Like I've been saying for two years

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Saturday, March 31. 2012

Like I've been saying for two years

The Best Damn Argument For The Unconstitutionality of ObamaCare... A quote:

The government just decided that all insurance must be comprehensive. And that no one any longer had the freedom to choose anything but that -- even its superior competitor, Catastrophic Coverage.

That's not destroying a "stupid" freedom to be self-destructive. That's taking away a very real and sensible choice.

And on what authority, exactly?

This thing that is supposedly done for me, as if I were a moron and incapable of making life decisions, is not what I want and definitely not what I want done for me. I have a better idea. As readers know, I have Major Medical, high-deductible insurance because it works for me. The law will make my policy illegal. I once worked for a firm which self-insured: the firm paid 80% of the employees' medical bills after a $1000 deductible. Doing that would be illegal too.

The Dems passed a law to eliminate our free choice to purchase a personal item. As a favor to us, of course. Because they know what's best for us proles. Or are we serfs now, living for the greater good of the kings?

Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 13:48 | Comments (12) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

My son-in-law was diagnosed with cancer over four years ago, treated at a major medical center with research dollars for his specific diagnosis, then told after a year that there was nothing else they could do for him; i.e. "Wind up your affairs, you have three to six months to live." Thanks to family contacts in medicine, he found a doctor using non-FDA-approved treatments but with an extensive success rate. Three years and running, he is back at work, has vacationed overseas and feels good. Such treatments would not be approved under Obamacare.

Also, look into what else they have stuck into this bill that has nothing to do with your health or the cost of healthcare -- way to long to list here. I'll try to find an abbreviated link.

#1 jma on 2012-03-31 14:46 (Reply)

I want to make clear that my son-in-law's insurance did not pay for these non-FDA-approved treatments; he paid out-of-pocket. Under Obamacare, you would not be allowed to do this in the U.S. The doctor/facility would lose its licensing. Also, I do know the difference between "to" and "too". I didn't provide this info and didn't proof carefully. Mea culpa.

#1.1 jma on 2012-03-31 19:22 (Reply)

The other disturbing thing that's recently surfaced on the Internet is the organ donation thing. We have an old friend who was visiting from New Hampshire. She's a trauma nurse, and she got busy analyzing our medications and checking out whether we had signed on as organ donors. I had recently read up on organ donation, and being a naturally suspicious person [you get that way at my age] I investigated what signs emergency room personnel use to determine if you are Really Truly Dead, over with, etc. Shockingly, the determining tests are both hasty and superficial, causing me to silently protest, "Hey, wait a minute. I just closed my eyes to rest a bit. What the heck are you doing? STOP!"
Unconsciousness can be temporary, you know.

The upshot of this whole kerfuffle is that neither of us, my husband or me, is going to sign up for organ donation.
This makes a good subject for argument, here on Maggies. I'd like to hear from the medical community about this, if they can be objective. I probably can't be.

Marianne

#2 Marianne Matthews on 2012-03-31 15:31 (Reply)

I'm not sure why we haven't seen more of this explanation of the mandate. I was explicit in the arguments (ending comment from Ann Althouse):

QUOTE:

9.
JUSTICE ALITO: Are you denying this? If you took the group of people who are subject to the mandate and you calculated the amount of health care services this whole group would consume and figured out the cost of an insurance policy to cover the services that group would consume, the cost of that policy would be much, much less than the kind of policy that these people are now going to be required to purchase under the Affordable Care Act?

GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, while they are young and healthy, that would be true. But they are not going to be young and healthy forever. They are going to be on the other side of that actuarial equation at some point. And of course, you don't know which among that group is the person who's going to be hit by the bus or get the definitive diagnosis. And that -

JUSTICE ALITO: The point is -- no, you take into account that some people in that group are going to be hit by a bus, some people in that group are going to unexpectedly contract or be diagnosed with a disease that -- that is very expensive to treat. But if you take their costs and you calculate that, that's a lot less than the amount that they are going to be required to pay. So that you can't just justify this on the basis of their trying to shift their costs off to other people, can you?

GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, no, the people in that class get benefits, too, Justice Alito. They get the guaranteed-issue benefit that they would not otherwise have, which is an enormously valuable benefit. And in terms of the -- the subsidy rationale, I don't think -- I think it's -- it would be unusual to say that it's an illegitimate exercise of the commerce power for some people to subsidize others.

QUOTE:

There you have it. You can see whom the government has chosen to exploit. The young, the healthy must pay for far more than the costs they are accused of shifting to others.

#3 JKB on 2012-03-31 15:36 (Reply)

how is this so different than Social Security.
In fact, Soc sec is a tougher deal for the young and healthy: they are paying now for their elders.

With health insure, the young pay now and some may need the insurance for themselves. Seems a better deal than soc sec.

#4 ns on 2012-03-31 16:10 (Reply)

You avoid the free choice issue.

#4.1 BD on 2012-03-31 19:09 (Reply)

Comrade B,

How dare you question the wisdom of our Dear Leader's beneficence! As they say over at Peoples Cube, report to the nearest train station with warm clothes and a shovel! You can contemplate the error of your capitalist thinking in the beet fields, starting tomorrow.

Comrade S.

#5 Steve in CT on 2012-03-31 18:09 (Reply)

If a foreign country tried to impose upon Americans what the Democrats have done over the past few decades, Americans would fight a war to stop it, and be proud of it.

Yet if a minority of Marxist true-believers seeks to strip Americans of their Constitutional rights, the reaction is hesitant and muted, almost apologetic.

The Second Amendment is not provided as a filler between the First and Third Amendments. It's there to oppose tyranny. If the Government's attempt to control the American economy and make decision for all Americans is not tyranny, I need an updated dictionary (or an updated Constitution).

#6 PacRim Jim (Link) on 2012-03-31 19:41 (Reply)

"Serfs" is right. Not quite slavery, but not far from it.

I've thought for years that the ultimate goal of liberalism was to re-establish the feudal system with a large underclass of workers who have miserable lives, and a small aristocracy (the self-appointed Intellectual Elite) that runs everything and gets all the goodies. This is just another step toward that goal.

#7 wolfwalker on 2012-03-31 20:11 (Reply)

Yes. We have termed it "neo-feudalism" here in the past.

Feudalism worked well: Power, perks, and chicks for the Lords, and security for the rest.

#7.1 Bird Dog on 2012-03-31 20:14 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The Dems passed a law to eliminate our free choice to purchase a personal item. As a favor to us, of course. Because they know what's best for us proles.

You know, Coyote often makes the same point regarding minimum wage laws. I know this sounds odd to modern ears but such laws really limit the ability of unskilled labor to enter the market on their own terms. Typically these are the young folks - but they may not be; may be someone wanting to change careers later in life.

Again with the Mark Twain: he wrote that a person can get hired by anyone s/he wants to if s/he's willing to start working for the employer at no wage. (Can't find a reference for this online.) When the employer figures out the new employee's value, he'll be happy to pay the new employee what it takes to retain him or her. Twain cites a man he knew in St. Louis who successfully followed this advice.

#8 jhc on 2012-03-31 21:34 (Reply)

"The Dems passed a law to eliminate our free choice to purchase a personal item. As a favor to us, of course. Because they know what's best for us proles. Or are we serfs now, living for the greater good of the kings?"

And, should they get away with it this time, the kings/masters will repeat the process on any and every choice available to us serfs/slaves.

#9 db on 2012-03-31 23:28 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, March 31. 2012

Like I've been saying for two years