The Declaration of Independence still wasn't made by the United States Government. It was made by the Continental Congress, which then ceased to exist.

This was quoted from our constitution, not teh declaration of independance. I';m sure MacBeth is equally irrelevant but since it isn't what I am quoting that does not matter.

Edit: Sorry - why are you quoting the second one? Why are we bringing up the power of Congress to make international treaties binding?
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:06, Mon 19 Apr 2010.

Because the idea presented that anything not granted to the congress specifically in the constitution is applied to the states as per teh 10th amendment is heavilly affected by this. For example if teh US signs an international environmental treaty- bam it is now a power of the federal government to regulate this. If they sign a UN document that all countries should recognize oh say from the Universal Declaration of human rights:

then it is now effectively a part of the constitution.

Or equally:


Or perhaps most apprapo:


Yes, we signed the international agreement, it is now effetively part of the constitution, and has been since 1966.

1) Declaration of Human Rights is not a treaty.

2) Can the Federal government sign treaties prescribing behaviors the government itself does not have the power to mandate? I mean, I have the power to sign contracts. Can I sign contracts that you now have to follow?

The difference is that you are not in a position of authority over me. You signing a conract to abridge my freedom would be like the US government signing an agreement with Germany to limit what Canada can do. The limitations inherant to the Federal government by teh constitution that are limited by teh constitution are also excepted *by teh constitution* in the case of a treaty requiring that power. In short yes it is there in teh constitution in black and well really light brown, that yes if teh Federal government signs a treaty or *other international agreement* that the act of doing so empowers the federal goevernment with teh authority to carry out the terms of that agreement. It isn't a question, it is written into the document in article 6.

Yes.  Treaties trump the Constitution.  I'll post more in the US Politics thread.

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (US Signed and Ratified, Includes a Right to Health

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (US is Signitary)
Includes right to Adequete Housing and Health Care

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women  (US Signed and Ratified)
Includes a mandate to take steps to eliminate all forms of discrimination practiced against women by individuals, organizations, and enterprises.

Ok these three we are at least signees to if not fully ratified and all affect a right to health care and health care equality in one form or another. The disabled get a right to health (period), the ICESCR we did sign so at least has some force under US law if not on par with the US Consitution we have a commitment to its principles and the last one can make a case disparities in health care is a violation when one gender gets lower rates. Combined one would have a hard time saying we have no obligations under international law regarding health care. If one adds in the UN Declaration of Human Rights which is considered international customary law as in similar to common law as we understand it it just adds to the package.

And lets be frank the US Constitution is well over 200 years old and the Federal Courts have through layered interpretation of laws of the US Constitution. Article III gives the powers of the Federal Courts and I don't see an issue with their interpreting the US Constitution its noted it can -to COntroversies where the United States is party- which is their version of the "Necessary and proper" clause in my view. So when they granted certain powers to government or make judgements to the language of the US Consitution as it pertains to the government and people they can do so. So the 10th Amendment is mute if the government decides to tax or use a tax for encouraging behaviors the government wishes to encourage so why not discourage.

Example if two married adults make a child there are tax breaks for that and they get money for each child in a tax deduction. If you donate money to a charity you can deduct that to encourage donations of money. You go to school there is a tax break to encourage further education. etc. etc. etc.

So what is the issue if they opt to tax for not having health care its the same thing its to encourage companies and private citizens that can afford to get some health care OR pay a tax penalty. Encouraging of behavior that is upheld in the other way by the Federal Courts is the use to support health care mandates any better or worse. No.

I think we're moving off the subject of health care -- it'll make it harder when I'm trying to find a thread again if I'm gone for a few days.

If this continues along the lines of discussing the Constitution in regards to Health Care, it would be beneficial to move the discussion over to the Constitution Thread I just created :)

Well this is a matter of the US Consittution people are making a case the new law is unconstitutional and not supported. I make the case the courts decide matters of constitutional application and its in their powers listed under Article III, Section 2 so that is proper. And this will be decided it seems at that branch of the government.

I'm just making the case that the mandate and the tax penalty is no different than other tax uses to encourage behaviour the government wishes to encourage whether its having a child or getting further education or getting a health care plan if one can afford to. The courts supported this taxing power many, many times so its not like its unconstitutional as an option.

I think the new law and its mandate is a health care issue so fits here.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:45, Tue 20 Apr 2010.

Yes, the new law and Mandate are fine.
--------------------------------------

I think that, laws and economic systems set aside for now, we should first try to help people help themselves, and then failing that help them.

Getting back a little into economics, however, I don't like the way insurance works; instead of innovating to make the costs cheaper, insurance has people putting in money to pay for today's prices.  As a result, the motivation to make things like health-care and cars cheaper to replace/provide is put off.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:50, Tue 20 Apr 2010.

the biggest problem with insurance IMO is that if there is no way to get the liability off the books and get back to collecting premiums it is more profitable to drop the patient with some flimsy reasoning that they can't affoard a lawyer to contest because they are overwhelmed with medical bills and don't have the time if they could find a lawyer because they are sick.
Republicans can talk about government death panels but realisticly the insurance companies already have them.

I have to comment and I do this to ask Republicans and those that don't like the new law, how are poor people supposed to get health care and I mean regular care for chronic conditions. To prevent them from getting so sick they need to go to the hospital for mandatory care.

I don't see any Republican ideas for this that would work. The Democrats expanded Medicaid at least that is one way in practice that works for the working poor and those in need earning $14,400 or less using current Federal poverty level considerations.

A "poor person" who has a chronic medical condition which will lead to more serious medical conditions if not regularly treated.  Please give an example.

As it now stands, the new "universal health care" only mandates that a person must do what they should have done originally before acquiring the chronic condition -- buy health care.

It also provides a subsidy for those with lower incomes to help them buy the insurance, which makes it possible for people to do what they perhaps should have done before, but couldn't.

Chronic conditions are still going to be heck of expensive -- virtually no insurance companies take the route that a little maintenance now will pay off in the long run.  Virtually all would rather wait until the need is pretty serious.  So, in that regard, nothing's really going to change.  And that subsidy is coming at the expense of other programs that would pay for this (and most of the subsidy will be gone by 2014).

So we need to make maintenance programs either mandatory or cheap enough that there's little excuse not to partake in it.  Maybe giving Gyms the sort of Local Government support that Museums and Science Centers get, maybe?

I think you misunderstand what ruby is talking about here.  essentially, with insurance you can go to a doctor, without, you have to wait until you can go to the emergency room.  I think that makes a non-trivial difference (if for no other reason than you're no longer lengthening the queue in the emergency room at very least).  And, if what you say is true, then shouldn't have bought insurance in the first place, because it won't do them any good.


Do you have a source for this (that the subsidy will stop after 2014)?  Did you mean most of those subsidies don't actually start until 2014?

Out of curiosity, what would your ideal solution to the health care situation be?

No, you can still go to the emergency room if you don't have an emergency, although you may not get the treatment that you want.  I think we need actual examples to discuss, though.

No, I mean that the subsidies start now but most will end in 2014, which is why Virginia's lawsuit against the new healthcare bill technically has no merit now because there's a personal subsidy so people aren't going to be required to pay until 2014, so there's technically no damages or anything contravening Virgina law until 2014.  Virginia is hoping that the Supreme Court will decide to hear the case now anyway, because otherwise the law will be quite firmly entrenched and changing or stopping it will be far more serious.  The small business subsidies also start now and will be stepped down every year until they run out in 2014.  I thought it was kind of a sneaky way to ensure that the true cost of the bill won't be obviously apparent until the bill is so firmly entrenched that it can't really be changed or revoked.

"And, if what you say is true, then shouldn't have bought insurance in the first place, because it won't do them any good."
What?  I didn't quite understand that.  Health insurance is not a magical panacea that makes all medical care easily affordable.  It doesn't even prevent a person from possibly having to sell their house and move into a small rental in order to pay their medical bills.  It just helps ease the medical burden and can possibly save your butt financially.

Do you think that's the proper/best way to go about things?


Again, do you have a source for that?  That's not my understanding of the law.  The mandate doesn't start until 2014, and the main subsidies don't start until that point either, in my understanding.



You said that poor people with chronic conditions should have bought insurance in the first place.  But then you also said that once they have insurance, "nothing is really going to change."  If having insurance isn't going to change their situation, why should they have had it in the first place?  Are they better off with insurance, or not?

Also, out of curiosity, what would your ideal solution to the health care situation be?

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...ice_confirms_vi.html

WARNING: Blog, take with grain of salt.

But if it's true, apparently the State made it illegal to have the government require the purchase of health insurance.

If I recall though, Federal trumps State, though maybe they know something I don't.

Yeah, I know that Virginia is suing because it made a law saying the government can't require people to buy insurance (which, technically, this one doesn't--you just miss out on the big tax break if you don't--but that effectively what it does.  not sure how courts would/should deal with that, though I'm pretty sure states can't just veto federal laws they don't like).  I was asking if Bart had a source for his claim that the subsidies for low-income people to buy insurance would end in 2014.

Depends on how that given republican feels about levels of government interference.

I think most Republicans can agree with silveroak that enforcing government regulations to prevent people from getting kicked off their insurance plan when it's financially convenient to the insurance company is a good idea. Or they would if silveroak were a republican, anyway ;P


Now the question is, should the federal government be in the health insurance business, and to what level. Given your feelings on that, I can see three different answers:

1) Do what people have always done. Fall back on family, your employer, your church and your community. This has always been the traditional response for people in times of need.

2) Get your state government to create the welfare insurance program you have in mind.

3) Create a federal insurance voucher system permitting people to shop around for the insurance company that best matches their needs (permitting free market competition), but make sure the person isn't ever handed cash, and the government is never given the duties of running an insurance company.

Number 3 is actually a part of the new law to a degree, excepting that tehy are also putting everyone on the government plan together to get a good group rate.