- The Cat

I just don’t understand how people can be so damn stupid…

Just send your “thank you” notes to the national headquarters of the teacher’s union, the N.E.A. You know, “We teach the children”? Oh, and perhaps one also to Jimma Carter, you know, that talking rectum who paid off the N.E.A. by establishing a federal Department of Education. THAT’S why they are so damned stupid.

Reason TV has another brief, humorous spot about what Americans can expect from ObamaCare, once it transitions the nation to a single-payer system. The humor masks the DMV reality already provided by other government-run health-care ……

So if you’re in a union, you get a free ride – paid for by non-union members.

Akzed on June 26, 2009 at 2:09 PM

I stopped paying taxes when Bush announced the fedgov intent to steal money to bail out the financial sector.

I guess it isn’t criminal if you’re open about it.

Goose & gander.

Thousands of union members rallied for Obamacare on Capitol Hill today in a massive display of union outreach that threatened to deliver more votes for a controversial “public plan” option.

The rally came on the heels of Obama raising the possibility that unions would be exempt from taxing health care benefits. Obama said he was open to imposing new taxes on Americans who are not union members, which is a principle he adamantly opposed during his presidential campaign.
~~
So if you’re in a union, you get a free ride – paid for by non-union members.

Were the 10th amendment actually enforced, state governments could levy much higher taxes…leaving those states that are inclined to provide free access to care for all to do so.

ernesto on June 26, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Correct…and the people of those states would judge them harshly. Such ‘free’ plans wouldn’t last long.

LimeyGeek on June 26, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Deplorable status quo indeed. Were the 10th amendment actually enforced, state governments could levy much higher taxes…leaving those states that are inclined to provide free access to care for all to do so.

Video: Imagine government-run health care
…

5) Tort reform.

So why do we expect health insurance to operate any differently? It SHOULD be for catastrophic illnesses like cancer. It should NOT be used everytime the kid has the sniffles to run to the doctor’s office. Go to the cold medicine aisle at Wal-Mart and pick up a bottle of children’s Tylenol for $7.00. Or if you’re such a hypochondriac that you MUST see a professional, skip the OTC aisle and see the nurse practitioner at the clinic that places like Wal-Mart and Target and Walgreens are offering instead. This is a perfect example of the free market stepping up to fill a need and doing so efficiently.

I can practically guarantee that if health insurance were no longer expected to be provided by employers — a tremendous burden on smaller businesses BTW — and that people HAD to fund their own plans the same way they have to fund their own car and homeowner’s insurance, the cost WOULD come down. The reason individual plans are so expensive now (although I am perfectly happy with my plan) is because the market for it is so anemic and underdeveloped due precisely to the fact that so few people are in it. If we were all in it, there would be more options available at lower prices. This is more than Economics 101; it’s common sense.

The way to drive down costs is: 1) Offer incentives for staying healthy in the first place — many plans are already doing this; 2) Encourage more “retail” community clinics for ordinary aches and pains like Wal-Mart and others are providing; 3) Give EVERYONE — not just the self-employed — the opportunity to take advantage of tax-deferred HSAs; and 4) Create risk pools among private insurers to cover the truly indigent/disabled/chronically ill/aged who are unable to pay for their own care.

Problem solved. It didn’t even take me 1,000 pages to do it either.

ernesto on June 26, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Despite anti-federalist concern, the ‘elastic’ clause was specifically included by federalists to enforce the concept eventually ratified in the 10th – namely, that Congress can only create all ‘necessary and proper’ laws to fulfill its constitutionally defined role, nothing more.

Interstate commerce clause is not relevant to the discussion of a federal healthcare system. It is perhaps relevant to the debate over federal prohibition of trade in health insurance across state lines – a debate the fedgov would lose.

I have never denied the status quo. I seek to change it, because it is horrifically flawed.

The reality is that our ’system’ of healthcare is only flawed by gubmint intervention.

The fact that “the 10th Amendment hasn’t been applied in ages” is a damning indictment of the gubmint and the people – and forms part of the heart of my desire to destroy the ’status quo’.

LimeyGeek on June 26, 2009 at 12:21 PM

and the balance between the elastic clause, interstate commerce, and the 10th amendment has been a bone of contention ever since. and even if what you say is true, the lamentable status quo is the reality…and the reality is that a) our system of health is flawed and b) the 10th amendment hasn’t been applied in ages.

It was not a foregone conclusion, upon the ratification of the constitution, that it was to be applied strictly…in a manner where silence implied forbidden ground for the federal government

It was explicitly so concluded. 10th Amendment.

and whats unconstitutional about a federal healthcare system?

ernesto on June 26, 2009 at 12:17 PM

I repeat – 10th Amendment.

LimeyGeek on June 26, 2009 at 12:05 PM

It was not a foregone conclusion, upon the ratification of the constitution, that it was to be applied strictly…in a manner where silence implied forbidden ground for the federal government. thats my whole point. the idea that the strict letter of the constitution corralled the government entirely was nor is by any means the “true” or “only” interpretation.

and whats unconstitutional about a federal healthcare system?

his strain of thinking, in opposition to democratic republicans like jefferson, is alive today in justifications for government health care.

ernesto on June 26, 2009 at 11:44 AM

If only ‘his strain of thinking’ had actually been incorporated into the Constitution, your comment would be meaningful.

Since ‘his strain of thinking’ actually stands in opposition to Constitutional principles, you’re actually making the point that our government is fundamentally corrupt.

so long as an american citizen can get bankrupted by cancer the system is broken.

ernesto on June 26, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Lamenting that there are aspects of our economy so expensive they can bankrupt you is childish.

Gambling can bankrupt you, should the gubmint intervene there to ensure a ‘fair’ return to all participants? You would soon see the closure of casinos nationwide……much like we will see the closure of hospitals under socialist healthcare.

You always have the option of not seeking care, and not going bankrupt. Perhaps, after consultation with your doctor, it is smarter to simply manage the discomfort with cheap drugs, die with comfort and dignity, and leave wealth to your survivors – rather than eviscerating a family’s future for a hopeless cause.

Only the individual can make such choices. Mandating such coverage for everyone is a stupid waste of valuable resources.

And it’s unconstitutional, hence illegal.