Questions about Health Care Reform--things you don't know

Post Reply New Topic

I can't keep up with your lies Silas and you would ignore anything I said anyway. Best of luck.

Does government have the right to force you to join weight watchers?

We've been over these arguments. It's up to the courts now.

Of 13 district court decisions so far, only 2 have ruled it unconstitutional partly or fully.

Of 1 appeals court decision so far, PPACA was ruled Constitutional. With the opinion being written by a Republican Bush appointee who had clerked for Scalia.

Again I ask the question.

Does Government have the right to force you to join weight watchers?


Does Government have the right to sterilize you because any children you have will likely have the disability you have?

Government does not have the right, though they did sterlize people in the past. North Carolina being the last state to give it up in the 1960s.

Unfortunately, you don't appear to be from North Carolina and are too young to have benefited.

And you wonder why I have such a low opinion of liberals.

Projection?

Here's a conservative states-rights Republican appeals judge answering your question in his decision to support PPACA.

I doubt the judge is conservative, and to be frank you've essentially just said we are slaves to the Federal Government.

You're being Frank again? Frank Burns? Maybe. A ballpark frank? Maybe. Frank as in truthful and honest? Unlikely to ever happen.

As for your reading skills. I'll just leave that without comment.

No, you're not thinking things through, health insurance is forcing people to participate in commerce simply because they have a heartbeat. That means all the other examples are Constitutional for the public good.

The judge above gave you the standard counter-argument. That being that health care is unique for the reasons he stated. You may disagree but to just ignore it is kinda strange.

Do you feel that endless repetition pleases the lord? I don't get it.

Let me break this down for you, if Government is forcing everyone to have health insurance (ultimately leading to single payer), then they will have the right to order you to do whatever they want because tax money is going to pay for your health care and it affects the bottom line.

A perfect illustration of the "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

Here is another famous Slippery Slope claim:

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm

Then there is the Slippery Slope claim made here and elsewhere that talking creationism in schools would destroy science.

And - from quite a few years back - my colleague's Slippery Slope remark that if Pat Roberson were elected it would be the ultimate disaster.

It would not help in the promotion of the scientific mode of thought. The public schools do a p*ss poor job of teaching critical thinking independent of religious issues. Throwing in religion would only make a bad situation worse.

ruveyn

No, actually, they don't. I, and every citizen of every OECD nation other than the United States lives in a system with single payer, publicly funded health insurance.

None of our governments have banned smoking outright--notwithstanding the huge exposure that they face to treatment of respiratory and circulatory illnesses caused by smoking. None of our governments have banned alcohol, notwithstanding the huge exposure that they face relating to alcohol related disease and accident. None of our governments have banned fast food, salty snacks or desserts. There are no dealth panels.

When I am treating a patient covered by our provincial insurance program (or, indeed, any of the nine other Canadian provincial plans), it is I who makes the decision about what therapy is "medically necessary" (the trigger for medicare coverage). My patient, with my counsel and advice, is fully responsible for his own health care decisions.

But, when I am treating a patient who is privately insured I am often engaged in ongoing battles with insurers over what they will and will not cover.

Private insurers interfere in the doctor-patient relationship far more, and to a far greater extent, than the publicly funded insurance system in Canada does.