Obama should have kept his mouth shut ...

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

The single biggest problem I see with health care/insurance as it stands now is: in-network vs out-of-network. I think one simple tweak could be to make it so you could use your insurance anywhere and they would have to treat it the same. I know there are a bunch of reasons why you can argue against it but it really would make it so you got better health care as you could go to the doctor or hospital you wanted.

[AZGrizFan]

And in the countries you'd have us modeled after, the poor people stay there for crappy universal health care and the rich ones come to America and get 10x better healthcare because they can afford to.

If WE go to universal healthcare, what are the rich people going to do for healthcare?

I hear we rank 37th internationally. How is ours 10 times better?

You hear that from who? Cappy?

[AZGrizFan]

And in the countries you'd have us modeled after, the poor people stay there for crappy universal health care and the rich ones come to America and get 10x better healthcare because they can afford to.

If WE go to universal healthcare, what are the rich people going to do for healthcare?

OK, Z, let me ask you this: What is the Conk solution to this health care crisis? Nothing but more of the same to me. However, I'll give you the chance to stand up for the status quo.


___________________________________

Two words:

Tort reform.

[Cap'n Cat]

I hear we rank 37th internationally. How is ours 10 times better?

You hear that from who? Cappy?

Um, Fluffy, research it. You MAY be able to come up with a better number.



Also, tort reform ain't the complete answer. What about greed (doctors, AMA, drug companies, loopholes, etc, etc, etc)???

[HI54UNI]

Tort reform would help. Healthcare needs to be more consumer driven, i.e. realize the $ impact of their decisions. Rules need to be changed to discourage the constant building/remodeling at hospitals that is often unnecessary but the hospitals benefit financially from doing it. The insurance companies need to be better regulated to control what they are spending money on. The whole system is so screwed up there isn't an easy fix and it will be just like cutting govt spending. The money being spent has some constituency that will raise holy hell if it is cut.

[AZGrizFan]

You hear that from who? Cappy?

Um, Fluffy, research it. You MAY be able to come up with a better number.



Also, tort reform ain't the complete answer. What about greed (doctors, AMA, drug companies, loopholes, etc, etc, etc)???

"Numbers" say we're 37th. I say show me another country people FLOCK TO for their medical care.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

[Grizalltheway]

Um, Fluffy, research it. You MAY be able to come up with a better number.



Also, tort reform ain't the complete answer. What about greed (doctors, AMA, drug companies, loopholes, etc, etc, etc)???

"Numbers" say we're 37th. I say show me another country people FLOCK TO for their medical care.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

People (not just Me-he-cans) in southern Arizona flock south for dental care, from what I hear.

[AZGrizFan]

"Numbers" say we're 37th. I say show me another country people FLOCK TO for their medical care.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

People (not just Me-he-cans) in southern Arizona flock south for dental care, from what I hear.

That's DENTAL care. And you ought to SEE some of the butchery that goes on there.

[Cap'n Cat]

Um, Fluffy, research it. You MAY be able to come up with a better number.



Also, tort reform ain't the complete answer. What about greed (doctors, AMA, drug companies, loopholes, etc, etc, etc)???

"Numbers" say we're 37th. I say show me another country the rich FLOCK TO for their medical care.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

FIFY, Skippy.

[AZGrizFan]

"Numbers" say we're 37th. I say show me another country the rich FLOCK TO for their medical care.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

FIFY, Skippy.

The only reason that the hundreds of thousands of Canadians that flock to America for their health care are rich is because Obama's economic policies have put their dollar on par with OUR dollar after DECADES of it being .67 cents to the dollar.

[Cap'n Cat]

FIFY, Skippy.

The only reason that the hundreds of thousands of Canadians that flock to America for their health care are rich is because Obama's economic policies have put their dollar on par with OUR dollar after DECADES of it being .67 cents to the dollar.

Oh, bullshit, you Conk liar dork.

Jesus.

[AZGrizFan]

The only reason that the hundreds of thousands of Canadians that flock to America for their health care are rich is because Obama's economic policies have put their dollar on par with OUR dollar after DECADES of it being .67 cents to the dollar.

Oh, bullshit, you Conk liar dork.

Jesus.

You're correct. It only was .77 cents on the dollar.

The Canadian Dollar exchange rate depreciated 0.21 percent against the US Dollar during the last month. During the last 12 months, the Canadian Dollar exchange rate depreciated 3.25 percent against the US Dollar. Historically, from 1972 until 2012 the USDCAD exchange averaged 1.23 reaching an historical high of 1.61 in January of 2002 and a record low of 0.92 in November of 2007.

Fact: between January 1990 and January 2009, the exchange rate was not below 1.10/$1 except for a brief period between 5/07 and 8/08.

Fact: Upon Obama's coronation, the exchange rate was $1.23/$1.

Fact: Fact, in March of '09 the exchange rate peaked under Obama's watch at $1.26/$1

FAct: In January 2011, the Canadian dollar was actually worth MORE than that American dollar.

Fact: Since March of '09, the exchange rate has fallen steadily throughout Obama's presidency.

Fact: From January 2011 to September 2011, the Canadian dollar remained more valuable than the American dollar.

Fact: In March of 2012, the exchange rate again sits below $1/$1, making the Canadian dollar more valuable than the American dollar.

[kalm]

Good point, Z. Our health care is good only because of the technology and research which leads to cures and treatments. That's a very good thing. HOWEVER, the barriers as to expense are monumentally high. Part of that "37th most effective" thing is the fact that there is not universal access, as in most other modernized countries. Bottom line: poor people die waiting for hearts while the rich, like Cheney, get them sight unseen.

And in the countries you'd have us modeled after, the poor people stay there for crappy universal health care and the rich ones come to America and get 10x better healthcare because they can afford to.

If WE go to universal healthcare, what are the rich people going to do for healthcare?

You can have universal coverage of a basic plan and high end care within the same system.

One of the things that drags our outcomes down is the lack of coverage and preventative care.

[BDKJMU]

So Obama thought it was unprecedented for SCOTUS to overturn a law passed by Congress?

How did he pass Harvard Law while being ignorant of something so basic to constitutional law?

How did he get hired as a constitutional law professor at Univ of Chicago believing something that at least half the people on this board, most of whom never even took a con law class, knew wasn't true? That's suppose to be a decent law school, right?

I bet even Bush knew it wasn't unprecedented. Obama not knowing this basic tenet under what is his educational specialty is proof positive that he's not very smart.

[Cap'n Cat]

Oh, bullshit, you Conk liar dork.

Jesus.

You're correct. It only was .77 cents on the dollar.

The Canadian Dollar exchange rate depreciated 0.21 percent against the US Dollar during the last month. During the last 12 months, the Canadian Dollar exchange rate depreciated 3.25 percent against the US Dollar. Historically, from 1972 until 2012 the USDCAD exchange averaged 1.23 reaching an historical high of 1.61 in January of 2002 and a record low of 0.92 in November of 2007.

Fact: between January 1990 and January 2009, the exchange rate was not below 1.10/$1 except for a brief period between 5/07 and 8/08.

Fact: Upon Obama's coronation, the exchange rate was $1.23/$1.

Fact: Fact, in March of '09 the exchange rate peaked under Obama's watch at $1.26/$1

FAct: In January 2011, the Canadian dollar was actually worth MORE than that American dollar.

Fact: Since March of '09, the exchange rate has fallen steadily throughout Obama's presidency.

Fact: From January 2011 to September 2011, the Canadian dollar remained more valuable than the American dollar.

Fact: In March of 2012, the exchange rate again sits below $1/$1, making the Canadian dollar more valuable than the American dollar.

Z,
You're confusing the Canadians doing much better with the American's somehow doing "worse". Of course, it's understandable, given your flag-wrapped Conk masturbatory fantasies - there is nothing else BUT America!!!

[Grizalltheway]

You're correct. It only was .77 cents on the dollar.



Fact: between January 1990 and January 2009, the exchange rate was not below 1.10/$1 except for a brief period between 5/07 and 8/08.

Fact: Upon Obama's coronation, the exchange rate was $1.23/$1.

Fact: Fact, in March of '09 the exchange rate peaked under Obama's watch at $1.26/$1

FAct: In January 2011, the Canadian dollar was actually worth MORE than that American dollar.

Fact: Since March of '09, the exchange rate has fallen steadily throughout Obama's presidency.

Fact: From January 2011 to September 2011, the Canadian dollar remained more valuable than the American dollar.

Fact: In March of 2012, the exchange rate again sits below $1/$1, making the Canadian dollar more valuable than the American dollar.

Z,
You're confusing the Canadians doing much better with the American's somehow doing "worse". Of course, it's understandable, given your flag-wrapped Conk masturbatory fantasies - there is nothing else BUT America!!!

Much sounder banking system than ours-big reason they weathered the downturn so well.

[Cap'n Cat]

Conks and Conkunism will be the downfall of America. Just watch....and cry.

[JohnStOnge]

Sounds like you'd be perfectly comfortable with the SCOTUS if it adhered to the Borkean theory of "original understanding,"

Yes only if I understood him correctly in reading his book "The Tempting of America" I am more rigid than he is. I say that because after he pointed out that it is clear that those who crafted and ratified the 14th Amendment did not understand it as prohibiting racial segregation he nevertheless argued that there was a way to "interpret" it to prohibit racial segregation. To me one would not even attempt that if one were truly sticking to original understanding.

Someone writes a proposal for Constitutional Language. They make the case for it. They represent it as having a certain purpose and effect. Then people ratify it with the understanding that it's going to have that effect.

If a court comes along 10, 20, or 100 years later and departs from that the whole process is betrayed. When a Court does that it's expressing "will." And there is really no point in having a Constitution. To me all the Supreme Court should be doing when it considers whether or not something is consistent with the Constitution is making an honest effort to arrive upon how the Constitutional language in question was generally understood by those who proposed and ratified it. Doing anything else is effectively changing the Constitution and the whole point of having a Constitution is lost. When you have a system like that...and we do have a system like that...you're not really governed by the Constitution but instead are governed by a council of elders who just kind of use the word "Constitution" to invoke a certain aura.

The Constitution should control what the Justices say instead of the Justices controlling what the Constitution says. The opposite is the case in the United States right now.

And the oft-stated argument that they HAVE to do what they do in order to make the Constitution fit changing times is not valid because there is a provision in the Constitution itself for changing it to do that. The difference is that any change goes through a process whereby substantial public consensus for making the change must be developed. And, to me, that's what a Constitution is SUPPOSED to do. Neither it nor its effects are supposed to be easy to change. But right now it can be effectively changed at any time by a simple majority of nine completely unaccountable officials. That, to me, is not at all consistent with that thing in the Federalist Paper you referenced about the Constitution belonging to the People.

[kalm]

Sounds like you'd be perfectly comfortable with the SCOTUS if it adhered to the Borkean theory of "original understanding,"

Yes only if I understood him correctly in reading his book "The Tempting of America" I am more rigid than he is. I say that because after he pointed out that it is clear that those who crafted and ratified the 14th Amendment did not understand it as prohibiting racial segregation he nevertheless argued that there was a way to "interpret" it to prohibit racial segregation. To me one would not even attempt that if one were truly sticking to original understanding.

Someone writes a proposal for Constitutional Language. They make the case for it. They represent it as having a certain purpose and effect. Then people ratify it with the understanding that it's going to have that effect.

If a court comes along 10, 20, or 100 years later and departs from that the whole process is betrayed. When a Court does that it's expressing "will." And there is really no point in having a Constitution. To me all the Supreme Court should be doing when it considers whether or not something is consistent with the Constitution is making an honest effort to arrive upon how the Constitutional language in question was generally understood by those who proposed and ratified it. Doing anything else is effectively changing the Constitution and the whole point of having a Constitution is lost. When you have a system like that...and we do have a system like that...you're not really governed by the Constitution but instead are governed by a council of elders who just kind of use the word "Constitution" to invoke a certain aura.

The Constitution should control what the Justices say instead of the Justices controlling what the Constitution says. The opposite is the case in the United States right now.

And the oft-stated argument that they HAVE to do what they do in order to make the Constitution fit changing times is not valid because there is a provision in the Constitution itself for changing it to do that. The difference is that any change goes through a process whereby substantial public consensus for making the change must be developed. And, to me, that's what a Constitution is SUPPOSED to do. Neither it nor its effects are supposed to be easy to change. But right now it can be effectively changed at any time by a simple majority of nine completely unaccountable officials. That, to me, is not at all consistent with that thing in the Federalist Paper you referenced about the Constitution belonging to the People.

I think I agree with you, but it's clearly not the reality. The court is holding a bunch of the marbles these days. Wisenheimers like IT need to be taken down a notch.

"judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; because it will be least in capacity to annoy or injure them."

Hamilton later wrote: "The executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary on the contrary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatsoever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment, and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."