Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Try the British Health Service
If you don’t like how you’re being treated in the American health system, go to England, where health service is free—if you can get any at all. Some, like Obama’s new “health czar, think it’s a good system. "The families of 1,200 patients who died prematurely in recent years while in the care of NHS doctors and nurses might beg to differ. A shocking 2010 report by Queen's Counsel Robert Francis found that NHS patients were left unattended "for unacceptable amounts of time" in urine- and feces-soaked beds. At one NHS hospital, four members of the same family -- including a newborn girl -- died within 18 months of each other because of medical blunders. ‘There can no longer be any excuse for denying the enormity of what occurred,’ Francis noted, harshly criticizing ‘a lack of care and mistreatment which have no place in any civilized and well-run health service’." And that’s after they got to the front of a long line of people needing treatment. This is what Obama and his accomplices want for us. (The Washington Examiner)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Canada has that problem. I have friends there who wait months and months to see a doctor, even for acute issues. That is what Obamacare will bring us.
Canada has that sort of healthcare issue. I have friends in Canada who wait months and months to see a doctor, even for acute issues. That is what Obamacare will bring to us (but not to HIM).
Anon: I can't argue with that. His health care swindle is already having its effect. McDonald's is getting rid of their health care for their employees because the cost has become prohibitive. they deny it, but it IS happening. And not just at McDonald's.
I really resent being forced to buy health insurance or be fined a penalty. I have been watching the state's lawsuits and just found this:
"Foes of Health Care Law Lose Key Court Ruling
Associated Press
October 08, 2010
A federal judge on Thursday upheld the authority of the federal government to require everyone to have health insurance, dealing a setback to groups seeking to block the new national health care plan.
The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in Michigan by a Christian legal group and four people who claimed lawmakers exceeded their power under the Constitution's commerce clause, which authorizes Congress to regulate trade.
But Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit said the mandate to get insurance by 2014 and the financial penalty for skipping coverage are legal. He said Congress was trying to lower the overall cost of insurance by requiring participation.
"Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times," the judge said.
"As a result, the most costly individuals would be in the insurance system and the least costly would be outside it," Steeh said. "In turn, this would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums."
Julian Davis Mortenson, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. Supreme Court law clerk, said the decision affects only the parties in the lawsuit and is not binding on any other federal judges hearing challenges to the law.
Nonetheless, the Justice Department hailed Steeh's opinion as the first time a "court has considered the merits of any challenge to this law."
"The court found that the minimum coverage provision of the statute was a reasonable means for Congress to take in reforming our health care system," spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said. "The department will continue to vigorously defend this law in ongoing litigation."
Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which filed the case, said he would take it to a federal appeals court in Cincinnati.
The four individual plaintiffs said they do not have private insurance and object to being forced to buy it. They also fear that any financial penalty paid to the government would be used to pay for abortions.
In Florida, a federal judge is overseeing a lawsuit filed by 20 states. They, too, say the law is unconstitutional and claim it would force states to absorb higher Medicaid costs.
A decision on whether to dismiss the case is expected by Oct. 14, though the judge said last month that he would probably dismiss only parts of the complaint while letting others go to trial.
There is also a lawsuit pending in Virginia.
Randy Barnett, who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University, said Steeh's ruling could be cited by lawyers trying to persuade other judges.
"This is one judge's opinion. They'll read it," Barnett said. Steeh "accepted the government's argument, the same argument that's being made in front of other judges."
This statement, "The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in Michigan by a Christian legal group and four people who claimed lawmakers exceeded their power under the Constitution's commerce clause, which authorizes Congress to regulate trade" is like 'make-crazy talk'. In other words, it sounds like it is going to make sense, but then ZOING! Off it goes into ridiculous. Excuse me I AM NOT TRADE TO BE REGULATED!! This pisses me off because it cuts my freedom of choice off at the knees.
And this:
""Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times," the judge said." Well yes. It's called freedom of choice!
I really resent being forced to buy health insurance or be fined a penalty. I have been watching the state's lawsuits and just found this:
"Foes of Health Care Law Lose Key Court Ruling
Associated Press
October 08, 2010
A federal judge on Thursday upheld the authority of the federal government to require everyone to have health insurance, dealing a setback to groups seeking to block the new national health care plan.
The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in Michigan by a Christian legal group and four people who claimed lawmakers exceeded their power under the Constitution's commerce clause, which authorizes Congress to regulate trade.
But Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit said the mandate to get insurance by 2014 and the financial penalty for skipping coverage are legal. He said Congress was trying to lower the overall cost of insurance by requiring participation.
"Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times," the judge said.
"As a result, the most costly individuals would be in the insurance system and the least costly would be outside it," Steeh said. "In turn, this would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums."
Julian Davis Mortenson, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. Supreme Court law clerk, said the decision affects only the parties in the lawsuit and is not binding on any other federal judges hearing challenges to the law.
Nonetheless, the Justice Department hailed Steeh's opinion as the first time a "court has considered the merits of any challenge to this law."
"The court found that the minimum coverage provision of the statute was a reasonable means for Congress to take in reforming our health care system," spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said. "The department will continue to vigorously defend this law in ongoing litigation."
Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which filed the case, said he would take it to a federal appeals court in Cincinnati.
The four individual plaintiffs said they do not have private insurance and object to being forced to buy it. They also fear that any financial penalty paid to the government would be used to pay for abortions.
In Florida, a federal judge is overseeing a lawsuit filed by 20 states. They, too, say the law is unconstitutional and claim it would force states to absorb higher Medicaid costs.
A decision on whether to dismiss the case is expected by Oct. 14, though the judge said last month that he would probably dismiss only parts of the complaint while letting others go to trial.
There is also a lawsuit pending in Virginia.
Randy Barnett, who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University, said Steeh's ruling could be cited by lawyers trying to persuade other judges.
"This is one judge's opinion. They'll read it," Barnett said. Steeh "accepted the government's argument, the same argument that's being made in front of other judges."
This statement, "The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in Michigan by a Christian legal group and four people who claimed lawmakers exceeded their power under the Constitution's commerce clause, which authorizes Congress to regulate trade" is like 'make-crazy talk'. In other words, it sounds like it is going to make sense, but then ZOING! Off it goes into ridiculous. Excuse me I AM NOT TRADE TO BE REGULATED!! This pisses me off because it cuts my freedom of choice off at the knees.
And this:
""Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times," the judge said." Well yes. It's called freedom of choice!
I really resent being forced to buy health insurance or be fined a penalty. I have been watching the state's lawsuits and just found this:
"Foes of Health Care Law Lose Key Court Ruling
Associated Press
October 08, 2010
A federal judge on Thursday upheld the authority of the federal government to require everyone to have health insurance, dealing a setback to groups seeking to block the new national health care plan.
The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in Michigan by a Christian legal group and four people who claimed lawmakers exceeded their power under the Constitution's commerce clause, which authorizes Congress to regulate trade.
But Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit said the mandate to get insurance by 2014 and the financial penalty for skipping coverage are legal. He said Congress was trying to lower the overall cost of insurance by requiring participation.
"Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times," the judge said.
"As a result, the most costly individuals would be in the insurance system and the least costly would be outside it," Steeh said. "In turn, this would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums."
Julian Davis Mortenson, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. Supreme Court law clerk, said the decision affects only the parties in the lawsuit and is not binding on any other federal judges hearing challenges to the law.
Nonetheless, the Justice Department hailed Steeh's opinion as the first time a "court has considered the merits of any challenge to this law."
"The court found that the minimum coverage provision of the statute was a reasonable means for Congress to take in reforming our health care system," spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said. "The department will continue to vigorously defend this law in ongoing litigation."
Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which filed the case, said he would take it to a federal appeals court in Cincinnati.
The four individual plaintiffs said they do not have private insurance and object to being forced to buy it. They also fear that any financial penalty paid to the government would be used to pay for abortions.
In Florida, a federal judge is overseeing a lawsuit filed by 20 states. They, too, say the law is unconstitutional and claim it would force states to absorb higher Medicaid costs.
A decision on whether to dismiss the case is expected by Oct. 14, though the judge said last month that he would probably dismiss only parts of the complaint while letting others go to trial.
There is also a lawsuit pending in Virginia.
Randy Barnett, who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University, said Steeh's ruling could be cited by lawyers trying to persuade other judges.
"This is one judge's opinion. They'll read it," Barnett said. Steeh "accepted the government's argument, the same argument that's being made in front of other judges."
This statement, "The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in Michigan by a Christian legal group and four people who claimed lawmakers exceeded their power under the Constitution's commerce clause, which authorizes Congress to regulate trade" is like 'make-crazy talk'. In other words, it sounds like it is going to make sense, but then ZOING! Off it goes into ridiculous. Excuse me I AM NOT TRADE TO BE REGULATED!! This pisses me off because it cuts my freedom of choice off at the knees.
And this:
""Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times," the judge said." Well yes. It's called freedom of choice!
I really resent being forced to buy health insurance or be fined a penalty. I have been watching the state's lawsuits and just found this:
"Foes of Health Care Law Lose Key Court Ruling
Associated Press
October 08, 2010
A federal judge on Thursday upheld the authority of the federal government to require everyone to have health insurance, dealing a setback to groups seeking to block the new national health care plan.
The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in Michigan by a Christian legal group and four people who claimed lawmakers exceeded their power under the Constitution's commerce clause, which authorizes Congress to regulate trade.
But Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit said the mandate to get insurance by 2014 and the financial penalty for skipping coverage are legal. He said Congress was trying to lower the overall cost of insurance by requiring participation.
"Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times," the judge said.
"As a result, the most costly individuals would be in the insurance system and the least costly would be outside it," Steeh said. "In turn, this would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums."
Julian Davis Mortenson, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. Supreme Court law clerk, said the decision affects only the parties in the lawsuit and is not binding on any other federal judges hearing challenges to the law.
Nonetheless, the Justice Department hailed Steeh's opinion as the first time a "court has considered the merits of any challenge to this law."
"The court found that the minimum coverage provision of the statute was a reasonable means for Congress to take in reforming our health care system," spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said. "The department will continue to vigorously defend this law in ongoing litigation."
Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which filed the case, said he would take it to a federal appeals court in Cincinnati.
The four individual plaintiffs said they do not have private insurance and object to being forced to buy it. They also fear that any financial penalty paid to the government would be used to pay for abortions.
In Florida, a federal judge is overseeing a lawsuit filed by 20 states. They, too, say the law is unconstitutional and claim it would force states to absorb higher Medicaid costs.
A decision on whether to dismiss the case is expected by Oct. 14, though the judge said last month that he would probably dismiss only parts of the complaint while letting others go to trial.
There is also a lawsuit pending in Virginia.
Randy Barnett, who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University, said Steeh's ruling could be cited by lawyers trying to persuade other judges.
"This is one judge's opinion. They'll read it," Barnett said. Steeh "accepted the government's argument, the same argument that's being made in front of other judges."
This statement, "The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in Michigan by a Christian legal group and four people who claimed lawmakers exceeded their power under the Constitution's commerce clause, which authorizes Congress to regulate trade" is like 'make-crazy talk'. In other words, it sounds like it is going to make sense, but then ZOING! Off it goes into ridiculous. Excuse me I AM NOT TRADE TO BE REGULATED!! This pisses me off because it cuts my freedom of choice off at the knees.
And this:
""Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times," the judge said." Well yes. It's called freedom of choice!
Anon: I'm not surprised, with all the Obamacrats on the Supreme Courts. We're slowly becoming a dictatorship with Obama as the dictator.
Dic.. being the operative word!
Post a Comment