tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post9128762701441573143..comments2023-11-27T02:17:22.859-06:00Comments on The LawDog Files: Ladies and gentlemen ...LawDoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05232684877582591461noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-50463718312413584472009-09-15T14:09:10.333-05:002009-09-15T14:09:10.333-05:00Amen, brother. I couldn't have said it better...Amen, brother. I couldn't have said it better. I've had it up to here with this crap. <br /><br />farmaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-32473403681461465152009-09-14T10:34:08.415-05:002009-09-14T10:34:08.415-05:00Lawdog,
For more information on how this violates...Lawdog,<br /><br />For more information on how this violates the Constitution, try the following:<br />http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/entries/general/the-truth-about-the-health-care-bills<br /><br />Rat BastardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-15348812351560521902009-09-03T16:55:21.785-05:002009-09-03T16:55:21.785-05:00If you don't want government run health care, ...If you don't want government run health care, then kindly refuse to participate in government run retirement - Social Security. While you're at it, make sure you don't enroll in Medicare too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-18415527462706454592009-08-31T09:37:42.194-05:002009-08-31T09:37:42.194-05:00The constituion does not say "provide for the...The constituion does not say "provide for the general welfare" but rather promote it. (We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.)Notice the "provide for the common defense." Only parasites want it the other way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-47631780295638288152009-08-30T08:31:11.174-05:002009-08-30T08:31:11.174-05:00Mikael wrote:
Finally remembered the disease'...Mikael wrote:<br /><br /><i>Finally remembered the disease's name: Heliobacter. She had it for _four decades_ </i><br /><br /><br />I hate to burst your bubble, but <i>Heliobacter pylori</i> is NOT some great and evil disease - it is a simple bacterium that was proven be an Australian researcher to cause some stomach & duodenal ulcers. According to sources I spent 5 minutes finding, as many as 50% of the population harbour the bacterium in their upper GI tract. <br /><br />Not finding it in your family member before it was even discovered is no great sin, and it is truly stretching to categorise that failure as indicative of poor medical care. <br /><br />I think you dissemble somewhat.Sendariushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13286039362709773644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-69049628619364636892009-08-29T01:26:41.120-05:002009-08-29T01:26:41.120-05:00Lawdog? Couldn't agree more.
AE? Sticks brea...Lawdog? Couldn't agree more.<br /><br />AE? Sticks break too easy. If you ask me nicely I'll lend you a length of 1/2" steel pipe.Da Curly Wolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07631427436506831892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-47973080486543342852009-08-28T11:37:35.431-05:002009-08-28T11:37:35.431-05:00Having been more or less in the health profession ...Having been more or less in the health profession for a number of years, I can say with perfect authority that many doctors tell indigent patients to go to the ER for EVERYTHING. <br />And they do: runny noses, hangnails, sprained ankles, you name it. <br />What's more, these people are frequently treated before the more serious injuries because the hospitals fear lawsuits brought by someone like the ACLU if they don't.<br />I have seen a boy, both eyes black, vomitting, fainting from at least a severe concussion, sit for hours in the ER while every Welfare layabout in the county was treated first.<br />My landlady's grandson, only a year old, was in the midst of a critical asthma attack when she took him to the ER about 8 pm. Six hours later, she brought him home, still untreated, and we dosed him with strong coffee and benadryl. He lived-that time.<br />In fact, the son of one of my friends died in the ER, having been shot by a mugger. He was there over 2 hours, untreated, and bled to death while illegal aliens, drug addicts, and other trash were treated first.<br />Of course, the parents sued, as well they should in this case, but the hospital managed to shove it off on the ER doctor-never mind that it was the hospital that set policy.<br />Needless to day, these people were respectable, employed, had insurance, and their presence in the ER was truly an emergency.<br />One hospital of my own knowledge had ordered the ER personnel to look for anyone of color and treat them first, on the theory that they were the most likely to sue if they didn't get immediate attention.<br />It ain't like t.v. folks, and believe me, it's going to get a lot, lot worse.<br />LawMomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-71997272567004751722009-08-28T09:24:06.948-05:002009-08-28T09:24:06.948-05:00Mikeal, you weren't listening. ERs are no lon...Mikeal, you weren't listening. ERs are no longer just for emergencies. Nor do you have to be in pain. Go over to Abulance Driver's blog and read about some of his patients.<br /><br />Everybody. Every. Single. Person. Going. To. The. ER. Will. Be. Seen. And if anything is found, treated. If the patient can't pay, the hospital, in many states, will attempt to get reimbursed via Mediaid from the state.<br /><br />Citizenship status, economic status, health status nor severity of health affliction is no bar for service. The patient will be seen and treated.<br /><br />Period.Crucishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15441911110953212619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-42425561565887806342009-08-28T07:55:15.436-05:002009-08-28T07:55:15.436-05:00PPS:
Finally remembered the disease's name: H...PPS:<br /><br />Finally remembered the disease's name: Heliobacter. She had it for _four decades_Mikaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04894602732468692375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-6282986825335232362009-08-28T07:50:11.861-05:002009-08-28T07:50:11.861-05:00PS: When she finally got that infection diagnosed,...PS: When she finally got that infection diagnosed, she had to spend a week in the hospital for the heavy duty antibiotics too.Mikaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04894602732468692375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-78813169521555879382009-08-28T07:48:09.400-05:002009-08-28T07:48:09.400-05:00Re: Crucis
No, you're quite wrong there. You ...Re: Crucis<br /><br />No, you're quite wrong there. You see, while her afflictions were painful, they weren't emergencies. Some of her problems stem from a disease she's had, undiagnosed, for about four decades(a sort of bowel infection generally only inflicting the malnurished, and treatable with a heavy regimen of antibiotics). She's got a stomach her doctor called the worst he's ever seen, with so much scar tissue.<br /><br />One operation was removing her gallblader, which was filled with gallstones, and I forget what the other one was, but both were non-emergency but quality of life improving. This means that even in the USA, it's by appointment surgeries, it's not handled by the ER.<br /><br />Also, even if they wouldn't be allowed to turn her away, she'd still have to foot the bill in the end, and likely end up in staggering amount of debt. It's not like american healthcare is FREE as you put it. This would be pretty close to a mortgage your house kind of thing, at least taken together.Mikaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04894602732468692375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-56290744095009989502009-08-27T23:39:00.241-05:002009-08-27T23:39:00.241-05:00I'm not disagreeing with LawDog's point he...I'm not disagreeing with LawDog's point here about the constitutionality of a managed health care system, but I think think this is a bit of a red herring and the horse has left the barn a long time ago (feel free to add any more relevant or not so relevant analogies).<br /><br />There are currently more government agencies and departments than you can throw a stick at. I'm not so sure how many would pass constitutional muster.<br /><br />I'm a Libertarian at heart. The fewer laws the better. I don't want someone telling me what I should do. I was raised to know how to fend for myself and to know how to survive without dependence on others.<br /><br />Unfortunately, there are just too many people eating temptation's apple and spoiling the barrel for the rest of us.outside_of_apexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-65490016774372638832009-08-27T20:03:20.026-05:002009-08-27T20:03:20.026-05:00There's no way the U.S. can afford to give eve...There's no way the U.S. can afford to give everyone healthcare. There will never be enough money and the ultimate result will be the reduction in services to compensate for the lack of money. All the political discourse and tooth gnashing will never change this fact. They will never be able to collect enough taxes, the money can't be borrowed and the drain on the private sector will destroy free commerce in the U.S. <br /><br />So, why am I mad? It's because the current systems of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt. The tens of trillions of dollars needed to keep these money pits in place will never be realized, so I'll be facing the shortages and loss of services when I reach retirement in the next 15 years. As the last of the baby boomers, I'll witness the demise of the confiscatory Ponzi schemes. The thought of another ridiculous entitlement program makes my blood boil. The thought that more of my money will be taken under the threat of incarceration to pay for another bureacracy galvanizes my into opposing any increase in the size of the government.Jonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-4078639712975627352009-08-27T14:42:15.585-05:002009-08-27T14:42:15.585-05:00I never stated that the Federalist Papers carried ...I never stated that the Federalist Papers carried the authority of law.<br />To make such a comparison is asinine.<br /><br />However, being that James Madison co-authored the Constitution, which DOES have the force of law, and seeing that he also authored parts of the Federalist Papers which explained to the people what the Constitution would mean to them, it is a simple deduction of logic to believe they should be looked at as a magnifying glass for what the Constitution's writers intended.<br /><br />Simply because you wish to negate their meaning doesn't negate the fact that an author of the Constitution directly opposes your view of that clause.<br /><br />Deal with it. The "general welfare" clause is NOT an enumeration of power, and does not grant authority for national health care. Period!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14017507452082084066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-83553250118372815972009-08-27T12:39:20.602-05:002009-08-27T12:39:20.602-05:00RE:The Federalist Papers.
When interpreting the C...RE:The Federalist Papers.<br /><br />When interpreting the Constitution there are 3 ways it is generally done.<br /><br />1)Strict construction : The words mean exactly what they say, nothing more and nothing less.<br /><br />2)Original intent : What did they mean when they wrote it. In this case, you look at the surrounding evidence.<br /><br />3)What do we want it to mean. Essentially, if it doesn't fit your desires make something up.<br /><br />When people start talking about the Federalist Papers they are making an Original Intent argument. That is particularly useful in this case as the arguments in favor of the Commerce Clause and General Welfare allowing the government essentially unfettered power are largely a combination of type 2 and 3 arguements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-14002887483742319242009-08-27T12:28:04.293-05:002009-08-27T12:28:04.293-05:00"To all those stating the general welfare cla..."To all those stating the general welfare clause as a potential loophole, or outright gift for national health care, may I direct your attention to the Federalist Papers."<br /><br />Direct us to where the states agreed that the Federalist Papers have the force of law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-75357880785012038102009-08-27T12:27:04.549-05:002009-08-27T12:27:04.549-05:00Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay ...Section. 8.<br /><br />The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and <b>provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States</b>; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-57926896179379953762009-08-27T12:09:54.025-05:002009-08-27T12:09:54.025-05:00Dave:
Stop evading the question, Dave.
I'll ...Dave:<br /><br />Stop evading the question, Dave.<br /><br />I'll rephrase it to make it a bit more difficult to avoid:<br /><br />If this system being proposed is so good, then why are congress-critters and tradeunionists insisting that their privileged healthcare systems be exempt?<br /><br />Are they too good for peasant-care?Kristophrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08370888276707569365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-32242907403521955842009-08-27T10:51:41.781-05:002009-08-27T10:51:41.781-05:00Mikael, if your mother had/would be living in the ...Mikael, if your mother had/would be living in the US, she can go to any ER and be treated for FREE.<br /><br />It's the law. Hospitals cannot turn away anyone for lack of payment.<br /><br />There is absolutely no need for this massive nationalization of healthcare other than politics. Anyone, who needs and/or wants healthcare in the US today, can get it. Anyone saying otherwise is a LIAR.Crucishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15441911110953212619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-85473485097320206492009-08-27T08:13:42.383-05:002009-08-27T08:13:42.383-05:00Dave, two final points from me, and I hope you'...Dave, two final points from me, and I hope you'll hang around long enough to see them:<br /><br />1) Regarding "so, your government does not administer your fire trucks, textbooks or parklands?" -- the Founders, like most sensible people, understood that some services (like police and emergency response) can only be effectively provided by a government. That isn't socialism, it's good old-fashioned common sense. Note, for example, that the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to create "Post Offices and Post Roads." The Constitution attempted (and for the most part succeeded) in creating a system where the federal government is permitted to do only those things that <i>must</i> be done by a national-level government. <br /><br />2) regarding the 10th Amendment and the "general welfare" clause: you can't use one part of the Constitution to overrule another, unless the language specifically says "this part replaces and supersedes that part," as with the repeal of Prohibition or the direct election of senators. By this principle, you can't say that "the general welfare clause renders the 10th Amendment moot." You have to strike some sort of balance between the two.wolfwalkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-44028457794949134182009-08-27T06:56:00.347-05:002009-08-27T06:56:00.347-05:00RE: General Welfare and Commerce Clauses
Just bec...RE: General Welfare and Commerce Clauses<br /><br />Just because we as a society have in the past ignored and trampled the very laws we founded this country on, is no excuse or justification for continued trampling of our laws.<br /><br />To say that the General Welfare clause provides all the authorization congress needs to do pretty much anything it wants as long as it can claim it's "for the children" is to presume that the founding fathers made the entire rest of section 8 completely redundant, and didn't really mean all that stuff they said about "congress shall make no law", oh and never mind those 9th and 10th amendments, we really didn't mean those either, just editorial notes you know?<br /><br />Same with the interstate commerce clause and its abuses.<br /><br />RE: Fire departments, police, and schools<br /><br />DIscounting for a moment the horrible federal DoE, each of these is an example of something provided by the state or the town or the people directly, all of which are perfectly valid under the constitution (again see Amendments 9 and 10). This design is intentional, the founding fathers understood that smaller chunks of government are more manageable and better serve the interests of the people rather than the interests of the politicians, so they specifically limited federal power. We continue to ignore that design at our own peril.<br /><br />Lastly, something I think escapes a good number of people from Europe when they look at these sorts of conflicts we have here in the state, recall that the entirety of England is roughly the same size as the state of North Carolina. Even larger countries are still smaller than some of our states. Now, Europeans have started to get a taste of this with EU regulations and such, but if you live in Europe, as yourself if you would trust the people of a different country to adequately manage and provide for your healthcare system. Do you think from their seat 4 or 5 countries away that those people would be able to adequately determine what resources you need and where they should go? This is what the people here deal with. Federal healthcare mandates is something akin to the EU deciding all of Europe will have the healthcare system of the UK, or Germany instead of being allowed to choose what works best for them.tmoneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-20726365327076330362009-08-27T02:49:57.588-05:002009-08-27T02:49:57.588-05:00"As for constitutional standing, there is not..."As for constitutional standing, there is nothing expressly commanding them to do it, but nothing prohibiting them either."<br /><br />Amendments 9 and 10 - if it isn't specifically permitted to the Federal government elsewhere in the Constitution, these two deny it.<br /><br />The problem is that the Supreme Court decided about 70 years ago that the Commerce Clause essentially allows everything by changing the test to (essentially) "Could it theoretically have some sort of economic impact? If so, then it is acceptable"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-15695609086738379802009-08-26T23:51:05.687-05:002009-08-26T23:51:05.687-05:00TRUE EXPLANATION OF "THE GENERAL WELFARE"...<b>TRUE EXPLANATION OF "THE GENERAL WELFARE" CLAUSE:</b><br />To all those stating the "general welfare" clause as a potential loophole, or outright gift for national health care, may I direct your attention to the Federalist Papers. Specifically, #41.<br />In it, you will find that James Madison, the father of the Constitution, strikes down the idea that "providing... for the general welfare" is a power in and of itself.<br />It most certainly is not!<br /><br />Instead, the "general welfare" is to be provided for by following and executing the enumerated powers given to congress in the succeeding text following it.<br />As Madison stated:<br />"For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."<br /><br />The "general welfare" clause is <b>NOT</b> an open ended grant of all powers simply because congress can construe an idea to be portrayed as "for the common good".<br /><br />We must not disregard the original intent of our Constitution, and I will not allow others to deliver the proverbial slap in the face to our founding fathers.<br />Respect them, and their word. Else we are doomed to fall.<br /><br />Keep it up LawDog! Great post!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14017507452082084066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-481057950331102712009-08-26T22:56:42.540-05:002009-08-26T22:56:42.540-05:00Tenth amdt: valid point. So is the "general w...Tenth amdt: valid point. So is the "general welfare" clause. Thus, you need more substance for your argument.<br /><br />Surprisingly, I only came here to ask why this issue raises greater protest than patriot act, abortion, gun rights and so on. My question was answered (really, I mean it, and thanks) and this isn't my blog. So I will bail now, and just say there are opinions and facts. Reasonable people can disagree about opinions (good idea, bad idea, will work, won't work, bad man, good man, etc). <br /><br />Facts, however, are facts (this does exist, this does not, the text says ___, the text does not, etc). <br /><br />The bill in question likely won't work (my opinion) but does not include death panels (fact). It's not prohibited by the constitution (my opinion, having gotten rather high grades studying it) and one last fact: once you strip out the index, preamble, 200,000+ double spaces (really) and definitions, it's around 530 pages of two and three-line paragraphs. You can likely read all of it in an evening. <br /><br />If you do, you don't have to take my word or Bill O'Reily's word as to what it says; you will know for yourself.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04040241646298923174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-43327249446832673392009-08-26T22:42:53.240-05:002009-08-26T22:42:53.240-05:001: any of various economic and political theories ...1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods<br /><br />so, your government does not administer your fire trucks, textbooks or parklands?Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04040241646298923174noreply@blogger.com