tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post4222691553106408576..comments2024-03-28T09:25:14.792-05:00Comments on Althouse: I have to take a 3rd shot at Larry Tribe's op-ed: That big word "choice."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28031053854954175022023-01-07T11:29:07.155-06:002023-01-07T11:29:07.155-06:00Thanks for sharing needful content and keep more.....Thanks for sharing needful content and keep more.. <br /><a href="https://srislawyer.com/dui-lawyer-halifax-va-halifax-dui-va/" rel="nofollow">Halifax DUI VA</a><br /><a href="https://srislawyer.com/abogado-dui-halifax-va-halifax-dui-va/" rel="nofollow">Abogado DUI Halifax VA</a><br /><a href="https://srislawyer.com/abogado-dui-halifax-va-halifax-dui-va/" rel="nofollow">alifax DUI VAH</a><br /><br />almanzolucas8https://www.blogger.com/profile/14086775988244531598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6782326137959353942013-01-06T05:30:23.916-06:002013-01-06T05:30:23.916-06:00I didn’t and don’t suspect Hillary of faking healt...I didn’t and don’t suspect Hillary of faking health problems to avoid testifying, and I almost wrote about those accusations. However, Althouse is still right, and Parker’s indignation is laughable. <br /><a href="http://phlebotomytrainingpro.net/colorado/" rel="nofollow">phlebotomy training in CO</a>phlebotomisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05064342768057730274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-22093726782146527442011-02-15T15:02:33.758-06:002011-02-15T15:02:33.758-06:00just a short question here...I keep hearing the re...just a short question here...I keep hearing the retort about 'freeloaders' expecting 'others' to pick up the tab when they get ill. Right? That's one of the central arguments being kicked around here, yes?<br /><br />Who says the public has to pick up the tab?<br /><br />No one has a constitution right - IMHO - to free medical care. <br /><br />My family went years without insurance, by choice. I was an independent contractor (a computer programmer) with 16+ years of prior experience working in the Insurance Industy. I knew the actuarial odds as well as, or better than, anyone.<br /><br />Even with my wife having M.S., kids, et al, we made the 'choice' to self pay - because it was cheaper by far.<br /><br />And yeah, you would not believe the discounts you can get from your local GP or hospital if you offer to pay cash...<br /><br />Freedom includes having to live with the consequences of your choices. If you choose to go without Insurance then you may end up having to ask strangers to help pay for your spouse's chemotherapy...that's life.<br /><br />When I 'chose' to go without Insurance, I accepted the responsability of that choice.<br /><br />Don't bloody well call me a 'Free Rider'.<br /><br />For every health care service we received, we paid for.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15470923656225604620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87901797969818276552011-02-10T14:27:45.902-06:002011-02-10T14:27:45.902-06:00I was just about to post a comment on your first T...I was just about to post a comment on your first Tribe post about how the abortion issue ties into the ObamaCare litigation, but you beat me to it. I think it would be positively delicious if some clever lawyer argued that substantive due process in general, and the right to privacy in particular, prevents the government from requiring its citizens to purchase health insurance. After all, if the right to privacy can form the basis for a woman's right to choose not to continue a pregnancy, then surely it can form the basis for an individual's right to choose not to buy health insurance, no? It makes me smile when I think of RBG, Sotomayor, etc. squirming while they try to work their way around that one (though it would doubtless cause some difficulty for Scalia et al. as well).<br /><br />Incidentally, did anybody else read the Tribe piece as basically one long supplication? "Barack, old buddy, old pal, puh-LEEEEEZE appoint me to the next opening on SCOTUS!" Pathetic.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13868907606710507998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-43463168812118949692011-02-10T08:07:26.841-06:002011-02-10T08:07:26.841-06:00You are way ahead of me. I'm not willing to ac...You are way ahead of me. I'm not willing to accede to health care being a "right". If anything is a "right", then when you have it and I don't, the state may take it from you to give to me. Provide emergency services? Yes. But head colds are not emergencies. I have heard of a hospital in Colorado which paid to have a uniformed, off-duty policeman in the waiting room. Cut way down on illegals waiting for "emergency" health care. <br /><br />Why do bad things happen to good people? They just do, and we can't prevent it. That's another discussion. We can not protect everybody from everything. Giving "emergency" care is one thing, giving routine care is another. You want to be a grown up? Pay for your health care. <br /><br />Yes, national defense is a shared expense. But one reason our schools are producing such poorly indicated masses is because they are socialized, and free from competition. The Post office isn't much better, and Amtrack regularly has financial problems. <br /><br />If food is a right, then when I have and you don't, you can take my food from me.Milwaukeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14830345164697669429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26707398165061047532011-02-10T06:36:40.854-06:002011-02-10T06:36:40.854-06:00From some of the comments I guess I am not making ...From some of the comments I guess I am not making my point clearly, and I apologize for that. Medical emergencies, either in a hospital emergency room or "on the street" do not allow time to determine who can pay for medical care either by insurance or with personal asseets. If some level of health care is a right to all members of our society, than in fariness all should contribute to the total cost of that level of health care. The amount of each contribution has to be determined some way. Just as the amount we each pay for the expense of national defense, education subsidies, etc. is determiend. If health care is not a right than we are choosing to let people die for a lack of that care. Right now society requires thru state law that emergency services and hospitals to provide medical care in emergencies. Formerly all taxpayers paid thru state subsidies for any system shortfall. The former system of subsidy, and attempted legal collection of individual medical debt is recognized by most of us as grossly ineffcient and unfair. The former regualtilons allowing insurance companies to decide on a cost basis who gets insurance and who doesn't is obviously grossly unfair at times and effectivly often shifts the cost burden to the state and than to the taxpayer. The new system atempts to more directly and fairly distribute those aggregate costs and assure each of use what the majority of us think is a right, some level of medical care. I hope there is a better way, but so far no one seems to have one. As a society with a representative government we give up the individual right to decide which rights we will all have. Society does that as a whole. We give up the individual right to decide which costs for those rights we as individuals will pay for, as well as which governement programs we will individually support and pay for. I cannot choose to not pay for farm subsidy costs but choose to pay for education subsidies. There are only two issues to debate: is health care a right, if it is than what is the most efficient, effective, cost controlling way to pay for that right. Any other issues are either not germane to the health care debate or minor to this debate.jcradinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09370513275393874073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87562320558241518302011-02-10T00:07:38.296-06:002011-02-10T00:07:38.296-06:00Here's another angle I'd like to mention. ...Here's another angle I'd like to mention. <br /><br />In the context of the rules requiring insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, and to not price based on risk, not buying health insurance ISN'T a decision to free-ride. It is a decision not to subsidize other people's health care. <br /><br />If you're a low risk person, your premium prices will be inflated well beyond your expected cost. So it makes sound financial sense to save your own money and self-insure. No free-riding involved.Theresa Kleinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14532154221001083837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76347048283890160822011-02-09T11:39:11.707-06:002011-02-09T11:39:11.707-06:00Interesting discussion in this thread. What it co...Interesting discussion in this thread. What it comes down to is that the key argument against ObamaCare is that, in order to uphold the individual mandate, the Commerce Clause (with or without the Necessary and Proper Clause) has to be read as giving Congress unlimited power over the economy, broadly construed. Lopez doesn't make sense on that reading, but it fits with Raich. The larger problem is that it construes the Constitution to achieve a result (unlimited federal power) that all of the Framers rejected as their intent. <br /><br />Ann's distinction between "choice" and "activity" is tangential to that. Instead, it relates to how a limit (or lack thereof) to Congressional power under the Commerce Clause (again, with or with the N & P Clause) can be reconciled with prior decisions, as well as Constitutional text and history. That is important, probably not "monumentally important," but mostly relates to how a decision will be explained after it is reached. <br /><br />Whatever decision the SCOTUS ultimately delivers, you know already that the majority will claim that its result was compelled by prior decisions, etc.; and the dissent will say the same thing as to its conclusions. Neither will be particularly accurate or candid on that score.Richard Dolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12735773524374061429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-65299164737800760682011-02-09T11:25:26.394-06:002011-02-09T11:25:26.394-06:00So the implication is that anyone without insuranc...So the implication is that anyone without insurance is a free loader.<br /><br />It's a poor sign when the liberals think of others as irresponsible proloteriats (who need to be led). <br /><br />The lefties are so good at collecting and giving away others' money it doesn't occur to them that many people outside their bubble really are responsible. <br /><br />That's why there are payment plans one can work out. And do.JALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15503869597362866878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-27590393664509361672011-02-09T08:13:47.704-06:002011-02-09T08:13:47.704-06:00Tribe says "This conscious choice carries ser...Tribe says "This conscious choice carries serious economic consequences for the national health care market, which makes it a proper subject for federal regulation."<br /><br />Logical extension: Tax people on profits they might have earned, hold them responsible for things they might have said, and prosecute them for crimes they might commit.Biographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14592009105297144693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-75007947698268818702011-02-09T05:25:01.183-06:002011-02-09T05:25:01.183-06:00John from the statistics I have seen, and personal...John from the statistics I have seen, and personal involvement in the finance industry, approximately 50% of personal bankruptcies are a result of medical bills, which do not get paid. I know people in the collection business, it is a long, messy, and inefficeint way for health care service providers to cover their costs. Your second comment, I apologise if I do not understand. Before the current law, newborn infants with medical issues were often declaerd to have "pre-existing conditions" and denied their parents insurance coverage. The current law does nto allow anyone who can afford insurance to forego it without paying a penalty, that is the way people are prevented from gaming the system as you suggest. As I said, please someone give us a better policy, which is also politically viable.jcradinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09370513275393874073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34171291056413894942011-02-09T05:10:32.133-06:002011-02-09T05:10:32.133-06:00It's important to distinguish "choice&quo...It's important to distinguish "choice" from "activity" like this.<br /><br />Two more bits about Dr. Tribe's hypothetical about someone who can afford health insurance but tries to free-ride using the ER:<br /><br />(1) If this would-be free rider can afford health insurance, then he probably won't be a free rider. He'll get a bill for services from the hospital that he will be expected to pay. His wages could be garnished, he could lose his credit rating, and so on.<br /><br />(2) By making it law that insurance cover pre-existing conditions, the PPACA has made it more likely that folk try to free ride, as they can wait until they need care to pay merely a premium rather than a full ER bill (assuming they are willing to attempt to avoid the tax penalties in the law).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12592294311091786871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40491653910920611702011-02-09T04:56:16.884-06:002011-02-09T04:56:16.884-06:00I appreciate your narrow focus on government power...I appreciate your narrow focus on government power versus individual liberty. I did share your position, during the 2008 primamry season I much favored Candidate Obama's position of voluntary health insurance vs Candidate Clinton's postion of mandatory participation. However the issue we as a nation are struggling to resolve is whether medical treatment is ever a right. Now states require hospitals which get public funds to treat all who enter an emergency room. Emergency Services must treat and transport to hsopitals accident victims without verifying their ability to pay for those medical services. Again public funds sometimes cover those costs. Your narrow focus is entirely besides the major question we face, and does nothing to address this major public policy issue. Leave those who cannot prove ability to pay (insurance or a large bank account) to die by the roadside, or provide medical care to all as needed and cobble together adhoc, ineffcient systems to pay for that care. The answer that those who can afford insurance either by tax or penalty must support our health care system is the most equitable solution I have seen. Please followup your current column with other alternatives, I really would like to see a better alternative.jcradinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09370513275393874073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28586767992785711322011-02-09T01:03:50.075-06:002011-02-09T01:03:50.075-06:00Tribe ignores two points about people not carrying...Tribe ignores two points about people not carrying the amount of insurance required by Obamacare. First, he already admitted that this group will pay more in insurance than they will need. That is why the insurance companies need them. Second, this group is not the poor. It is made up of people who are making enough money that they do not qualify for aid under Obamacare. They would be paying hundreds each month in insurance premiums. That would cover a lot of emergency room bills.<br /><br />You have not mentioned Tribe's assertion that the government's power to tax covers Obamacare. Can the federal government really tax someone for not buying a commercial product?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15559608539292903404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-33498078183523754202011-02-09T00:43:40.617-06:002011-02-09T00:43:40.617-06:00The argument made by opponents is that the federal...<i>The argument made by opponents is that the federal government's authority under the commerce clause does not extend to the choice not to purchase health care. Mr. Tribe and many others point out that this choice is an economic one, that its regulation is necessary to achieve other constitutional purposes, and therefor Congress is within its to authority for the same reason that many such laws have been upheld in the past</i>.<br /><br />By that analysis, all decisions are, essentially, economic, because they have some impact on the economy, and, therefore, there is nothing that cannot be justified under the Commerce Clause (which we know to be false). <br /><br />And, yes, you are buying into Tribe's switch from activity/inactivity to choices, which was the topic here. But, by ignoring the activity/inactivity dichotomy, as discussed by two Federal Judges to far, you are begging or avoiding the question raised by those judges, as did Tribe.<br /><i><br />By contrast, the constitutional right to an abortion is not premised on the federal government's lack of authority under the commerce clause. Congress surely has the power to regulate medical procedures such as abortion. But Congress's ability to restrict abortions is nevertheless protected by a limitation on that power, which is the right to privacy</i>. <br /><br />Ok, I give up. Why wouldn't the right to not participate in the health care system, or the health insurance market, also be protected by the right to privacy? The government is, essentially, mandating participation in those markets, even if it contravenes the religious and/or moral beliefs of those being forced to participate. <br /><br />Indeed, I would suggest that the right to refuse to participate is even more essential to ordered liberty than the right to kill one's unborn child. After all, the Declaration of Independence was premised on the fact that men "<i>are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness</i>". Both liberty and the pursuit of happiness are directly affected by the government forcing citizens to participate in certain activities. <br /><br /><i>So, in both cases, Congress has the power under the commerce and necessary and proper clauses to regulate individual choices, but in the case of abortion that power is checked by a countervailing constitutional principle, and in the case of health insurance, no such countervailing principle exists</i>.<br /><br />Again, as with Tribe, you assume several things that have been rejected by the last two judges who have ruled on this subject. One is that the necessary and proper clause essentially allows anything that Congress wishes it do enable. Thus, as noted above, by tying some action or another to the Commerce Clause, pretty much any law or power by the government can be justified by boot-strapping it with the necessary and proper clause.<br /><br />But, as with Tribe, you failed to even address this subject, but rather, blithely skipped over it, assuming that it was irrelevant.Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-84291786875463755732011-02-09T00:30:36.416-06:002011-02-09T00:30:36.416-06:00"The right to be let alone is the underlying ..."The right to be let alone is the underlying principle of the Constitution's Bill of Rights."<br />Erwin Griswold - (Dean, Harvard Law School - 1960) <br /><br />"The makers of our Constitution sought to protect Americans.... They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." <br />-- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis - Dissent, Olmstead v. U.S. (1928) <br /><br />How is making up Constitutional powers beyond those enumerated made valid from flowery word-smithy?<br /><br />Its not, inferring federal government can regulate that which is not specifically mentioned, is wrong and adverse to the entire intent of the document. <br /><br />Proper and necessary cannot include anything that may be termed personal choice unless of course government can send the police to take you to the Dr. in handcuffs because you missed an appointment. <br /><br />You can't use two different intents, one that forces government out of a personal choice and another that allows authority to regulate personal choices.Speakuphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03760108378055134780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83745158343033479622011-02-08T23:54:48.951-06:002011-02-08T23:54:48.951-06:00This post is based on a fundamental misunderstandi...This post is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. The right to choose whether to have an abortion is based on an entirely different principle than the right to decline health care that is being sought by opponents of the health insurance mandate. <br /><br />The argument made by opponents is that the federal government's authority under the commerce clause does not extend to the choice not to purchase health care. Mr. Tribe and many others point out that this choice is an economic one, that its regulation is necessary to achieve other constitutional purposes, and therefor Congress is within its to authority for the same reason that many such laws have been upheld in the past.<br /><br />By contrast, the constitutional right to an abortion is not premised on the federal government's lack of authority under the commerce clause. Congress surely has the power to regulate medical procedures such as abortion. But Congress's ability to restrict abortions is nevertheless protected by a limitation on that power, which is the right to privacy. <br /><br />So, in both cases, Congress has the power under the commerce and necessary and proper clauses to regulate individual choices, but in the case of abortion that power is checked by a countervailing constitutional principle, and in the case of health insurance, no such countervailing principle exists.DREAM Togetherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11547976992856905005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-43099432000152100552011-02-08T23:40:43.065-06:002011-02-08T23:40:43.065-06:00@TosaGuy
Go RedMen...! U are REALLY REALLY sma...@TosaGuy<br /><br />Go RedMen...! U are REALLY REALLY smart, mah man.<br /><br />"If that is the case, then I guess all the female folks clammering about keeping Gov't hands off their bodies probably shouldn't support this interpretation of the Commerce Clause."<br /><br />You are prescient and <i>GO PACK GO...!</i>dave in bocahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10164227301361227792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28385994242018379752011-02-08T22:28:28.356-06:002011-02-08T22:28:28.356-06:00Gloria Steinem:
The authority of any governing in...Gloria Steinem: <br />The authority of any governing institution must stop at its citizen's skin.<br /><br />---<br /><br />Libs need to make up their minds how they're going to act, does the government not have the right to decide whether you have the right to choose what happens to your body or does the government have the right to decide whats best for the government and that includes your body. <br /><br />Our Constitution can't go both ways.Speakuphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03760108378055134780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8482594306274064692011-02-08T20:21:06.542-06:002011-02-08T20:21:06.542-06:00Trooper I agree with you on holding back the attac...Trooper I agree with you on holding back the attack. But as I called the Pack by three points, I think that I will call this argument for Tribe considering that he has experience arguing before the Court vs the professor who has none.roesch-voltairehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07802616989806761662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39652370062501848912011-02-08T19:09:33.357-06:002011-02-08T19:09:33.357-06:00this is tyranny pure and simple. we have to fight ...this is tyranny pure and simple. we have to fight it. organize a sit-in.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205752419540502278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-81802730304625002282011-02-08T18:58:15.434-06:002011-02-08T18:58:15.434-06:00If the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate...If the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate "choice," then I have a couple of questions ...<br /><br />Assume four companies, A, B, C, and D, provide a legal product in a legal manner, and that their prices are comparable.<br /><br />* Under the CC, does Congress have the power to mandate that the public buy that product only from company D?<br /><br />An example: It's been claimed that under the concepts used to justify ObamaCare, Congress would have the power to compel a citizen to buy broccoli ... or to buy a GM car. Would it then also have the power to prohibit a citizen from buying a Ford?<br /><br />* Does Congress have the power to levy a tax on people who buy the product from company B to the tune of ten times the cost of the product, but not tax people who buy it from companies A, C, and D? <br /><br />If I buy a Ford and my next-door neighbor buys a Chevy, could Congress hit me with $200,000 in additional tax but leave my neighbor untaxed?<br /><br />Really, I'm curious about this "choice" business, and what's allowed and not allowed in its name.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-63320043346148229172011-02-08T18:55:14.081-06:002011-02-08T18:55:14.081-06:00Just think about the terrible, commerce-affecting ...Just think about the terrible, commerce-affecting choices we are making when we choose to not eat broccoli. Clearly the government should be regulating those kinds of choices also.<br /><br />And what about when we choose to purchase a car from a company that is not owned by the government? Shouldn't the government have legislate how we make choices in that area as well?<br /><br />Or how about when we do business with a company that is not headed by a friend of the president? Seems like that choice is sure to influence interstate commerce.lucidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05307229879782942196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16589024813063554172011-02-08T18:27:17.203-06:002011-02-08T18:27:17.203-06:00Beautifully thought and said, all three posts. A p...Beautifully thought and said, all three posts. A pleasure to read, some of the the finest thinking to be found on the blogs.lucidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05307229879782942196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83170392053776814812011-02-08T18:18:41.796-06:002011-02-08T18:18:41.796-06:00Joe said:
Furthermore, anyone who buys insurance ...<i>Joe said:<br /><br />Furthermore, anyone who buys insurance and has expenses that exceed their premiums are, by Tribe's definition, getting a "free ride."</i><br /><br />I don't know if that is true.<br /><br />But, What about someone with a pre-existing condition who can now get "insurance" to cover that condition.<br /><br />Aren't they getting a "free ride"?mockmookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09556321312603101101noreply@blogger.com