Democrats' Health Care bill has been passed - SCOTUS ruling update

[Danoff]

The best healthcare system would be the one in which the population was free of disease, where alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, ADHD, depression, breast cancer, indeed most cancers didn't exist. In this system, all that would be needed would be the medicine man to stitch up minor nicks and cuts and midwives to assist at birth. That was the system that existed in much of America before the appearance of white, European males.

"How can he be the one get cancer... when he's dead!"

No seriously, this is genius. If we all went back to living out of tents and dying at age 30 we'd never get cancer. And how can anyone be sick when even the smallest illness is fatal?

 

[Dotini]

Is it really true as Danoff says that tribal cultures are the ones with the most diseases? Did all ancient cultures have an average life span of only 30? Joey, HELP!

I had supposed that a good hunter-gatherer culture lived an idyllic life, worked only 3 hours a day, and lived to about the same age as us today.

 

[Omnis]

"How can he be the one get cancer... when he's dead!"

No seriously, this is genius. If we all went back to living out of tents and dying at age 30 we'd never get cancer. And how can anyone be sick when even the smallest illness is fatal?

Kumbaya.

 

[Dotini]

Kumbaya
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the song. For the town in Ecuador, see Cumbayá.

"Kumbaya" (also spelled "Kum Bay Ya" or "Kum ba yah"; literally "Come By Here") is a spiritual song from the 1930s. It enjoyed newfound popularity during the folk revival of the 1960s and became a standard campfire song in Scouting and other nature-appreciative organizations.

The song was originally associated with human and spiritual unity, closeness and compassion, and it still is, but more recently it is also cited or alluded to in satirical, sarcastic or even cynical ways that suggest blind or false moralizing, hypocrisy, or naively optimistic views of the world and human nature.[1]

 

[Duke]

I had supposed that a good hunter-gatherer culture lived an idyllic life, worked only 3 hours a day, and lived to about the same age as us today.

I wouldn't bet the agricultural land allocation on that. I wouldn't even bet a half-caff non-fat latte on it.

 

[A2K78]

I'm just curious, what would be a good healthcare system to you?

This question is meant first and foremost for the American members of this board.

This article is a good place to start


http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo176.html

As for what make a good healthcare system? Its quite obivous, one free from the meddling of government, that including pushing mandates.


FoolKiller, its nice to see more Rand/Ron Paul people like mysef

 

[Dotini]

I wouldn't bet the agricultural land allocation on that. I wouldn't even bet a half-caff non-fat latte on it.

Duke, thanks for your acknowledgment of my very weak point, and your apposite remark.

I wouldn't bet on it either. Sadly, the day of the hunter-gatherer is vanishing. As a retiree with paid-off property and habit of racing two-stroke karts, I'm thoroughly bought in to our troubled post-industrial civilization.

If you or any other GTPlanet member is ever in Seattle, I'll buy you that latte. In fact, I'd contribute a substantial amount to GTPlanet if I could do it by snail-mail and avoid paypal. I figure that at the end of the day we are brothers in what should be mutual support.

I came here expecting to receive a little roughing-up due to my noobie status and occasionally outre statements. I'm not disappointed.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Danoff]

I came here expecting to receive a little roughing-up due to my noobie status and occasionally outre statements. I'm not disappointed.

In that case...

Sadly, the day of the hunter-gatherer is vanishing.

Sadly? Nearly all of the advancements made by humanity can be traced back to killing the hunter-gathering lifestyle. Why do you think the Europeans were so much farther advanced than the native Americans when they got here? The natives were still getting killed by animals for crying out loud. I could not possibly wish for a lifestyle in which I hunted for survival while trying desperately not to get sick or killed in the process in place of the lifestyle I enjoy today. Medicine, pain killers!!, information, entertainment, specialization, air conditioning, bountiful food, leisure... give that up for the privilege of dodging teeth to get food? While hoping not to starve during the winter? I don't think so.

 

[Dotini]

I say sadly only because less than 1% of world's population are tribal hunter-gatherers, and they are shrinking rapidly. Clearly they are suffering and they are humans, so it is sad, if only to me. I'll not contradict your other remarks. I'm too weak at the moment.

I would ask any specialists what their opinion is of North American Indian population prior to the European immigration beginning with Columbus. I've done some reading and have seen estimates ranging from 20,000,000 to 50,000,000, depending on the particular era. I believe current estimates of this population has them rebounding to about 2,000,000.

 

[Joey D]

Sadly? Nearly all of the advancements made by humanity can be traced back to killing the hunter-gathering lifestyle. Why do you think the Europeans were so much farther advanced than the native Americans when they got here? The natives were still getting killed by animals for crying out loud. I could not possibly wish for a lifestyle in which I hunted for survival while trying desperately not to get sick or killed in the process in place of the lifestyle I enjoy today. Medicine, pain killers!!, information, entertainment, specialization, air conditioning, bountiful food, leisure... give that up for the privilege of dodging teeth to get food? While hoping not to starve during the winter? I don't think so.

What? When the Europeans got here they died in spades because they couldn't cope with anything at all. Opening any US history book will explain that.

Hunter-Gather societies weren't that bad, study any hunter-gather group and you'll see that their life wasn't always the way it is today. It worked, quite well, and people weren't always getting killed by animals or dying from sickness.

I don't even want to get into how off base some of the discussion is in here, it's like a whole bit pile of misinformation.

I would ask any specialists what their opinion is of North American Indian population prior to the European immigration beginning with Columbus. I've done some reading and have seen estimates ranging from 20,000,000 to 50,000,000, depending on the particular era. I believe current estimates of this population has them rebounding to about 2,000,000.

The Pre-Columbian era had about 50 million inhabitants in North and South America. I'm not sure solely about North America, if I remember I'll flip through one of my books when I get home to see if there is anything.

 

[Danoff]

I would ask any specialists what their opinion is of North American Indian population prior to the European immigration beginning with Columbus. I've done some reading and have seen estimates ranging from 20,000,000 to 50,000,000, depending on the particular era. I believe current estimates of this population has them rebounding to about 2,000,000.

What's your point? That they were technologically backward and lost a war?

What? When the Europeans got here they died in spades because they couldn't cope with anything at all. Opening any US history book will explain that.

What are you trying to say here? That the natives were more advanced that the Euros? That their hunter-gatherer society had led to all sorts of technological advances that enabled them to survive the cold weather that the Euros weren't expecting? Are you trying to refute my assertion that hunter-gatherer societies are a stagnant group that do nothing but try to survive by giving me evidence that they were more developed?

Because if that's what you're saying, you are so terribly wrong. I want you to think for a moment about the situation. Close your eyes, visualize it. Natives are sitting around the campfire smoking pot, worshiping rain gods, and sharpening the rocks that they use to hunt with while Europeans are charting the Atlantic ocean in a friggin ship! When the euros arrive.... HAVING CROSSED THE ATLANTIC OCEAN!!! they find out that they arrived too far north by not taking into account global weather patterns that we still can't fully grasp. So, by no fault of their own (how could they know), they died. But somehow, the hunter-gathering natives who ALSO knew nothing about global weather patterns get credit for simply not walking north into the snow?

Joey, stop for just a moment. Realize what you are saying. Take a deep breath, and accept that the Euros - the ones who crossed the friggin ocean - were more technologically advanced. That advancement eventually led to their ability to brutally, barbarically, slaughter the natives - but I'm not concerned with their use of their abilities, only that they had those abilities and that they could be used to provide a higher quality of living.

Hunter-Gather societies weren't that bad, study any hunter-gather group and you'll see that their life wasn't always the way it is today. It worked, quite well, and people weren't always getting killed by animals or dying from sickness.

Feel free to go back to that lifestyle. There are plenty of places on this earth where you can roam around with a tent on your back launching sharpened rocks into animals to try to accomplish the goal of not starving. I'll sit here in my comfortable chair trying not to eat the ridiculous amount of food I could buy with my pocket change because I'm worried about looking fat.

 

[Joey D]

I can't even be bothered with this nonsense, you are so off bases it isn't even funny. I honestly thought you were being sarcastic at first and that we could have a laugh over this, but apparently not and it's just sad. You are making so many incorrect assumptions, which I notice a lot from you, that I don't even know how to set the record straight. I guess I'll just put you back on my ignore list to make life easier so I don't have to view these ignorant statements.

Oh, and just for the record, the natives of America probably crossed the Pacific ocean or at least parts of it in canoes.

 

[Danoff]

I can't even be bothered with this nonsense, you are so off bases it isn't even funny. I honestly thought you were being sarcastic at first and that we could have a laugh over this, but apparently not and it's just sad. You are making so many incorrect assumptions, which I notice a lot from you, that I don't even know how to set the record straight. I guess I'll just put you back on my ignore list to make life easier so I don't have to view these ignorant statements.

Oh, and just for the record, the natives of America probably crossed the Pacific ocean or at least parts of it in canoes.

Holy ******* ****!

I see that I need to make this as simple as I possibly can.

In 1 hour I produce enough to clothe myself
In 0.5 hours I produce enough to feed myself for a day.
In 3 days I produce enough to house myself for a month.

Those simple basic necessities take infinitely longer as a hunter gatherer. How long does it take to make a teepee? How long does it take to make a leather loin cloth? How long does it take to hunt and gather not only the calories I need to stay alive for the day, but the additional calories needed to facilitate hunting, gathering, teepee making, and loin cloth tanning?

Fundamentally, that's the difference. Comparatively, I lift my little finger and provide myself everything I need and then some. And I don't worry about living a life of pain or misery if I happen to come down with a mild cough or break my foot.

It is BEYOND absurd that we're even having this conversation. I'm having a hard time imagining that ANYONE can twist their mind into the misguided notion that living a life of constant struggle is in any way superior to luxury we enjoy today - let alone two of them in this thread alone.

 

[Dotini]

Here's an interesting read about about a Pre-Columbian visit to North America by Europeans who built a mound and left a tablet.
http://thebiggeststudy.blogspot.com/2009/12/ready-or-not-here-we-come-off-course.html

My point about establishing some idea of their population was to understand how successful they may have been in adapting to their environment and maintaining sustainable lifeways.

It's absurd to suggest that they were all murdered by Europeans. Hitler and Stalin would be green with envy at such genocide! More likely they were cut down by disease, forced relocation, lack of access to resources, and the sort of cultural destruction that routinely comes about when primitive peoples are exposed to contact with more advanced civilizations. I know anthropologists have documented this. The Brookings Institution was commissioned by NASA back in the 60's to predict what might happen to our civilization if we were to come into contact with advanced alien civilization as a result of our pioneering space exploration activities back then. Their conclusion was that we would suffer a great setback much like that which befell all the others. That is one reason alien contact is such a delicate matter.

Respectfully,
Dotini

Unrelatd cool video:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...-spiral-blue-light-display-hovers-Norway.html

 

[Danoff]

It's absurd to suggest that they were all murdered by Europeans. Hitler and Stalin would be green with envy at such genocide! More likely they were cut down by disease, forced relocation, lack of access to resources, and the sort of cultural destruction that routinely comes about when primitive peoples are exposed to contact with more advanced civilizations.

Still trying to figure out what your point is.

 

[Dotini]

I'm sorry Danoff. I can see you're not doing terribly well. I'll get back in touch with you once Joey says you're okay.

 

[Danoff]

I'm sorry Danoff. I can see you're not doing terribly well. I'll get back in touch with you once Joey says you're okay.

Joey has done the intellectual equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling "lalalalalalalala". He's not coming back. I interpret your response as follows:

I don't have a point

 

[Joey D]

Joey has done the intellectual equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling "lalalalalalalala". He's not coming back. I interpret your response as follows:

And so have you, on numerous occasions, but whatever. In the future you can address all concerns about me to, well me (as I don't think Dotini really cares one way or another). I won't hold a gun to your head this time though .

 

[Northstar]

So the latest I heard is they are taking out the public option and making medicare kick in earlier. Isn't that kind of the opposite of what it's intended to do? Medicare is going to run out of money with the way it's currently set up, why make that happen faster making this whole thing a bigger problem down the road?


We are falling behind so fast in every category it's not even funny.

 

[Jetboy.]

Joey has done the intellectual equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling "lalalalalalalala". He's not coming back.

I'm sorry Joey but that's the funniest **** I've read all day. Not laughing at your expense, just the image.

...why make that happen faster making this whole thing a bigger problem down the road?..

Because the whole system is going to crap and most everyone is either too short-sighted or starting to not care.



Cheers,
Jetboy

 

[Duke]

Because the whole system is going to crap and most everyone is either too short-sighted or starting to not care politicians will do anything that will get them re-elected in the short term, and nobody ever got unelected for giving a lot of people "free" stuff.

Edited for clarity.

 

[niky]

Feel free to go back to that lifestyle. There are plenty of places on this earth where you can roam around with a tent on your back launching sharpened rocks into animals to try to accomplish the goal of not starving. I'll sit here in my comfortable chair trying not to eat the ridiculous amount of food I could buy with my pocket change because I'm worried about looking fat.

-

A hunter-gatherer's lifestyle may look idyllic, and easy... and, yes, being nomadic, they aren't subject to the same problems with epidemics that larger, agricultural societies with denser populations suffer.

But... they have less ability to cope with disaster, or said diseases, if they ever do arise. The most successful of these groups are those that live in very remote places, with little contact with outsiders and dry or arid conditions that help keep diseases at bay... whether they come from other animals or from the ever-present mosquitos, worms, flies, etcetera, that populate forested and jungle areas.

Some nomadic hunters have very long lifespans, yes... but some... don't. And as we're competing with them for land and resources, they're losing out... especially considering that even the remotest tribes can no longer avoid contact with the rest of the world, which means they get all the problems of a global culture (garbage, diseases, celebrites) without having the money to enjoy the benefits.

And there's one thing... if being a hunter-gatherer is so gosh-darn great, why do so many of their young pack up and move to towns and cities as soon as they can get out from under their parents watchful eyes?

 

[FoolKiller]

Here is an op-ed piece about how the bill currently attempts to reform the Constitution via the mandate.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11042

Bill 'Reforms' Constitution
by Robert A. Levy and Michael F. Cannon

The Democrats' health-care overhaul asserts for Congress a power that the framers of the Constitution never envisioned: the power to force Americans to purchase unwanted goods or services.

With all the hype, one might think the "public option" is the linchpin of the Democratic health plan. Yet Congress has created entitlements in the past, and enrollment in a public option would not be mandatory (at least not initially).

The legislation's centerpiece is really the "individual mandate" - an unprecedented legal requirement that Americans purchase health insurance under penalty of law. The mandate is nearly universal, and without it, as President Obama admitted to a joint session of Congress, the legislation would fall apart.

But is it constitutional? The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Does that power extend to behaviors, such as not purchasing health insurance, that are neither interstate nor commerce?

If you think the answer is a self-evident "no," then you haven't been following the Supreme Court over the past seven decades. Instead of serving as a shield against states that attempt to interfere with interstate commerce, the commerce power today has become a sword that the federal government wields in pursuit of a boundless array of socio-economic programs.

The Supreme Court has held that the power to regulate interstate commerce extends to trade within a single state if it has a substantial effect on interstate markets. Even noncommercial activities within a state can be restricted if they threaten to undercut federal regulation of interstate markets.

That's the framework into which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) shoehorned his health bill. What he came up with is a paper-thin pretense for asserting extra-constitutional powers.

First, Reid tried obfuscation. Tucked away in that 2,074-page bill is a citation of a 1944 Supreme Court ruling that deemed insurance to be interstate commerce. Reid conveniently omitted any reference to the McCarran-Ferguson Act passed the very next year, which gave states absolute authority to regulate health insurance.

That law's effect has been to bar individuals from purchasing health insurance across state lines. Accordingly, there is no interstate market to be affected, much less undercut.

Reid's second ploy was to pretend that forcing Americans to purchase a product that many of them do not want is integral to the regulation of our national health-care system. Perhaps so, but only if the Constitution's commerce clause, which was intended to eliminate state barriers to interstate trade, becomes the vehicle by which the federal government can compel people to engage in intrastate trade. Not even the Supreme Court's tortured commerce-clause jurisprudence goes that far.

Robert A. Levy is chairman of the board of the Cato Institute. Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
More by Robert A. LevyMore by Michael F. Cannon

If Congress were interested in using the commerce clause for its intended purpose, we would be debating the Health Care Choice Act, which would permit the interstate purchase of individual health policies. The Democrats, however, bottled up that bill in committee.

They would rather exploit the cartelization of health insurance in selected states to argue for a government-run insurance company. Never mind that a major reason for those cartels is the prohibition against purchasing insurance across state lines.

Finally, Reid would enforce this unconstitutional mandate with an unconstitutional tax. The Senate bill attaches a penalty for not complying with the mandate to the Internal Revenue Code. But the penalty is not based on income, so it's not an income tax. And it's not based on the value of the policy not purchased, so it's not an excise tax. Instead, the tax is a fixed amount based on family size. That means it's levied per person and therefore a "direct tax" under the Constitution, which requires that such taxes be apportioned among the states according to their population, as determined by the census.

The individual mandate would extend the dominion of the federal government to virtually all manner of human conduct - including the non-conduct of not buying health insurance - by establishing a federal police power that is authorized nowhere in the Constitution. Democrats will have legislated a new quasi-crime, and perhaps the sole offense in our history that can be committed only by people of a certain income, since those below the poverty line would be exempt from the mandate.

Congress' attempt to punish a non-act that harms no one is an intolerable affront to the Constitution, liberty, and personal autonomy. That shameful fact cannot be altered by calling it health-care reform.

I think that about sums it up. I am amazed at how little mention the mandate gets on both sides while the public option seems to be the sticking point. Without a public option a mandate just seems like a blatant hand out to insurance companies. The public option is bad primarily because it requires forced redistribution of wealth to work, but a mandate is bad because it requires forced purchases of services to nearly everyone.

I want to reiterate a point he made real quick though.

perhaps the sole offense in our history that can be committed only by people of a certain income, since those below the poverty line would be exempt from the mandate.

Combine that point with the redistribution of wealth targeted at the upper class in these proposals and all the rhetoric about greed being the root cause of the problem, and it sounds very much like class warfare is how this will be put through. Make a law that only effects incomes above a certain point, only directly tax those above a certain income for redistribution purposes, and blame those of a certain income for causing the problem to begin with.

 

[Danoff]

perhaps the sole offense in our history that can be committed only by people of a certain income, since those below the poverty line would be exempt from the mandate.

I do not understand the whole mandate thing. Presumably people who are well off can afford health insurance - or even to self-insure. If low-income people are excused, what's the point?

 

[FoolKiller]

I do not understand the whole mandate thing. Presumably people who are well off can afford health insurance - or even to self-insure. If low-income people are excused, what's the point?

Wealth redistribution. The plan doesn't work if those who can afford to not get insurance don't. It is also how you hide the lower-middle and middle class tax hike. They have no new tax, but they have to buy into a system that takes money made from them when they are healthy and uses it to cover others that can't pay as much.

So, by making it mandatory the president can technically keep his promise to only raise taxes on those in upper class tax brackets.

At the risk of people hating when you point out the obvious crime-like implications of government programs, it is a bait and switch scam.

 

[Dotini]

One in 70 males in the US is born with autism. 20 years ago the prevalence was about 1 in 5000 children.
http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20091218/autism-jumps-57percent-in-just-4-years

NO amount of after-the-fact health care matters here!! Autism is never cured. What's needed is to understand why this is happening, and to act with urgency to prevent it. What will it take for people to come to their senses? 100% of males born autistic?

It's currently completely unknown what the cause of autism is. Maybe it's genetic, maybe it's environmental. It would take an unconscionably cynical, selfish individual not to be concerned about this particular issue.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

Change the definitions enough and 100% of people are already Autistic Spectrum Disorder sufferers.

The rise in detection rates comes from changes in definition and a lack of personal responsibility - you can't have a naughty kid any more, he has to have a disorder that makes him behave as he does (the same thing happens with stupid children and dyslexia). These detract heavily from genuine sufferers of the disorders, who face mounting cynicism.


Incidentally, you may like to note that autism and Autistic Spectrum Disorders are not the same things. ASDs have a 5-fold higher rate than autism - about one in 300 - and four times as high in males as females - about one in 80. The article says autism, but continually refers to ASDs...

To say the causes of autism are "currently completely unknown" is also overstating the case. There's strong genetic evidence (it even has an OMIM number - something given to inherited traits!) and certain environmental influences are also implicated.

 

[Dotini]

I read that link. It's an insider's look into autism that greatly exceeds in depth anything published in the MSM. I noted with some alarm that European ancestry seems to be associated with the disorder. It's of some comfort that greater awareness and changes in diagnosis criteria account for some of the increase in incidence. It's interesting that autopsies and neuro-imaging consistently find cerebellar hypoplasia, which I interpret to be an underdelopment or maybe even a shortage of brain cells.

The article did not refer to environmental causes directly, but some of the studies of families strongly hinted at it, and so did you. Famine, can you expand a bit more on what environmental causes may be implicated, please?

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

The article did not refer to environmental causes directly, but some of the studies of families strongly hinted at it, and so did you. Famine, can you expand a bit more on what environmental causes may be implicated, please?

Nothing has been causally linked yet, but many carcinogenic/teratogenic substances - the usual culprits like lead, diesel particulates, heavy metals, bromides, organophosphates, phenols and benzene-based compounds, not to mention alcohol, narcotics and the all encompassing "stress" (drink, drugs & rock'n'roll) - have been implicated in autism, specifically when a child is exposed prenatally.

There was a spell a while back where a doctor implicated the childhood MMR vaccine, but he's currently under investigation for fabricating results. It's true that first diagnosis of autism typically occurs at about the same time as the vaccination is given, but there's no link beyond coincidence.


I should also add that another factor to increased detection is increased ability to detect - there are more genuine cases because we're better able to spot them.

 

[Dotini]

Thanks for that information, Famine. It puts the thing in perspective in a way that it could be addressed piecemeal, and with some hope for success.

I noticed in the linked article that studies indicate the marked increase in incidence began in the 70's. That could be a good clue!

My father died early of cerebellar hyperplasia, a wasting disorder of too many brain cells, as opposed to too few in autism. He was a petroleum geologist who specialized in using powerful radioactive field equipment to analyze well bore samples during drilling operations in West Texas. It's not hard to suspect that nuclear radiation may have had something to do with his disorder.

Some years ago, I looked at some tables showing rates of various cancers since WWII. It seems that in about 48 of the top 50 cancers, the rates skyrocketed beginning about the year 1950. More than a few of these rates were above the 500% mark. It is a curious coincidence that the natal disorder of autism began skyrocketing precisely one generation later in the '70's

Just as pure speculation, unsupported by any pretense at formal logic or medical expertise, it is tempting to speculate that the increase in general and specific forms of atomic radiation from manufacture, use in war, above ground testing and widespread use and accidents in labs and powerplants may have contributed to this problem.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/12/...s.html?cid=6a00d8357f3f2969e20120a7762e09970b
FYI: Here's a recent link to a website I found on the subject of autism.