June 18, 2013 |
71° A Few Clouds
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
"Bye-bye. Kansas will have to live with the federal exchange."
No, they don't.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the ACA is indeed constitutional, so it would be a bit presumptuous for the good governor to claim otherwise. i would think at least the state courts would have to back him up, which they won't.
Nullification may be a nice libertarian / Confederate fantasy, but it's not going to happen in reality. And all the while, back in reality, Kansas will indeed get the worst of all outcomes.
It's about time for voters and citizens to find and stay in reality and insist their elected representatives do so as well.
Nullification was unsuccessful in this instance and many, many others. Nullification is unlawful and unconstitutional, but this does not mean that the states or the people have no recourse. The Constitution itself lays out the best path to change unconstitutional laws: object to the law and change opinions (and political leadership) in the political process, defund and slow its implementation, change or repeal the law, challenge it in the courts, and, if necessary, amend the Constitution. Obsurdities!
What Jefferson or any other individual wrote about any particular subject is fine if used as a guide. However, ultimate authority is deferred to the Constitution. Then to the laws written by legislators and reviewed by our courts.
A letter by Jefferson indicated he opposed beating his adult slaves but was silent when he was asked about beatings of young slaves. The next time this issue comes up, I'll not refer to Jefferson but rather the Constitution.
Sigh. Please do re-read my post. Jefferson's comments, or those of any person, may be used as a guide. A guide that has as it's ultimate purpose the interpretation of the Constitution. Your logic, my logic, is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is to correctly interpret the Constitution. If, in the end, your logic is in conflict with said Constitution, then there are legitimate ways of changing that, just as there are illegitimate ways of changing it.
So basically, what I am saying is that if you choose an illegitimate way, you have closed your mind to legitimacy.
Sigh, again. No, you did not comprehend my first post. I did indeed say that Jefferson's writing "may" be used as a guide. But then gave an example where it should not be. Both are true.
His writings may be a useful tool in reaching the ultimate goal of correctly interpreting the Constitution. Or they may not. But again, the ultimate goal is not to correctly interpret Jefferson's writings. It's not to find the logic in his writings. It's to correctly interpret the Constitution.
"this issue" clearly, clearly, clearly was in the context of the paragraph it was in, dealing with whether or not it was appropriate to beat certain slaves. The next time THAT ISSUE comes up, I'll refer not to Jefferson's writings, but to the Constitution. If you want to argue Jefferson's point of view in regards to that issue, go ahead.
However, Jefferson may have had some other words of wisdom that we "may" find helpful as we interpret the Constitution.
I do believe, Liberty, you've lost this argument and are grasping at straws.
Jhawkinsf - 1, Liberty - 0.
nullification wasn't an immediate result of the Fugitive slave act. The first state didn't even pass anything until 1854.
fugitive slave act/enslaving human beings vs enacting healthcare legislation... yeah, slightly differently.
Good luck with that.
It's just a bad idea.
Giving each state the ability to individually interpret the constitution for themselves kind of defeats the purpose of having a federal constitution that applies to the whole nation.
The phrase "bad law" is subjective, and open to interpretation.
The whole point of a federal constitution is to ensure that certain rights apply across the whole nation - if states can decide for themselves how to interpret and apply the constitution, it defeats that purpose.
You do know, I imagine, that the remedy available in our system is to overturn a SC decision with a constitutional amendment?
I don't like "bad laws", as I perceive them, to apply anywhere.
Bad laws should be changed within the legitimate framework that exists for such change. Bad laws need not be broken just for the sake that they are bad. If however, one finds such laws so onerous that one feels compelled to break those laws, one must be willing to suffer the consequences. (Think Henry Thoreau).
And that same framework provides a remedy. Geez.
The last time states tried to resort to "nullification" the cost included 600,000 Americans killed, and the federal law still prevailed. Everyone but the lunatic fringe learned this lesson.
You really don't get how this federal system works, do you?
If the DEA decides to bust potheads in Colorado or Washington there isn't a thing the state can do about it. The state may urge restraint, but the supremacy clause is still in full force and effect.
Of course if you feel raw about that you could always take up arms and march on Fort Riley. I'll hold your coat.
Pretty sure the South tried this and lost...
States can't "nullify" diddley. They may choose not to act in support of a federal law, in which case they abdicate local judgment in favor of federal control, but they can't act to inhibit its implementation or enforcement. "Nullification" is one of those wingnut buzzwords that are either meaningless or used inaccurately. If you hate the results of the elected representatives' actions so deeply you might want to consider relocation.
Please cite successful nullification.
Didn't SCOTUS overturn Wisconsin's nullification in 1859? So in essence their nullification wasn't successful.
See Abelman v Booth. You are incorrect Liberty. Perhaps you are confusing this with jury nullification.
I think we're better off with a federally run exchange than anything Brownback has a chance to get his grubby little fingers on.
You know, that's what I thought, too, but from this article it sounds like Praeger has already done the hard work of putting together a state run program of identifying key players, received commitments, etc. Maybe all of that work won't be lost and the feds will just adopt what she's already put together.
I suspect half the reason he doesn't want it is to avoid giving Praeger another chance to show how competent she is.
Sadly, that's not how it works. If the state as a whole won't participate, the federal plan will be imposed. The Commissioner of Insurance can't take a role unilaterally. The governor has decided the state will forfeit its opportunity to have any control over the program that Kansans will pay for.
The simple reality is this: Sam Brownback would rather hold his breath, stamp his feet and let Kathleen Sebelius write the rules for Kansas. So much for conservative principles of local control.
This will work out, with or without the Gov.
We will be better off with a fed exchange...
But all will remember the petulant Governor who refused to help his fellow Kansans who are sifted out of the pool by corporate for profit insurance companies. We know whose tune you dance to and it sure ain't Jesus.
You guys crack me up. Someone always wanting something without working for it, in other words always wanting something for nothing. If you want health insurance go buy it like everyone else. Nothing is free!
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
You may want to actually read something about the AHCA. It does not give away insurance.
The ACA agrees with people like you-it requires people to pay for their own health care. A little like car insurance their will always be people who say "they can't make me", so taxpayers take care of them when something happens. You know what percentage of Americans get Govt. healthcare today? 30-40%?
there! Where go thy edit?
It is always funny to see people criticize something by describing it as the exact opposite of what it is. Before Democrats adopted the ACA, Republicans like Mitt Romney described it as the "free market solution" to healthcare needs in this country.
You shut the hell up, beatrice. Only Republicans can outright contradict themselves and convince their followers of their doublespeak!!!
This comment demonstrates a total lack of understanding of reality. No one is saying they want something for free; the ACA does not provide insurance for free. No one is saying they want something for nothing.
Your fantasy world complaints ring hollow in reality. And just as the Republicans wholly missed reality in the last election, being certain they would win and missing the reality-based projections they would not, certain citizens like this commenter continue to believe things which are not true (people just want something for free).
That's a terrible way to make public policy. Good thing the American voters rejected such thinking in the Presidential election, otherwise we'd have a President who is incapable of discerning reality and making decisions based upon the real state of affairs.
Which is why we should also have included a public option. Glad to see you coming around to the socialist point of view.
Ummm so that whole thing about no longer being able to turn away people with preexisting conditions was them getting "something for nothing"?
Maybe that doesn't mean what you think it means...
"There is no question of relieving others at the cost of hardship to yourselves; it is a question of equality. At the moment, your surplus meets their need, but one day your need may be met from their surplus. The aim is equality."
Sure, in an anarcho-capitalist dream world: Everyone would start out life producing a surplus that they can put away. They never experience such a protracted downturn that their stored surplus runs out. No natural disaster ever wipes out everything they own. The companies they invest in never go under. They never get too sick to work, or have family members with life-threatening illnesses.
Prudence and thrift are fine qualities, Liberty_One, and I advocate them. But I'm not so unrealistic as to presume that prudence and thrift will obviate all need for external assistance. Helping each other is a great virtue, Liberty_One. It is blessed to give and to receive.
Here's what it has to do with government: Our government acts according to our values, aiding us in providing for the needy who otherwise would go without, because private charity is insufficient. I like this aspect of government. You don't. People like me are in the majority in this country, and consequently we have a government that reflects our will and not yours.
Tell that to this guy- where were the private charities when he needed them?
Because clearly the best way to plan is to assume that you'll get cancer or some other disease and sock away a cool $100k. Or maybe you could pool up with other people and share that risk. Naw that scheme would never work IRL...
It must be obvious that you do not have insurance of any kind as the whole purpose of insurance is to spread risk -- risk of financial hardship due to unforeseen circumstances. If you get sick, loose your house, get in a car accident, lose your life,etc, you should not get a dime from an insurance company as that money is above and beyond what you yourself worked for.
Don't feed the trolls!
Ks will continue to deal with their PIPs, Punks In Power, as long as they continue to elect them. Brownback and Kobach have their own egos to feed and could give a crap less about anything else. Be thankful that they are no longer in a position to teach it.
I am not sure I get this, if a partnership would cost more for Kansas, how much less would it cost to let the feds run it?
A curious argument from NoSanity Sam : The federal government can run the exchanges at lower cost. Kinda argues against the RW mantra of transferring everything back to the states, doesn't it?
Kansas has elected a one party system of government. Deal with it.
Quit whining and go to the federal exchange.
It wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to project that this would be Brownback's position, so one wonders why the same organization now writing this editorial supported and endorsed Brownback in the first place.
A Kansas exchange would probably only include the insurance companies who have donate money to his campaign. At least with the national exchange we would get more competition. A bad word for big business.
Certain people wanted the Federal Government to insure that they always get health insurance, and now they are b(^MMtchng that they don'[t want the Feds to administer the program. You want insurance? Yes or No?
AS far as the "worst outcome" wilbur would say that would be a more appropriate title for the ongoing rec center nonsense in Lawrence. Now there is another entity involved besides KUEA, and that is Bliss Sports.
Now will the J/W editors care to comment on that and how Lawrence is getting a "wonderful outcome".
Insurance? Yes or NO? Do you care how you get it, if you are broke anyway?
So many questions but not a lot of answers for those in need of health insurance that cannot get it for such reasons of pre existing conditions.. I have worked for some great companies in my career as an Internet Marketing Specialist and recently become more or less doing contract work and not collecting a paycheck nor company based health care so even if I wanted to pay a higher rate so far no insurance company so far has approved me… THIS SUCKS
I had been diagnosed many years ago for CRPS also known as RSD, this is a very painful nerve injury without a cure at this point. More information can be found about this at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0004456/
I have no problem paying for insurance, however I cannot get insurance unless I work for an employer that has insurance, and that just SUCKS.
So my question is how is this going to effect people like me?
I make to much money to get state insurance, Nor do I want to have to rely on the government for my health care anyways.. Again I am willing to pay but can't.
An insurance Exchange allows the consumer to compare plans with common criteria. If we have to use the federal insurance exchange, Blue Cross will be the only option in Kansas, because Blue Cross already meets the federal criteria for comparison.
I wonder if one could still purchase insurance not on the exchange. It is just an advantage for the consumer. I have read that you can continue whatever plan you already have.
The insurance exchange allows us to compare health care plans and costs before we choose. Many large employers already have uniform insurance comparisons for their employees. The exchange is free enterprise for providers and consumers. Isn't free enterprise one of the principles supported by the GOP?
See http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/choices/exchanges/index.html for more information.
Wow!! Put up a "blue" mark with a "red" piece of chalk!! The management and owners of this news rag are jumping on their wunderkind in Topeka, ole Sammy Brownbackwards!!
The managers and editors of the JW have run editorials lauding the advanttages of having the republican terrorist party in command of our destiny. And now they suddenly notice that this knucklehead governer they all supported is really a terrible leader for the state.
But in all honesty, I think I might agree with some of you that letting the federal government handle this fask may be the lesser of two evils, as opposed to any scheme that Brownbackwards and his thugs may concoct for the people of Kansas.
Correct me if I'm wrong but LJW endorsed Brownback for Governor.
Time to eat your own dog food.
c'mon---everybody makes mistakes. Not everybody who makes mistakes admits them...
This is from the Wichita Eagle. I just couldn't pass it up.
By the way, to you people that think the Journal World endorsed Brownback, get something straight. DOLPH SIMONS (the owner of the paper) endorsed Brownback. I seriously doubt the editorial board had much to do with it, so cut them slack, please.
Actually the answer to high insurance prices is to allow market forces to act. Drop your insurance like a "union" of people and force them to price health insurance where you want it to be. Then buy back your insurance once the price has come down. Supply and demand. It is better than Obamacare and probably cheaper and faster without socialism being involved.
The reason people haven't done this is because they are afraid to do without insurance for any length of time and they are afraid of any temporary sacrifice or risk.
That might work fine-- for about 1/4 of the population.
We have the "supply and demand" system you advocate now, and insurance prices just keep going up. That's because it's irresponsible to do without insurance until the price drops. The price wouldn't drop fast, and the people who get seriously ill while they didn't have insurance would have no recourse. That's a whole lot worse than a "temporary sacrifice;" it's potentially catastrophic. And it's not only catastrophic for the individuals; it's expensive for the taxpayers, who end up picking up the costs of the health care uninsured patients end up needing.
The ACA doesn't involve "socialism." People buy their insurance from private companies and use it to seek care from private providers.
That would be the exchange program. All insurance programs would be front and center for our comparison. This is part of the ACA.
@voevoda, the only way any supply vs. demand system is going to work to bring down prices is for people to refuse to pay them, and take action on the demand side where supply goes up. Your example is an excellent example of what is wrong with the people. You state that the prices just keep going up. Yes they will until you do something on the demand side to control prices. Basically what you are saying is it is because of fear that you refuse to stand up and do something and organize with others to help bring down prices. So that is why the government needs to do it for you. That is socialistic. What did people used to do before health insurance?
"What did people used to do before health insurance?"
They died alot.......Did any of you guys go to college? Health care costs are "inelastic" remember that? You might stay home with a heart attack to protest the high cost of health insurance but you are not going to risk the health of your children to prove a point that is at best ineffective and otherwise stupid. Get this "In_God" the government is the only entity that can stand up to insurance companies and make them act like good citizens. That is because the insurance industry crosses state and even national borders so no group of subsribers can really effect them in any large way like making them drop their prices. Corporations are people according to the SCOTUS and they are acting like spoiled children, especially insurance companies.
In_God, Obamacare is not Socialism. In some ways, it aids the free market system (on the consumer side), by increasing options and the availability of more insurance plans to choose from. Even a single payor system or a public option does not come close to Socialism. Most hospitals, doctors, and health care workers operate independently of the governemnt. Just because they are subject to regulations does not make it Socialism.
There is one way to eliminate this Brownback fiasco.
Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.
Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($8,160 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 51 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.
The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.
Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $400 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.
Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.
Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.
A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.
If only all of that were real. I can not think of a single thing that our federal government has done or attempted to do that did not cost more and provide less than advertised
Excellent decision. If the State touches anything it does not have to, it will eventually become responsible for it. The Feds are out of money. Get the picture.
There is a point in the affairs of men where you cut your losses. With the ACA, we are there. Further rearguard resistance will not only be futile but Pyrrhic! We need to participate in the planning for the implementation of the insurance exchanges because they are going to happen – period. We also need to accept the changes in Medicaid and expand coverage for those citizens of low income not currently covered (mostly single people and those without children). Kansas has never been generous with Medicaid coverage and we can continue that tradition but with some compassion for those with no insurance and no significant ability to buy it.
Because if we don't, we will end up paying for those people's healthcare anyway - just as we do now - through higher prices. Insuring them is cheaper, and the more compassionate solution. I know, my husband and I went bankrupt from major medical expenses for our daughter. We were both working full-time, but neither had insurance available and we made too much money for any Medicaid help, but not enough to buy our own insurance.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·