Idaho Will Sue

[Maui]

There was a really nice investigative tv news piece on prescription fraud in Florida. Evidently criminals of various sorts, including Pakistanis who may be funding al Qaeda, Mafia, Colombians, and, get this, ACORN... go around buying companies that have a federal license to fill medicare/medicaid prescriptions, then they spend a few months submitting fraudulent prescription bills under the names of all of that businesses prior clients, typically netting 1-5 million per business per month before they are detected and shut down, but by that time they've typically abandoned the business and bought another one. The feds estimate about $50 billion a year in prescription fraud via this scam, because the prescription payment system is not made to require authentication of the pharmacies and their owners for each prescription.

Nothing in the current health care bill will close this authentication loophole. The fraud will continue.

True, and unfortunate.

Yet, I think this is one of many things that would have been in the bill had the GOP negotiated in good faith. Obama did request that at least one anti-fraud measure be added to the bill... which, in the end didn't make it.

[Josh Cryer]

The Votemaster makes this suggestion:

If the mandate is struck down, what next? A law saying insurance companies cannot refuse to take people with preexisting conditions without a mandate will mean that many people, often called the "young invincibles" will not buy insurance until they get into a traffic accident or get diagnosed with a serious disease. The result of millions of people adopting this strategy will be that relatively few healthy people will be paying premiums, forcing insurance companies to raise rates, thus driving out more people. The system will surely collapse then.

If Congress is not allowed to insist on an individual mandate, what is plan B? One possible idea is to change the law saying that insurance companies may not discriminate against people with preexisting conditions if they sign up for their insurance in the month of January. In other months, they may discriminate. For most people, who will already have insurance if and when such a court decision happens, nothing will change. But for the young invincibles, suddenly they have to rethink their strategy. If they have a car accident in June, or a suspicious lump is discovered in August, they will not be able to get medical care until next January. It changes the picture considerably.

[Maui]

Ah. Mr. Maui. I see your are unfamiliar with the theory and practice of the fascist form of socialism.

The short version: ownership does not change. Krupp still owns the Krupp Works. However, Mr. Krupp no longer controls the Krupp works. He takes his orders from the government.

The government will determine customers, services, and eventually prices. And bailouts.

I've said it, I'll say it again... I'm not 100% comfortable with this. But we're got an F'd up system right now, and this at least gives everyone a fighting chance for the time being.

I disagree with the government being able to set prices. I'm leery about it mandating what an insurance policy must cover, but unfortunately it must mandate something otherwise the requirement to buy insurance is meaningless. As far as determining customers, I'm not sure how requiring that all people be customers lends itself to abuses... its hard to discriminate in that situation, you know?

It won't turn out anything like Greece. I promise. Or Italy. I promise. Or Ireland I promise. Or Portugal. I promise. Or Spain. I promise. Or TennCare. I promise. Or MassCare. I promise.

...it's hard to compare our system against any in the world and find much value in it...

[Maui]

(outside of partisan scare-tactics, can you point me to objective info saying they will?).

Medicare, Medicaid. Costs ballooned for both programs.

Now shouldn't we get those programs operating according to original estimates before adding new ones?

You're replying out of context. I was asking whether you had any specific info saying private health insurance premiums would go up significantly (in aggregate) compared to if there was no mandate?

I categorically reject that a 100% through-and-through government run operation is a model for what will happed with private insurance prices under the mandate.

[Maui]

I realize that I'm no mathmetician or scientist, but it seems pretty plain to me that if your income is $2 trillion, and your expenses are $4 trillion a year, you're NOT paying as you go.

I'm not sure how to explain your numbers because I'm not sure where you got them. $4 Trillion? Where is that from?

You're not aware that we're on course for expenditures of at minimum $3.6 trillion this year? (And that the estimated savings of about $130 billion over the next decade from this bill were well wiped out by the $220 billion deficit from February?)

Ah... the overall federal budget. Yes, its F'd. Really bad. A real disaster.

I agree, the deficit should have been a higher priority.... still, given this bill (at least on paper) comes out in the black, I'm okay with it..

This is the original point I was railing against. The government is not taking over healthcare. They are mandating that people buy it, mandating that insurance cover pre-existings, and subsidizing the cost of *private* insurance for low income families or businesses who don't already have it, and creating direct competition between insurers that doesn't really exist right now. The parts that are government run (medicare and medicade) are already government run... its not adding anything government run that is not already.

Reread that, and think about what I've italicized. Do you really think, and I'm serious here, that throwing out a lot of mandates is going to be cost-neutral? That there's not going to have to be a bureaucracy set up to do it? That said bureaucracy is not going to need people, buildings, logistics? That the 16,000 new IRS workers to ensure compliance are going to work for free? That those subsidies are going to be without cost to you and I?

No... it going to cost $940 trillion over the next ten years. To pay for that, Medicare is being restructured to cut costs and there are a bevy of new taxes/fees. I'm not "for" new taxes, but I think its an acceptable trade-off in this case.

The devil is in the details. And the details are always subject to change. Even the CBO admits that - because they take as their starting point the thought that the bill will be as it is when submitted, that income will grow at x% per year, that nothing will come along to change any aspects of the bill - and they were shoving changes into it as late as Thursday evening in order to game the system.

But what the heck - I'm going to hope you're right, and that somehow this isn't going to be the gigantic millstone around our economy's neck I think it's going to be. But it would be wise to remember that the majority of people in Congress any more are lawyers, who have mastered the art of telling people anything they must in order to get their fees.

And what happens after the judge bangs the gavel is of no concern to them.

You may trust them - I do not.

*nods to all of that*

... but I don't trust them. Never trust a politician. I forgot that when I trusted Obama to bring a post-partisan tone to Washington.... look where that got us.

Still, they are the only ones that can change the law of the land and I would choose the proposal offered up over doing nothing.

[Maui]

Please show me the amendment to the constitution that says you have a right to health care.... when you accomplish that, then I'll start to give a crap about anybody but my own health care, thanks.

Please show me the amendment that says they must send firetrucks if your house catches on fire without first first checking to see how much income tax one pays. Please show me the amendment that says we must provide education to all children, not just the well-to-do children.

Dude, stop it. You are embarrassing yourself. You are showing a profound lack of understanding of the difference between the Mandate of the Federal Government, and the Mandates of the State and Local Governments. Didn't you ever learn about Federalism and the separation of Powers?

All right... poor analogy, I'll grant you that. The point I was *trying* to make is that just its dumb to take the attitude that if the constitution doesn't explicitly proclaim we have the right to something, that means its wrong to provide for it.

It is not within the Mandate of the Federal government to concern itself with such issues. To illustrate what I am trying to convey let us momentarily discuss Prostitution.

Prostitution is a Morality issue. It is illegal in most states, but it is not illegal in some counties in the state of Nevada. The Federal Government has no authority to regulate it, and doesn't even try.

Likewise, all those other moral issues which you are bringing up, (Fire Trucks, Educating Children, Looking out for the poor, etc.) are None of the Federal Governments business. If they are anyone's business, it is the business of State and Local Governments.

If you don't or cannot understand this, there is no common ground with which we can start or continue a discussion with you.

I disagree with all of this, so I guess you should just stop discussing it?

You can have your own ideals about what the constitution means, but the courts have pretty clearly disagreed with your notion, otherwise social security, medicare, no child left behind and half the federal law on the books would have been overturned.

I will say that I agree that the mandate part of the bill, at least, is debatable. And it looks like the courts will get their swing at that very shortly.

It is completely Unnatural for people to want to pay someone else's bills, especially if their ill health is the result of their own foolish behavior such as promiscuous sex, Smoking, Indolence, Gluttony, reckless behavior, etc. (AIDS, Lung Cancer, Diabetes, etc.)

That's a pretty sick line of thought-- to everyone that is sick: it's your own fault. You don't deserve to be able to buy insurance. Good day sir.

[KitemanSA]

All right... poor analogy, I'll grant you that. The point I was *trying* to make is that just its dumb to take the attitude that if the constitution doesn't explicitly proclaim we have the right to something, that means its wrong to provide for it.

Except the Constitution DOES specifically prohibit what it doesn't allow. It is just that folks don't think about that these days. And just because Congress has done wrong in the past is no excuse for them doing wrong again.

[MSimon]

Yet, I think this is one of many things that would have been in the bill had the GOP negotiated in good faith. Obama did request that at least one anti-fraud measure be added to the bill... which, in the end didn't make it.

It is just too bad the Democrats didn't have enough votes or control of the committee chairs to get it done.

Oh? Wait. Never mind.

But for sure it is the fault of the Republicans........

Maui - that is a rather large distasteful load you are asking me to swallow.

Democrats own this turkey. 100%.

[MSimon]

Josh and Maui,

There are different flavors of socialism.

One model is that ownership of property doesn't change but the government controls the property through laws and regulation. It was championed by some Italian guy in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. I'm told some German guy also adopted the model.

It is called fascism.

But not to worry - this time it will be different.

Well - see you in November. Because I don't think the American people are going to buy it.

BTW here is some news:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ses/37908/

I have seen a caucus report that says Bennett is not going to make it. The caucus votes went against him by HUGE margins. And Bennett is a Republican. So the Senate may turn over as well.

And how about Mr. o's campaign promise of no individual mandate. Just words. But he did sound so sincere.

The lowest estimate I have seen of D losses in November is 40 seats. A more reasonable estimate is 50 seats. The high side is 100 seats. The highest I have seen is 120 seats.

And you will find this amusing:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... nders.html

The Rs will make the Ds vote FOR Viagra for sex offenders. So maybe the 120 seat estimate is low.

But for sure insurance rates will not rise. After all the provisions are in place. In 2014.

And now that the stimulus money has run out the housing market is going to decline. And taking $100 bn out of Medicare is going to make seniors real happy this November.

The only cure for the mess is to catastrophic coverage and MSAs that can be rolled over. i.e. market forces. The Ds just reduced the maximum you can have in an MSA account from $5k to $2.5k.

[Maui]

All right... poor analogy, I'll grant you that. The point I was *trying* to make is that just its dumb to take the attitude that if the constitution doesn't explicitly proclaim we have the right to something, that means its wrong to provide for it.

Except the Constitution DOES specifically prohibit what it doesn't allow. It is just that folks don't think about that these days. And just because Congress has done wrong in the past is no excuse for them doing wrong again.

And the commerce clause has been interpreted as the clause that gives permission for a great deal of legislation on various subjects. For example, The constitution doesn't specifically give black people the right to do business with any business serving whites, but the courts have upheld that the commerce clause does permit the federal government to enact such legislation.

So no, the constitution doesn't specifically grant health care as a right to all its citizens, but in general the commerce clause has been interpreted in a way that allows for federal legislation that provides for it.

The only real constitutional argument here is whether the federal government can require people to buy insurance. However, it seems to me if this gets stuck down, most of our tax code will have to be struck down with it. For instance, by this logic you could interpret the child tax credit instead as an added tax (or penalty) on everyone without kids... in other words, is our tax code not in some sense "mandating" people have kids? Admittedly that's kind of an extreme example, but my point is that it seems like even though the mandate is debatable,it might be hard to strike down without heading down a slippery slope that takes out a heck of a lot more legislation that just the health care bill. You can have your own opinion about whether that legislation is really constitutional, but on the basis of all the legislation now standing that has been upheld by the courts, it seems questionable to me a court would overturn it.

[MSimon]

And the commerce clause has been interpreted as the clause that gives permission for a great deal of legislation on various subjects.

Of course it has. Doesn't make it right.

These things take time to roll back. They will be rolled back.

Of course there is always the possibility of blood in the streets.

“Every generation needs a new revolution.”

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”

“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.

I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will.
Thomas Jefferson

No man will ever carry out of the Presidency the reputation which carried him into it.
Thomas Jefferson

No occupation is so delightful to me as the culture of the earth, and no culture comparable to that of the garden.
Thomas Jefferson

None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.
Thomas Jefferson

Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude.
Thomas Jefferson

Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances.
Thomas Jefferson

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.
Thomas Jefferson

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
Thomas Jefferson

One man with courage is a majority.
Thomas Jefferson

One travels more usefully when alone, because he reflects more.
Thomas Jefferson

Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail.
Thomas Jefferson

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

Thomas Jefferson

You may have the law on your side. If you do not have the people it will not stand. We Americans are a rebellious lot and we are well armed.

Can we stand against the most powerful Army on earth? Better to ask yourself if the Army will stand with the government.

Orders We Will Not Obey

Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey

Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.

Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal.

In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny.

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects - such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.”

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Now just how bad do you want your government health care? Bad enough to go to war for it? Because I can tell you for sure there is an embryonic movement forming to go to war against it. The sentiment for now is to repeal by votes and elections. But consider the trajectory of 1760 to 1783. It was just a few hot heads at first.

[MSimon]

Let me add that there are as of now 14 States in Rebellion. And one has voted the Rebellion into law.

A total of 38 States have declared some intent against the law.

We shall see how it develops.

[Diogenes]

It is not within the Mandate of the Federal government to concern itself with such issues. To illustrate what I am trying to convey let us momentarily discuss Prostitution.

Prostitution is a Morality issue. It is illegal in most states, but it is not illegal in some counties in the state of Nevada. The Federal Government has no authority to regulate it, and doesn't even try.

Likewise, all those other moral issues which you are bringing up, (Fire Trucks, Educating Children, Looking out for the poor, etc.) are None of the Federal Governments business. If they are anyone's business, it is the business of State and Local Governments.

If you don't or cannot understand this, there is no common ground with which we can start or continue a discussion with you.

I disagree with all of this, so I guess you should just stop discussing it?

I'm not sure we're really discussing this. I think we are both playing to the crowd. I learned a long time ago that some people's opinions are set in stone and they won't be swayed with any amount of facts, logic and reason. Therefore, the only useful thing to be accomplished when interacting with them is to refute their fallacies in the hopes others won't be swayed by their emotional arguments.

In any case, you aren't disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the Separation of Powers as outlined by the US Constitution. I'm merely pointing this out to you.

You can have your own ideals about what the constitution means, but the courts have pretty clearly disagreed with your notion, otherwise social security, medicare, no child left behind and half the federal law on the books would have been overturned.

You will find that I think for myself, and I am not ashamed at all to disagree with the "Experts" no matter how high and lofty they may be. And yes, if they had administered the law and the Government properly, most of the crap you mentioned wouldn't have ever become law.

To Demonstrate how the Supreme court can be, (and in my opinion often is) wrong, I simply direct your attention to the Dred Scott Vs. Sanford decision in which the Court Ruled Black people are property. That Decision was refuted by the Nation. Vehemently!

It is completely Unnatural for people to want to pay someone else's bills, especially if their ill health is the result of their own foolish behavior such as promiscuous sex, Smoking, Indolence, Gluttony, reckless behavior, etc. (AIDS, Lung Cancer, Diabetes, etc.)

That's a pretty sick line of thought-- to everyone that is sick: it's your own fault. You don't deserve to be able to buy insurance. Good day sir.

You either are not comprehending what I said, or you are intentionally misconstruing it to mean something very different.

I did not say "Everyone" I said those who's "ill health is the result of their own foolish behavior".

The Idea that you would attempt to pull such a strawman tactic (Making my point into a false representation aka StrawMan, so that you could beat it up) and then attempting to dismiss me as having a "sick line of thought" is just further proof that we really aren't having a discussion. We are having a verbal battle for the audience.

[Diogenes]

Josh and Maui,

And you will find this amusing:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... nders.html


The Rs will make the Ds vote FOR Viagra for sex offenders. So maybe the 120 seat estimate is low.

I am VERY PROUD of my Senator Tom Coburn. I am likewise proud of my other Senator Jim Inhofe. As far as I can tell, they are the only two Senators in the entire Senate who are worth a crap.

[Diogenes]

All right... poor analogy, I'll grant you that. The point I was *trying* to make is that just its dumb to take the attitude that if the constitution doesn't explicitly proclaim we have the right to something, that means its wrong to provide for it.

Except the Constitution DOES specifically prohibit what it doesn't allow. It is just that folks don't think about that these days. And just because Congress has done wrong in the past is no excuse for them doing wrong again.

And the commerce clause has been interpreted as the clause that gives permission for a great deal of legislation on various subjects. For example, The constitution doesn't specifically give black people the right to do business with any business serving whites, but the courts have upheld that the commerce clause does permit the federal government to enact such legislation.

So no, the constitution doesn't specifically grant health care as a right to all its citizens, but in general the commerce clause has been interpreted in a way that allows for federal legislation that provides for it.

It is amusing to note that the "Interstate Commerce" clause is the one being cited to force everyone to buy insurance, when in fact, one of the most serious causes of Health insurance being so expensive is the fact that people cannot buy insurance from a company outside of their state!

Were they simply allowed to do this, there would be competition for customers between insurance companies from all over the country, and yet that is one thing this bill specifically does NOT DO !

Can you appreciate the humor of this ?


Apart from that, the continual use of the "Interstate Commerce" clause for things other than it was intended is an abuse which should never have been tolerated.