Courtesy of Congressman John Lewis. When asked about the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of Obamacare, he cited the "pursuit of happiness" language of the preamble to the Constitution. Only problem with that is, "pursuit of happiness' is not in the preamble to the Constitution. It's in The Declaration of Independence. Oops. But then again, who am I to get all technical on politicians knowing what's in the constitution and what isn't? We don't get all technical like that around here. Plus, when's the last time any of these guys had to read the Constitution (or hear it read aloud)?
And on a sidebar, what political debate would be a political debate without somebody calling somebody else a Nazi, a Marxist, a Socialist, or a Communist? Right on time. Which is sort of ironic, given that Cohen looks so much like Major Toht from Raiders of the Lost Ark (the evil SS agent whose glasses melted off with his face at the end). But at least we have bipartsian agreement on one thing in Congress: 'Civil disagreement' can still go fuck itself. Apparently they were watching Real Housewives reruns instead of Obama's eloquent speech at the Memorial Service/Wildcat rally last week.
But back to federal insurance mandates. Since John Lewis won't make a reasonably logical argument for the mandate, I'll go ahead. Yes, I am in favor of an individual insurance mandate -- conditionally. I just don't think it's constitutional. But then again -- who fuckin' cares. There's a lot of shit that's arguably unconstitutional that we don't even so much as bat an eyelash at (because it's sensible). This is an insignficant argument (that tragically will become signifcant because the SCOTUS will evidently have to hear it). But anyway -- I say I support the mandate "conditionally" in the sense that I'm accepting that we are stuck with Obamacare (which I didn't support) and have to face reality. Down to the details: if you're going to guarantee issue of insurance coverage to all, and also guarantee hospital care to all -- then everybody has ante up. It's that simple. You can have one or the other, but not both without someone paying for it. Otherwise, existing insurance premiums balloon like female college frosh. Or you pay via higher fees and taxes. So to those who oppose the mandate: pick your poison, fuckers. It's coming out of your pocket one way or the other. Individual mandate seems to be the fairest solution given the circumstances. Or you can go back and re-argue that people with pre-existing conidtions should be denied coverage, or that people without insurance must be turned away from the ER. Good luck with that.
He was doing really well up until that pursuit of happiness and 14th amendment jive.
I've heard that question before about where in the Constitution does the government have the right to mandate that you buy health insurance. By the same token, where in the Constitution does it say that the government can mandate social security numbers, rule on net neutrality or set a minimum wage? I think there's something in there about treason, but most other things fall under the "let future generations of Congress sort it out" clause.
Posted by: Assman | January 21, 2011 at 11:01 AM
Funny thing about Major Toht too...just one week prior, in light of the Tucson shootings, he gave a perfectly logical and well executed speech about the importance of civil discourse and even said something to the effect of "just because you disagree with someone, it doesn't make them a Nazi."
ONE WEEK PRIOR!
Posted by: Vandelay | January 21, 2011 at 11:16 AM
And if you're wondering how Kruger hasn't chimed in to argue with you, he's on a big ass mountain in Whistler, BC.
Posted by: Vandelay | January 21, 2011 at 11:19 AM
Well at least this is a little less embarassing than your usual Georgia posts...
Posted by: Dude from Georgia who didn't watch the clip because youtube is blocked at work, but is pretty sure it's the commerce clause... | January 21, 2011 at 12:18 PM
Might as well just socialize the sucker, I say.
Posted by: H.E. Pennypacker | January 21, 2011 at 06:55 PM
I think the main gist of the health care bill focuses on targeting the small groups of ppl that have the highest utilization. A lot of these ppl can't work because of their conditions and rack upwards of a million dollars a year in bills because they're constantly going to the ER. And of course they receive the worst care because they have no insurance which exacerbates the problem. THIS coupled with predatory practices of the medical and insurance industry is part of the reason the system is a mess.
The system is predicated on a profit-driven model and not a care-driven one. The way to cut costs is to provide better care so ppl don't continually end up in the hospital. Doctors are not good at managing ppl's health so there needs to be some intermediary entity that can handle that end. Of course the industry lobbyists are going to go to end the of the earth to kill anything that would change the profit-driven model. They're making a killing on over-charging and repetitive procedures as is the drug industry. So this is where the heart of the battle lies. Not on whether the bill is unconstitutional or not.
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | January 23, 2011 at 12:19 PM
"I think the main gist of the health care bill focuses on targeting the small groups of ppl that have the highest utilization."
And yet the bill is 2,500 pages and affects everyone outside of those small groups. So I think "focuses on targeting" may be the wrong choice of words.
"The system is predicated on a profit-driven model and not a care-driven one."
What exactly is a "care-driven" model?
"So this is where the heart of the battle lies. Not on whether the bill is unconstitutional or not."
Neither side wants to address the heart of the battle though. So that's why the Republicans are peddling the retarded mandate-is-unconstitutional argument. And for some stupid reason, the Democrats are entertaining the argument. When you boil it down to basics, it essentially amounts to a tax on emergency medical care/guaranteed coverage for all -- it has to be funded somehow. It's just called a "mandate" or "fine" instead of a tax. Obviously both sides benefit politically from that nomenclature.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | January 23, 2011 at 03:38 PM
What exactly is a "care-driven" model?
Intervention. Taking the initiative and reducing utilization by making sure ppl have the right meds, diagnosis, procedures and following up with them after they leave the office. Basically keeping them out of the hospital with their astronomical fees. It will cut costs in the long run and that is not good news for the industry.
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | January 24, 2011 at 12:52 PM
"Intervention."
Intervene where? Do you mean preventive care? Or non-emergency medical care?
"Basically keeping them out of the hospital with their astronomical fees. It will cut costs in the long run and that is not good news for the industry."
I don't think simply reducing hospital utilization will cut costs. Hospitals have astronomical fees mainly because they are run inefficiently, and are able to do so because they get government financial assistance (even when they don't turn a profit). Reducing waste would be much more effective at reducing costs. But even still, how does cutting costs equate to it not being based on profit?
Posted by: Jack Klompus | January 24, 2011 at 03:01 PM
Intervene where? Do you mean preventive care? Or non-emergency medical care?
None of the above. You have to target the highest utilization group which consists of less than 5% of the over all users but account for over 85% of the total health care costs. These folks need to be managed by trained professionals so that they don't continuously end up spending long stays in the hospital and ER's at the tax payers expense.
But even still, how does cutting costs equate to it not being based on profit?
One man's cost is another's profit- that simple. The more ppl end up in the hospital and ER's the more demand the more expensive it becomes and the more profit for the industry. Fat, diabetic, lazy, and uninformed Americans are great for business.
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | January 25, 2011 at 12:05 PM
Ling's face have become very serious! Two hands in the air when necessary, a majestic voice over. "Wait a minute you two hands!"
Posted by: Coach Outlet Store | June 29, 2011 at 05:56 AM