Badmovies.org Forum

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/26/10866512-court-signals-it-will-decide-constitutionality-of-health-care-mandate

Today is the second day of hearings on the Obama administration's magnum opus, the Affordable Health Care Act.  Arguments will center on the primary objection that many have raised to this bill from the get-go: Does the U.S. Constitution give Congress the power to force citizens to purchase a commercial product?

  This is a huge case, not just because of the Health Care Act itself, but because of the precedent it will set.  If Congress has the power to force citizens into commercial contracts, then for all practical purposes, there will be virtually no limits on Congressional power henceforth.  At least, that is the great fear of many Conservatives and Libertarians.  However you feel about the government's role in health care, I think anyone should be able to recognize the dangers of encroachment here - what power has the government ever refused to wield, once the Court says it has the right to wield it?

  My concern is WHY Associate Justice Elaina Kagan is even being allowed to vote on this issue?  She was the Solicitor General for the Obama administration before being placed on the court; her JOB was to help compose the law, and to write legal briefs defending the Constitutionality of Obamacare.  There is not even a pretense of objectivity.  Again, the old double standard comes into play - were she a conservative justice appointed by a conservative President after being solicitor general in charge of preparing briefs on a pending case, there would be a national hue and cry in the media for her to abstain from voting.  As it is - ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC - hardly a peep.  If it were not for those "right wing hate mongers" at FOX and on talk radio, most folks would not even know of her involvement in crafting and defending the Affordable Health Care Act.

  Obviously, I'm hoping the Court will strike this thing down.  It is a $2 trillion monstrosity.  But then, I'm one of those "right wing hate mongers."  What do YOU think?

It is a landmark Supreme Court event to be sure.

I certainly believe that healthcare providence by the government goes against the spirit of the Constitution, but all social programs tend to use the general welfare clause as justification for the program. The issue of focus, and of greatest importance, is that of encroachment, the government requiring citizens to purchase something. This is a key element, because it goes beyond the government providing healthcare.

What I find most interesting about this case is NOT the knee-jerk accusation of socialism that comes from the conservative rank and file. No. This case is demonstrating with stark clarity the extent of the polarization that has taken the place of free thought, the ability of people to use their reason to dissect and make sense of a seemingly complex issue.

Obama’s Healthcare Reform Bill was an enormous mistake, but if people take the time to understand the context of it, they will see just how confused a nation we have become. A very large portion of the motivation for the bill in the first place was that so many other countries have socialized healthcare, some of them doing it successfully, so why not the U.S.? It was basically multi-national peer pressure. But socialism is not at play here, but corporatism. Corporatism is arguably more destructive because there is no clear distinction between government and commercial practices.

Normally, if the government creates a social program that provides something free to the people, there is taxation to pay for it, and the richest people tend to pay for it because they are taxed more, something that tends to make socialist-minded people very happy. But in this case, that’s not what’s at issue. The issue appears to be that Americans are being required to purchase something from a commerical company. This means that here is a proposed government program that would actually be covered evenly by all the people, rather than paid for by the richest 1% for the use of the other 99%, because each person would be paying for their own. This actually benefits the richest 1%, and takes even more money from the pockets of the 99%, these two “have/have not” groups we keep hearing so much about.

You would think that a law that costs the average working American rather than the rich that would normally pay for a government program through taxation would enrage the left. But it doesn’t. The polarization I speak of is so pervasive and complete now that Democrats are actually lining up in favor of a law that burdens its own supposed constituency, and benefits the evil corporations that they supposedly despise. Meanwhile, the Republicans are too busy with their usual “socialism” finger-pointing to realize that there is nothing socialist about it. It’s almost fascist.

Which brings me to my final point. In the shortsighted and limited view of the traditional left/right political spectrum, one can only go one of two ways. On the extreme left you have communism, and on the extreme right you have fascism. Both of them are essentially the same thing, they just take two different approaches to get there. The government is polarized to extremes, but are essentially working toward the same end, and the American people, no matter which of the two sides they stand on, are unwittingly supporting it. Meanwhile, those of us that think for ourselves and can actually see it going on are natually labeled as kooks.

This case, and the resulting behavior by the warring mobs, only encourages me to remain a kook. It’s lonely, but liberating.

There is no authority higher than her who can request her to be removed. At the Supreme Court level all recusals are voluntary. There are two common causes for recusal: the Justice has a financial stake in the outcome (e.g. they own stock in a company appearing before them) or a family member or close personal friend is one one of the parties before them. However, a judge or Justice is also supposed to disqualify themselves in the following case: "Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy." [28 USC 455(b)(3)]. This would seem to apply squarely to Kagan's case. It appears that she should recuse herself, but no one has the authority to force her to. (The other Supreme Court Justices never pressure one of their own---at least, not publicly and I doubt they do privately either).

There are also calls for Justice Thomas to recuse himself because his wife is supposedly an outspoken opponent of the plan.

I have no personal prediction about how the case will turn out. My sense is it probably should be ruled unconstitutional, but I am not really up to date on the arguments.

Well, I saw an unbiased  analysis from Matt Lauer and Rachael Maddow this  morning for about 2 minutes, as much as I could take, essentially  it was the 'conservative' court could  declare  it's independence   by walking in lockstep with the Obama plan.  :lookingup:  I have looked into this issue for years and  over many nations, and have come  to these conclusions. ALL health care systems on earth STINK, they will not save you, cure you in most cases.  If the Govt runs it, you will have long waits and  'free'  isn't worth much if you're  dead.  If it's  privately run, you may end up paying for the rest of your life or end up bankrupt and in debt, but, will most likely physically survive. If it's a combination of both, you'll get mixed results. STAY as healthy as possible, avoid doctors and health care systems like the plague, learn as  much as possible about your specific body from complete  physicals. Good Luck, G-D, Allah and Mickey Mouse help you as really that's all you have in reality.

I hope they strike it down....completely. I resent Congress forcing me to purchase a product against my better judgement and whether I want it or no. This is,in my opinion,pure business-driven legislation to benefit them mostly. I don't need a bunch of snobbish "I-KNOW-BETTER-THAN-YOU" jerks telling me I have to have this to get their kick-backs. There's no way you could convince me they're thinking of me as a poor,working stiff in need when that @#$%! Clinton wants us to pay a fine for not having it.
Do a huge overhaul on the insurance companies if you really want to help us. Set limits on how much procedures can cost,especially these fatcat specialists.
This system could be fixed....you just need some folks with brains and guts.

I don’t mean to s**t on anyone’s point, because I think the bill should most certainly be stricken down. However, in the interest of presenting fair information, I can’t go along with the claim that socialized medicine has been a dismal failure in all cases.

The U.S. currently ranks 36th in life expentancy around the world, and has been falling for some time. I checked and almost every country that outranks us has at least partial healthcare provided by the government. #1 is Japan, who provides 70% of most vital health services. #2 is Hong Kong. Australia is #5. Canada is #12. The U.K. ranked first in quality of care in more than one study. I don’t believe in socialized medicine, nor do I believe that the U.S. can afford it. However, I’m not going to ignore factual data. Life expectancy is one of the most accurate and easily identifiable ways in which a country’s general health can be guaged. It’s also one of the most difficult to fudge or shade with political agendas.

The healthcare system in the U.S. is flawed. It was flawed before Obama’s bill. Obamacare is certainly not the solution, so I am completely agreed on that point. However, if anybody is going to trash the healthcare systems of other countries as utter failures, it’s kind of difficult to dispute life expectancy. If you’re going to oppose socialized medicine, I suggest doing so in ways that make sense.

I don’t dispute the positives of socialized medicine simply because there are too many examples of them. The quality of care argument is, at best, undeterminable. Instead I choose to focus on something that truly matters: innovation. Healthcare innovation can only operate well in a system where the costs of research and development can be recooped. If there is no break-even point, then there is no development. That is a simple economic reality that can be easily demonstrated.   

the mandate is unconstitutional. This whole project was doomed from the start, it sunk obamas presidency history will show.

Well, yes, it is unconstitutional. I find it funny (and scary) that the justification being used is the general welfare clause. That's how ALL government policies that cost taxpayer money are justified, except for what directly enforces our rights, like police. I mean, it's not a given that the government needs to provide a fire department. It is under the general welfare clause that such services are justified. It's the same thing with national parks, and not too many people object to that.

Now, whatever one's stance is on socialized medicine, the real issue here is madating something that should be done by individual election. There is no justification for that. Some people say that basic healthcare is a right. It isn't, but let's argue for a moment that it is. Having the right to something does not mean that you are required to do it. We have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean that every American is required to buy a gun or given on by the government. We have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean that we are required to start a newspaper. That's what the real issue is. I can't imagine the Supreme Court actually establishing it as constitutional.

all the general walfare clause says is that the policies are to be for the general population rather than specific groups. it's not the thing called welfare.

I don't know if it should stricken down, I'm not a lawyer, and I have about as much confidence in Law as I have in Medicine.  :wink: 

I will say this, statistics can be used to fudge an argument, in the case above, in favor of more govt. control of one's health. I know that's  not your intention, but, I've seen those statistics many times used in favor of govt. control. The statistics you state are mostly from nations with highly controlled  immigration and population control, unlike the tens of millions of mostly already in poor health folks who flood the USA every year. Also, the 'life expectancy' says  nothing of the quality of  living longer and suffering with medications, machines. I could quote statistics like how the #1 life expectancy people of Japan have a much higher death rate of stomach cancer than the USA or how 'wealthy' Canadians cross the border to get procedures they would otherwise  have to wait for leading to their life expectancy being higher? But, I just don't see as  life expectancy being all that important as  much as quality of living longer.

One's  health should be an individuals  responsibility first, not anyone’s Govt. I had one 'Mommy and Daddy', thank you, and the only time I gave up my independence was for what  I thought was a  higher cause, serving in the US Armed Forces.  There has to be some sort of system, regrettably, but, like anything else out of one's hands it should be limited to when one can't help themselves any longer and not to just die in the street. The problem with modern healthcare goes way beyond funding and the root is  too centered on after the fact costly illness. Finally, medical intervention at all costs  to keep someone alive is insane. We are ALL going to die, we have to face it , no amount of  intervention  will stop it, many times prolonging it is  much worse than entering eternal rest. 

I think a big part of America's lesser longevity rates has to do with our inordinate fondness for massive quantities of delicious, fattening foods!  If we ate sushi, rice, and kelp in the volumes that the Japanese do, we'd live 10 years longer.

Now where's my cheeseburger? :bouncegiggle:

I really disliked the Affordable Health Care Act simply because I do not think that any government should force their citizens to pay for health insurance

Another problem is how theres corn and corn syrup in everything. I saw this documentary "King Corn". Everyone knows FDR paid farmers not to grow things so the price would rise. the next guy thuoght that was so bad that he reversed it and paid farmers TO grow things. Of course, this also affected the market because it made corn cheaper than other things. Now cows eat corn, which makesthe meat much fattier and so on.  prices are supposed to convey information, let the natural price of corn occur.

Sorry.  I don't know enough law to meaningfully add to the very interesting and insightful commentary that is happening in this thread, but I can interject one thing:  routine physical exams, of themselves, have not been shown to change outcomes for people.   There are questions and then answers that sometimes come up from contact with doctors at general physical exams, and once in a while I find something really useful to find now vs later (a melanoma, a significant heart murmur, a sign of cancer, the like) that makes a difference for someone.  But even clinical breast exams have not been shown to change cancer outcomes.   It may just mean inadequate and poorly done research on the subject though.   :teddyr:

Carry on with the excellent legal commentary.  I've learned some important things!  Thank you all for what you have written so far.  I am watching and wringing my hands. 

I don't know enough on this particular issue to meaningfully add anything either. I haven't found the time to read the briefs and the lower court rulings. Anyone who's interested in the primary sources can find lots of links here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx.

Absolutely!
I voted for Ann Richards for governor years back and one of the platforms I supported was insurance reform....her idea of reform was making it the law that everyone must have liability insurance on their car. It's just become another bill I struggle to pay every month along with several others. I know a number of folks that simply cannot afford it. Of course,she went on after being governor to being a highly paid consultant in NYC....for an insurance company!
I'm sick of the government stepping all over us to appease big business! :hatred:

That’s true. They can be and are used to justify many arguments. It doesn’t make any of them true or untrue.


The statistics I’m referring to are simply a statement of life expectancy. Something that the U.S. was once number one in, and is consistently falling. Interpret it any way you want to. I never said it was the primary or only indicator of national health, but as far as indicators go, it’s certainly a valid one.


There’s a lot of things it doesn’t say, including that countries with socialized healthcare are keeping people painfully and sufferingly alive as you appear to be suggesting.


Yes, you could do that. The evidence that Japanese people have a higher incidence of stomach cancer than the U.S. is certainly available and appears to be pretty valid. I just don’t know what it demonstrates. So, Japanese are outliving us despite having higher incidence of stomach cancer? Wouldn’t that suggest a superior rather than inferior healthcare system?

As for Canada, I’m not sure how to process your statement. Are you saying that wealthy Canadians come to the U.S. for healthcare? If so, in what numbers? Are you saying that wealthy Canadians coming to the U.S. for healthcare skews the life expectancy of Canadians? Canada must have an enormous number of wealth people. Holy crap, I’m moving to Canada! 


I happen to agree with you there. Again, what you haven’t managed to do is demonstrate that all of these other countries have an inferior quality of living. Have you ever been to Australia or New Zealand? The quality of living is freaking amazing there AND they outlive us. Not to mention that “quality of living” is a pretty hazy term.



I don’t really disagree with you here, except I don’t really know how military service fits into the argument. I served as well, six years in the U.S. Navy, but I’m not sure that that qualifies my opinion in any way. My personal experience was that the medical care sucked but the dental care was surprisingly excellent. But again, I don’t know what that establishes.

This thread is really about the Supreme Court case about whether or not the U.S. government has the constitutional right to require citizens to have healthcare or suffer a tax penalty. It started getting into a debate about socialized healthcare in general, and I tend question claims or data that I find questionable, regardless of where it comes from. That’s just something I do. You’ve presented a number of claims that I either find factually questionable or wonder what they are intended to suggest.

I have a tendency to challenge even those I agree with either partially or completely. Anybody who has gotten into discussions with me here over the past few years knows this about me. You may not know this about me yet, so I know that I run the risk of offending you or boiling your blood. I’ve done it many times with many members and I’m sure I will continue to do so. I’m a Devil’s advocate. Indy can attest to that, and he and I have a very respectful relationship.

  That's what it's all about, politicians appeasing big business to feather their own nests.

 I'd love to get up before Congress and give the " Five years ago I'd have taken a flame thrower to this place!" speech Al Pacino gave near the end of Scent of a Woman.

Another telling statistic, though, is survival AFTER diagnosis with serious diseases such as cancer.  I know one statistic I heard a couple years ago was that, in Great Britain, the average survival rate after cancer diagnosis was SIX YEARS less than us.  I also know that, last summer when my mother-in-law fell and broke her hip, she had hip replacement surgery in less than 24 hours.  In Great Britain, the wait for hip and knee replacement may be six weeks to six months.

That seems to match what I've seen, but there's always the matter of how much you can trust the source and what the agenda of the source is. The best I can determine from sifting through what I've seen is that service in the UK is excellent when it comes to routine healthcare, but slow when it comes to specialist care and surgical procedures. The problem is that left agendized sources are going to dote on UK healthcare and right agendized sources are going to bash it. No surprise there. The only way one is truly going to know is either by living in the UK as a citizen, or having a firsthand knowledge of it by knowing a cross-section of people there who access healthcare regularly. You're certainly not going to get the straight dope from about 99% of media sources, because they've all got an agenda. Not a bias, and AGENDA! Sorry, Indy, but that includes right-leaning sources, even though I think you are inclined to believe they are more truthful than left-leaning ones. My opinion is that they both lie. Which one lies the less?

A good point. Take what you get from each, add them together, and divide by two.  Filter vigorously with reason, then fry the whole mess and eat it with a grain of salt and some Morel mushrooms.

I think that lot would taste better than the beer that President Obama had in the pub in Ireland.  :buggedout:

Statistics, as well as, debate can be manipulated if one takes selected quotes and statistics to bolster a case. ;)

The USA  was  number  1 in a lot of things  in the past due to many factors, my point in this case, is that statistics you used can be misleading and I stated my reasons why I believe they are misleading involving healthcare. There is a  statistic I saw recently used in an ad of  the number of people in ‘danger’  of being hungry in our country? I mean, aren’t we all in ‘danger’ of being hungry?


I was showing, by pulling up other facts about health care and health in general from the countries said to be doing better than us how statistics alone can be manipulated to make an argument for or against a health care system.

Canada, is  much smaller, population wise, nation and even a  small ‘relief’  valve of  people  coming here for care can boost a  statistics as  our 12-20 million  illegal’s  here can skewer our  standing.

I wasn’t qualifying my opinion based on my service; I was using it as an example of leaving certain rights aside by choice as opposed to it being imposed by govt.

No, nothing on message boards offends me or surprises me; I take it as akin to bar-talk while watching a game. I will say this; it would serve well to not cut certain quotes, out of context, because like statistics, it changes the writer’s intentions. 

So, in other words, you are an adult and we'll get along just fine.  :cheers:

Wow....cool! :wink:

I don't care-I have health insurance and I still get slammed with outrageous hospital bills,because I can't even afford the f**king deductible!!!!  :hatred:

And-no-I think it's insane to try to force you to have health insurance-or insurance of any kind! It's smart to do so-but being stupid should be your option.  :tongueout:

I won't speak ill of the dead, but, I am not a  fan of the late Ann Richards. The biggest business of all is Big Govt. and we ened up paying. There is no ideal solution, but, I will say this, my dearly departed Mom used to have Blue Cross/Blue Shield and they were   wonnderful    compared to all the hacks, including govt. funded social workers and other things the Govt paid for to help her in the end.

My Dad was a retired postman and he had Blue Cross/Blue Shield....they were a good outfit back then.

They still are. I had them with my last employer and it was the best insurance coverage and service I ever had. I've since had United and Aetna, and it has gotten progressively worse.

We have BCBS through my wife's job, and while it is expensive, it's awfully handy when you have a kid with health problems.

Blue Cross Blue Shield refused to pay for a doctor's visit and subsequent testing I had a few years ago when I thought I was having a cardiac episode similar to something for which I have documented medical history (complete with hospitalization).

I left work early to go to the doctor, and he was sufficiently concerned/wanted to be thorough enough to send me to a specialist immediately for testing.  The specialist saw me and ran the tests.

BCBS refused to pay a single red cent of either visit.  Their reason?  "You should have gone to the ER."

#1.  It was not a true emergency if my history was to be a guide.  It was something to get checked first.  The ER was already slam packed with people getting their runny noses checked out, and the average wait time was about 6 hours.

#2.  The ER visit would likely have resulted in admission for further testing by the same specialist that saw me in his office...only with at least a day or two of "overnight observation" in the wards.

#3.  As such, the ER visit would have resulted in a bill probably up around 10 times what I ended up accruing by being seen in the two offices.

Brilliant.

I paid it out of pocket.

I'll never forgive them for this bit of lack of common sense.  Bean counters and bureaucrats should NEVER be involved in making health care decisions.

Your Mileage May Vary...

Oh, also, I was self employed so I paid my premiums to them out-of-pocket, which means they were making more off me than if I was getting it as a benefit from my employer (with his 'bulk rate discount').

I'm sorry to hear that. I guess we've had night and day experiences.

I've had BCBS on and off for about three and a half decades, and this is the only (major) disappointment I've had with them.

Still, though...left a pretty bad taste.

It may be the old chicken and egg analogy. The insurance companies are getting worse cause of govt. mandate and intervention or were  they already bad and the Govt. needs to step in more cause they are  hurting people?   :bluesad:

I cannot answer which is the chicken and which is the egg, but I will say this.

I remember the mid 1980's when HMO's were first hitting the scene in my neck of the woods.  It scared the crap out of me then as I could not imagine why anyone would allow their employer's chosen insurance company dictate which doctor to use.

I remember the HR person at the job I was starting singing the praises...I could choose Kaiser Permanente as an HMO or a "traditional" insurance which was JUST catastrophic hospitalization coverage.  I chose the latter, but the HR person was perplexed at my decision.

Fast Forward a few years and I was at another new job, and had some fun with another HR rep.  This one was telling me that under my plan, the one I was "forced" to take now, only certain ER's were "approved" for coverage.  I asked her if that meant if I was in a car wreck, unconscious and the EMT's brought me to a different hospital that the insurance would not pay.

She said, "That's right.  You HAVE to go to one of the approved ER's under ALL circumstances."

I don't think she had it quite right, but that's not my point.  My point is that she thought that was the rule and SHE WAS FINE WITH THAT.

Slippery slopes, and all that....

I also recall that Ted Kennedy was one of the movers and shakers behind getting those original HMO's like Kaiser pushed through as the "in thing," then later in his career he said they were the problem.  Now, he was not admitting his mistake but rather saying that they did not go far enough in "controlling" the administration of health care to the individual.

Scary, scary stuff.

What I want from "insurance" is just catastrophic coverage.  I'll pay for the runny nose treatment when I want it if I choose to get it.  The insurance and government involvement is destroying the ability of doctors to deliver quality care; at least that's what I hear from the doctor I live with who spends an insanely high percentage of her day not delivering true health care at all.

My Mom had some pretty bad experiences with an HMO back then. She was a retired government worker and was given Kaiser Permanente. She'd be waiting there for hours to see her doctor,even with an appointment. They insisted on giving her a medicine she was allergic to then tried to convince us she'd never gone into Anaphalactic Shock(SP?). The doctors got more and more hard to understand because their accents were so heavy....then the last two weren't even licensed to practice medicine in this country. Nedless to say,we were beyond relief when she got regular insurance.

Reading the arguments, I basically feel like I'd need a multiple year long legal education to really have a true grasp of the issues.  I don't really like just admitting ignorance and moving on too often, but when it comes to supreme court legal decisions I often feel like this is what I have to do.  Looking to experts, they seem pretty divided actually, though I've noticed many apparently think it SHOULD be unconstitutional but don't think it WILL be ruled that way.  Found that interesting.


Well, I will say the poor and semi-poor are having their healthcare payments heavily subsidized.  Where do you think THAT money is coming from?

But in large measure I agree.  Sometimes I feel like what we're doing now is the worst of both worlds.  We have a profit motivated healthcare system, and government forcing us to get it.  I kind of like what Germany does, where the majority of the health care companies do compete but are FORCED to be non-profit.  Seems like a good idea. 

I will say I think it's morally wrong to have a company where at times the best interests of the company lie in letting people die or in other cases getting inferior treatment.  It just isn't right.  It's clear to me we need significant government regulation of health care regardless of whether it is private or not - and we do have that, so hey. 

I don't really know where I'm going with this, just that I'm not seeing any real solutions to the problem here.  I don't know if Obamacare will work.  I do know I haven't seen any worthwhile serious overhauls proposed that would keep the system as private as it previously was.  Anyone have any?

From an article in my local paper today:

"There are at least two ways to address this reality – which is, by the way, very much an issue involving interstate commerce, and hence a valid federal concern. One is to tax everyone – healthy and sick alike – and use the money raised to provide health coverage. That’s what Medicare and Medicaid do. The other is to require that everyone buy insurance, while aiding those for whom this is a financial hardship.

Are these fundamentally different approaches? Is requiring that people pay a tax that finances health coverage OK, while requiring that they purchase insurance is unconstitutional? It’s hard to see why – and it’s not just those of us without legal training who find the distinction strange. Here’s what Charles Fried – who was Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general – said in a recent interview with The Washington Post: “I’ve never understood why regulating by making people go buy something is somehow more intrusive than regulating by making them pay taxes and then giving it to them.”

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/04/03/2055237/lumping-health-care-and-broccoli.html#storylink=cpy"

Holy Cow, what idiot wrote THAT article?

Classic false dichotomy.

I'm scratching my head how this has GOT to be defined as an Interstate Commerce issue.  The only thing I can come up with is that part of the problem with the insurance industry is that we cannot shop across state lines to find competing, yet desirable, policies.

The big problem with that sentence is that the writer seems to be asserting that health care itself is legitimately a federal issue which is pure crap.

No one can, or should, FORCE me to get any care I don't want.  If I have a condition x, and want to die from it in my home, that's MY choice, butt-hole, not yours.

This dirty little secret no one on either side of the aisle is really talking about is that to the average doctor providing 'front line care,' very little of their time is spent on the delivery of care that is really needed.

I know a doctor and she spends a TON of time doing the following: advising parents in common sense issues ("my kid won't eat his vegetables, what can I do?"), filling out stupid forms for the school system because THEY cannot trust the parents to decide to keep the child home with a fever, doing paperwork to keep the bean counters, lawyers, insurance companies and feds happy, including HIPAA stuff that is more far-reaching than any "biased media report" EVER said would be a consequence of THAT law.

She sometimes sees 500 patients a month, of which roughly half are "sick" patients.  Of the sick visits, she estimates maybe 5% are really sick and need to be seen by a doctor.

The costs of health are spiraling upward, out of control, because the issuance of care has become a commodity and no one knows the real value of the services anymore.  My tetnus shot no longer costs me two chickens; it's "sign here, and give me your policy number."

Neither taxation nor forced purchase is going to stop that.

I was fairly shocked to find out recently sometimes that choice is, in fact, not yours.  I guess I shouldn't be, since suicide is illegal, but the idea of the government forcing me to live does rub me the wrong way.

Friend of mine's grandfather is in terrible health, wants to go home, but they can't afford hospice care.  They've basically said if he doesn't go into hospital rehab and does go home, they'll get a health inspection at the house which will not meet standards (they don't have any family members that can be a full-time care person, and their home is terribly suited for the care of someone who is bed ridden) - and that he'll eventually almost certainly get forced into a government care center.