[jjbrr]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-04, 11:37, said:

I read of a situation in, I think, Kentucky where a rural area was provided fire protections service on a subscription basis by the nearest city. A homeowner chose not to subscribe, his house caught fire, the fire department responded, checked that no one's life was at risk, and then calmly stood by while the house burned to the ground, protecting the houses of their nearby subscribers.

Sounded appropriate to me.

TN in 2010 I assume you're thinking of.

[ldrews]

 jjbrr, on 2017-December-04, 11:44, said:

TN in 2010 I assume you're thinking of.

Very well could be. Thanks.

[PassedOut]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-04, 11:37, said:

I read of a situation in, I think, Kentucky where a rural area was provided fire protections service on a subscription basis by the nearest city. A homeowner chose not to subscribe, his house caught fire, the fire department responded, checked that no one's life was at risk, and then calmly stood by while the house burned to the ground, protecting the houses of their nearby subscribers.

Sounded appropriate to me.

But since Reagan signed EMTALA in 1986, it's not lawful for emergency rooms to turn away the medical freeloaders, whether or not that sounds appropriate to you.

[ldrews]

 PassedOut, on 2017-December-04, 12:14, said:

But since Reagan signed EMTALA in 1986, it's not lawful for emergency rooms to turn away the medical freeloaders, whether or not that sounds appropriate to you.

I wasn't talking about hospitals, was I?

So what would you suggest we do about medical freeloaders? From a personal economic point of view, shouldn't we all become medical freeloaders?

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-04, 12:37, said:

From a personal economic point of view, shouldn't we all become medical freeloaders?

"Personal Economic Point of View" isn't a relevant consideration

[PassedOut]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-04, 12:37, said:

I wasn't talking about hospitals, was I?

So what would you suggest we do about medical freeloaders?

Retain the mandate.

[kenberg]

 PassedOut, on 2017-December-04, 12:14, said:

But since Reagan signed EMTALA in 1986, it's not lawful for emergency rooms to turn away the medical freeloaders, whether or not that sounds appropriate to you.

I think that emergency treatment at emergency rooms is only the tip of the iceberg. What are we prepared, as a society, to do about seriously ill uninsured people who need a great deal of help over a sustained period? This is where the really big bucks.go. I do not in fact know the answer to this. I don't have an answer.

I would not want, in the closing years of my lie, to bring the family financed into ruin. At some point I would choose to die. I believe in recognizing when it is over. Of course if you can send the bill to the insurance company, or to the government, that changes the calculation some. I still think it is good to recognize when life is done, but the calculation changes. Dogs and people are different, sure, but we spent several thousand dollarsi n the closing years of the life of our Black Lab. There are just so many things that now can be done. Unimaginable with the Springer Spaniel I had as a child. She got old, she died.

The ACA, including of course the mandate, was perhaps not the best solution, but it was some sort of first try. Now we are back to square one, maybe barely at the entry point to square one. I think we should ask the senators who passed this just what they think the answers are. They have managed the destructive part. And now?

[Winstonm]

The next step in health care will be a single payer in the U.S.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Dowd has shot down any speculation that his client obstructed justice, saying Trump is president and therefore above the law.

The “President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case,” Dowd told Axios in an interview published Monday.

An argument that Nixon made after his resignation.

It is surprising, too, because Article II explicitly states that the president is the head of the executive branch. That single branch can have no powers greater than the other branches, due to their equality. To argue that the president cannot commit a crime is to place the executive branch in a superior position to the courts, which is a position that is not supported by the constitution.

[blackshoe]

 Winstonm, on 2017-December-04, 14:14, said:

The next step in health care will be a single payer in the U.S.

I nominate Hillary Clinton.

[blackshoe]

 Winstonm, on 2017-December-04, 14:16, said:

An argument that Nixon made after his resignation.

It is surprising, too, because Article II explicitly states that the president is the head of the executive branch. That single branch can have no powers greater than the other branches, due to their equality. To argue that the president cannot commit a crime is to place the executive branch in a superior position to the courts, which is a position that is not supported by the constitution.

I don't remember the exact case, but I do remember a president, Jackson I think, saying of the Chief Justice of the United States "Mr. Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." I wonder what happened next there. :-)

[cherdano]

 blackshoe, on 2017-December-04, 15:31, said:

I don't remember the exact case, but I do remember a president, Jackson I think, saying of the Chief Justice of the United States "Mr. Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." I wonder what happened next there. :-)

Very funny. Haha the executive could just commit a coup and ignore the judiciary. Haha.
Why don't we just go straight to a military dictatorship?

[jjbrr]

 cherdano, on 2017-December-04, 15:44, said:

Very funny. Haha the executive could just commit a coup and ignore the judiciary. Haha.
Why don't we just go straight to a military dictatorship?

Millenials support military dictatorships haha.

[ldrews]

 PassedOut, on 2017-December-04, 13:36, said:

Retain the mandate.

We know that obesity is one of the major contributors to ill health, and therefore the cost of health care. Perhaps we should also have a mandate that everyone has to be on a government approved diet or pay a fine. That would certainly reduce health costs and contribute to everyone being healthier, don't you think?

Now that the health care mandate has set a precedent, I bet that we could come up with a number of mandates that would improve our society. All designed by our Congress and enforced by the full power of the federal government. What do you think? Anyone have some suggestions?

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2017-December-04, 15:27, said:

I nominate Hillary Clinton.

Bernie Sanders might have a better chance, but then I personally believe that there are plenty of Republicans who understand that single payer is not more costly than our current system of insurance-based healthcare. I think John Kasich is mentally flexible enough to understand the argument in favor of single payer. I'm sure there are many others - you just won't see them on Fox and Friends.

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2017-December-04, 15:31, said:

I don't remember the exact case, but I do remember a president, Jackson I think, saying of the Chief Justice of the United States "Mr. Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." I wonder what happened next there. :-)

It's an old conundrum: either we agree to grant supremacy to the equality of the rule of law or we find ourselves ruled. The problem as I see it is that many people want it both ways - depending on if they agree with the courts' decisions.

[PassedOut]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-04, 16:34, said:

Now that the health care mandate has set a precedent, I bet that we could come up with a number of mandates that would improve our society. All designed by our Congress and enforced by the full power of the federal government. What do you think? Anyone have some suggestions?

It's your idea, so what do you propose?

[ldrews]

 PassedOut, on 2017-December-04, 18:32, said:

It's your idea, so what do you propose?

Nice evasion.

Does this mean that you are open/supportive of the idea?

[kenberg]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-04, 16:34, said:

Now that the health care mandate has set a precedent, I bet that we could come up with a number of mandates that would improve our society. All designed by our Congress and enforced by the full power of the federal government. What do you think? Anyone have some suggestions?

Becky (my wife) and I often joke when watching supervised kids that our parents probably would have been jailed as unfit parents for the lack of control that they exerted. Anyone anywhere near my age would say the same. But setting out rules for behavior, for children or adults, is not really in the same ballpark as the mandate. There is some overlap, my health insurance has some rewards, or encouragement or something, for some sort of healthy practices. I am vague on details because I don't much bother. But I think the mandate addresses the following: We could just say if you get cancer, or if you get ALS, or some other serious ailment you are simply on your own. Or we could say that society will try to address such matters collectively, but then we mandate that everyone chip in. It's not as simple as that, this whole health care mess is not simple, but I think this is part of it.

[rmnka447]

 gwnn, on 2017-December-02, 07:21, said:

WTF? Handwritten changes in the last minute, a 479-page document released about an hour before the vote happens. Is this for real?

https://www.vox.com/...blican-tax-bill

Almost as real as a 1500 page document outlining legislation about which the Speaker of the House famously said "we've got to pass it so we can find out what's in it." BTW, that act was also passed without opposition support or participation either.