Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

Luckily for us, President Obama will make sure a law is passed which will reduce the long wait in emergency rooms and reduce the costs from E.R. visits vs. regular doctor appointments.

Don't hold your breath.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Radar

The wait for the E.R. wouldn't be so long if everyone could get cheap or free preventative care, but the insurance companies have prevented this so far. Luckily for us, President Obama will make sure a law is passed which will reduce the long wait in emergency rooms and reduce the costs from E.R. visits vs. regular doctor appointments.

So no one will break their arm if everyone can go get their temp and blood pressure checked, and a prescription for an acid blocker since you're here anyway, regularly? Awesome.

[Radar]

The people who stupidly claim that there are illegal immigrants in America might want to take a minute to actually read the Constitution. The Federal Government has absolutely no Constitutional authority to create or enforce immigration laws. This is reality. It's an indisputable fact.

Every immigrant who is in America, regardless of how they got here, what papers they do or don't have, and whether or not they checked in with the U.S. Government when they came, is here LEGALLY. Anyone who denies this is either uneducated or dishonest.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by jinx

So no one will break their arm if everyone can go get their temp and blood pressure checked, and a prescription for an acid blocker since you're here anyway, regularly? Awesome.

People will still break their arm and go to the E.R., but all of the dozens of people who are flooding emergency rooms due to easily preventable illnesses, won't be there. This will mean the wait will significantly decrease.

Was it that hard for you to figure out Jinx?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

The people who stupidly claim that there are illegal immigrants in America might want to take a minute to actually read the Constitution. The Federal Government has absolutely no Constitutional authority to create or enforce immigration laws. This is reality. It's an indisputable fact.

Every immigrant who is in America, regardless of how they got here, what papers they do or don't have, and whether or not they checked in with the U.S. Government when they came, is here LEGALLY. Anyone who denies this is either uneducated or dishonest.

false.

[Radar]

Wrong. As usual Merc.

Here's Proof that the U.S. Government has zero Constitutional authority to create or enforce immigration laws.

The U.S. Constitution was written by our founders to place strict limits on the powers of the federal government. It was made to specifically spell out what the Federal government had control over, and everything else was left to the states or the people assuming they granted the states a power that wasn't prohibited to them by the U.S. Constitution.


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution spells out exactly what the federal government is to accomplish, and the following 17 clauses describe which powers are granted to the government in order to accomplish those goals. There are specifically enumerated (listed) powers and none of them has anything to do with immigration. A few idiots will try to stretch the meaning of certain clauses to mean something it doesn't. A few commonly mentioned clauses that do not apply to immigration are...


The phrase "general welfare" (Preamble & Clause 1) - This does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever, but many have attempted to use this phrase to give the government Carte Blanche to create any laws or government programs they want when this goes against the very reason for creating the Constitution in the first place. The phrase "general welfare" at the time of our founders meant the ability to enjoy the blessings of a government that does not intrude on our daily lives but protects our right to live our lives in our own way as long as our actions do not physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.

The power to make laws concerning naturalization. (Clause 4) - This allows Congress to establish rules and procedures detailing how an immigrant can become a citizen, but grants the federal government no power over immigration.

The power to repel invading armies. (Clause 15) - Some idiots try to suggest that an influx of peaceful immigrants is an "invasion", but this goes against everything the founders said. This clause refers to armed invasions, not large numbers of immigrants. Otherwise the army would have been called out against the Irish, Italians, Russians, Greeks, Germans, Polish, English, French, etc.

The power to create all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the specific things enumerated (listed) in the Constitution. (Clause 18) - This clause doesn't grant the government the power to make any laws other than laws pertaining to the specific things listed in the Constitution. Congress is granted the authority to make whatever laws are necessary and proper for carrying out those specific things and nothing more.



The last one that people often try to take out of context or stretch to mean what they want it to mean rather than what it actually says is actually Article 1, Section 9, clause 1....


The power to regulate the importation and migration of slaves. (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1) - This was a compromise between the Northern and Southern states over the issue of slavery. It allowed the Southern states to continue importing slaves until 1808, but gave the government the power to charge a tariff or duty on each imported slave. This article only pertains to slaves and nobody else. Slaves are the only kind of people who are considered property. A duty or tariff is a tax on property.



Now that we've established that no part of the Constitution specifically grants or enumerates a power of the federal government to create or enforce any laws pertaining to immigration, we'll now look at the part of the Constitution that specifically prohibits the federal government from doing so.


The 9th and 10th amendments were written as catch-alls for the founders to limit the powers of the federal government. While they allowed the Constitution to be changed through an amendment, it cannot be changed any other way.


The 9th amendment states that the rights specifically listed and protected by the U.S. Constitution are not our only rights and can't be used to limit our other rights. In essence, this is saying that all power comes from the people and not from government.

The 10th amendment says that all powers and rights not specifically enumerated (listed) within the U.S. Constitution are RESERVED as powers of the states or rights of the people. This means that the federal government is PROHIBITED from taking part in or legislating over anything that isn't specifically listed in the Constitution. The founders wrote this to lock down the federal government and to strictly limit what activities it takes part in or legislates over. It clearly and specifically denies the federal government the ability to have "implied" powers.


Since immigration is not an enumerated power of the federal government, and the federal government is prohibited from doing anything that isn't listed, the federal government has zero authority to create or enforce immigration laws and all laws made to the contrary are in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. CASE CLOSED.




I will list the actual text of each part of the Constitution I mentioned.

From Article 1, Section 8....

Clause 1 - The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Clause 4 - To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;


Clause 15 - To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


Clause 18 - To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


Article 9, Section 1, Clause 1 - The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.


The 9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 10th Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

There you have it. Clearly you've never actually read or understood the U.S. Constitution so this lesson was far over due.

You'll note that nowhere in this post did I give an "interpretation" of the Constitution. I don't "interpret" the Constitution because it's not vague or ambiguous and it's not written in Swahili. It's written in simple English and it means what it says; no more; no less.

I've supplied verifiable and indisputable proof to back up what I say. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing the part of the Constitution where immigration is listed as an enumerated power of the Federal government. If you can't, I'm correct and you are not.

[Clodfobble]

Jinx, can you explain the over-medication thing to me? I totally agree that over-medication in lieu of actual treatment is a problem that is already ridiculously widespread... but how will the reforms being proposed make it worse?

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Radar

People will still break their arm and go to the E.R., but all of the dozens of people who are flooding emergency rooms due to easily preventable illnesses, won't be there. This will mean the wait will significantly decrease.

Was it that hard for you to figure out Jinx?

What are the easily preventable diseases and how will they be prevented with well visits?

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Radar

I've supplied verifiable and indisputable proof to back up what I say. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing the part of the Constitution where immigration is listed as an enumerated power of the Federal government. If you can't, I'm correct and you are not.

Originally Posted by jinx

Yes, and America does not extend west of the Mississippi, we've been over this.

Did you find that part of the constitution that gave the govt the authority to make the louisiana purchase yet? No? Didn't think so.

How about the part of the constitution that gives the govt the authority to mandate health insurance? Or the right to take money from some people but not others to pay for it?

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Jinx, can you explain the over-medication thing to me? I totally agree that over-medication in lieu of actual treatment is a problem that is already ridiculously widespread... but how will the reforms being proposed make it worse?

Just by adding that many more consumers and limiting profit in other areas. If doctors need to see even more patients than they do now every day to break even, they'll be spending less actual time, less actual effort providing care. But if people are handed a prescription, they'll feel like something was accomplished.

Plus there are the perks that come with writing prescriptions, which may become even more important than they are now with the possibility of reduced financial incentives in general.

The interesting factor is that many medical students, when asked, express the belief that pharmaceutical industry contact does not have any influence on them. However social science literature suggests that it would be surprising if doctors were not influenced by small and large services and tokens of appreciation. (8) Gifts create relationships: they create a subconscious indebtedness and the feeling of a need to reciprocate. (9) This reciprocation is well documented in the form of increased prescribing of the heavily marketed drugs, even if those drugs are no more efficacious than other generics in that particular therapeutic area and do not display cost-effectiveness.

I'm not opposed to reform, it's sorely needed, I just want it to actually accomplish something other the feel-good "well, at least it sucks equally for everyone" model.

[classicman]

I'm not opposed to reform, it's sorely needed, I just want it to actually accomplish something other the feel-good "well, at least it sucks equally for everyone" model.[/quote]

[classicman]

Is it in the original constitution that Alaska is a state? or Hawaii for that matter? If not, wouldn't that invalidate any politicians currently in office? Aren't you therefore agreeing with those right wing whacko extremists... Just askin ...

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by jinx

Just by adding that many more consumers and limiting profit in other areas. If doctors need to see even more patients than they do now every day to break even, they'll be spending less actual time, less actual effort providing care. But if people are handed a prescription, they'll feel like something was accomplished.

I have a hard time with this, because on the one hand some doctors are saying they can barely break even with all these Medicare patients, and on the other hand it's widely accepted that doctors in general, and specialists even moreso, make more money in this country than in any other. The few doctors I know personally do make very good money, and work very convenient office hours as well.

I don't think adding everyone to an insurance program will result in more consumers--these people already exist, and they will still go to the doctor when they get sick, just like they do now. They'll just be paying into the system instead of holding out and hoping for the best. Like my father, for example: he has never had health insurance, and it's worked out okay for him so far, but now that he's getting older medical problems are becoming more and more likely with each passing year. He has a nest egg that he's gambling will be enough to cover whatever crops up between now and when Medicare kicks in for him. But basic research shows he doesn't even have 1/2 the money he would need to cover a major hospitalization for a heart problem (which he already has hints of,) or treatment for colon cancer (which runs in the family.) If it happens, I don't care what his libertarian ideals are, when push comes to shove he will not smile and say, "Oh well, I can't afford it, let me die." And I guarantee you the doctors wouldn't allow it even if he did. He will get treatment, and other people will pay for it. He is just one of many people out there who I believe should be required to carry health insurance, because we all have to work within the same system, whatever it is, or it will fail. We could go with a totally libertarian system just as easily, but as a society we'd have to overcome our fear of just letting people die, and that's never going to happen.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

Wrong. As usual Merc.

Sorry I trust these guys over a Hot Dog sales person in Florida:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigration

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by jinx

To say this suggests that you KNOW for CERTAIN that proposed heath care reform will be successful and beneficial - and you don't.

Well, of course it is just my opinion, just as it is the opinion of many that reform won't work. I would say that most can agree that the current system isn't working and is unsustainable for our future without some kind of correction being made. I think, though, that it is important that current discussions over the way to correct it not get sidetracked and distorted by unrelated issues, including illegal immigrants. ("Lie!", etc.) The current reform plan doesn't concern them. We pay for them through distributed costs now and, if the bill is passed, we will continue to pay for them in the future. No change. Anything affecting that would result from different legislation.

Originally Posted by Merc

I don't think anyone has stated that, only that it needs to be addressed.

It does, yes, but as stated no one is going to deny illegals emergency care with or without reform. The issue of illegals has to be tended to at a level above healthcare reform -- the only thing that could be done, realistically, involving healthcare is to permit them to be treated under the same plan. No one is going to turn them away, no one would dare to try to pass legislation requiring proof of citizenship at the doors of the ambulance or ER. Immigration reform is something else entirely.