly CT law outlawing contraception, and in which the main argument was about whether the right to privacy was in the Constitution).
    - Lawrence v. Texas (striking down sodomy laws, even though sexual privacy isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution).
    There's a problem with your premise. I could be considered an Originalist in some respects. I 'believe' that the Constitution grants specific powers to the Federal Government. These powers were fairly well laid out and debated in the Constitutional Convention, and sold to the States and People in the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers. The end result was a document which defined the Federal Government and gave a way to make changes should they become necessary or desired. On occasion, powerful political figures have used crises to abuse and stretch these powers beyond anything the founders envisioned. The court stacking scandal which brought us the New Deal is one such example.

    Again, there is nothing in such an originalist view that claims rights of citizens are only those enumerated in the Constitution. It's quite the contrary, if one has ever read up basic American History. Rights are not an economic thing. If I have the freedom of the press, the Federal Government is not responsible to bankroll my newspaper if I cannot afford to start one.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19. #1579  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    The reason I disagree is that there is only one piece that needs to be "tackled". Offer Medicare to anyone if they don't have insurance, or if they are dissatisfied with their current insurance; if they do and they like it, keep it. Not really all that complicated, is it?
    It could get pretty complicated fairly quickly. Just as a for example, what is Medicare's policy for prenatal and childbirth care?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #1580  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You seem to be binding several disparate concepts here. The Federal Government does not have rights. The Elastic Clause does give it some flexibility in enabling it to exercise the powers granted to it in the Constitution. The Federalist view was certainly upheld by the Marshall Court when the Second Bank of the US was challenged.
    And I never stated that a Federalist view was never upheld - just pointing out that, just because an individual doesn't recognize the legal existence of implied powers doesn't mean that the law always agrees.


    Again, there is nothing in such an originalist view that claims rights of citizens are only those enumerated in the Constitution. It's quite the contrary, if one has ever read up basic American History. Rights are not an economic thing. If I have the freedom of the press, the Federal Government is not responsible to bankroll my newspaper if I cannot afford to start one.
    I don't think anyone said that rights of citizens are only those enumerated in the Constitution...I responded to an argument that the rights of the federal government are only those explicitly stated in the Constitution. My premise, which you claim is flawed, was simply that the Supreme Court has frequently ruled (in examples I cited above) against such a strict interpretation.

    Whether you agree with the Supreme Court's decision is one issue, but it's another to state definitively that the law supports a strict originalist stance. It currently does not.
    Last edited by Bujin; 08/23/2009 at 10:18 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G

Posting Permissions