State Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook, R-Shawnee, in foreground, on Tuesday spoke at a hearing on her proposed constitutional amendment that she said was needed to prevent the federal government from requiring that Kansans purchase health insurance.
State Sen. David Haley, D-Kansas City, (standing), spoke on Tuesday in opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment that asserts that the federal government cannot require Kansans to have health insurance. From left to right (seated) are state Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita, and state Sens. Jim Barnett, R-Emporia, and Vicki Schmidt, R-Topeka.
Topeka — Opponents of federal programs on Tuesday pushed for an amendment to the state constitution that they said would prevent the federal government from forcing Kansans to have health insurance.
About 10 people testified in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 1626, saying Democratic health reform pending in Congress was unconstitutional because it would require that Kansans have health coverage.
Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook, R-Shawnee, described her amendment as “calling on the Kansas state legislators to protect the freedom of Kansas citizens when it comes to their freedom in choosing their health care as they see fit.”
Several of the proposed amendment’s supporters criticized President Barack Obama, Medicare and illegal immigration.
Paul Degener of rural Shawnee County said, “Our federal government is our own worst enemy. It continues to grow and gets more dictatorial.” Degener said he was on Medicare, but didn’t like it. He said people should be allowed to deal directly with their doctor even if that meant paying with chickens.
The Kansas chapter of Americans for Prosperity also supports the proposed constitutional amendment.
But Sen. David Haley, D-Kansas City, spoke against the measure. He said congressional health reforms under consideration “will provide more Kansans with access to care and a means to pay for that care.” There are currently an estimated 300,000 Kansans without health care coverage.
And Dr. Ira Stamm, a Topeka psychologist, said a requirement that everyone have insurance was needed “for Americans to have the lowest possible insurance premiums.”
The hearing was held before a joint meeting of the House and Senate health committees. No action was taken. If approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate, the measure would be put before Kansas voters in November.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
Really? You have nothing better to do than be stupid in public? What's next, deciding that oxygen in the air is a liberal conspiracy to make us all breathe?
WHY (anonymous) says…
Paul, if you can find a doctor who will take chickens good for you, but I want a real doctor. I would also like to trade health care plans with you. I have the "I hope I don't get sick plan." Yours will do just fine.
rooster (anonymous) says…
"Degener said he was on Medicare, but didn’t like it"
Hypocrisy at it's best.
Same with all of the legislators that are on state funded health care but say that average joe can't have it.
Here's a plan, why don't you create an ammendment that drops all elected officials from their gov't funded healthcare.
WHY (anonymous) says…
Oh and one other thing. The tail doesn't wag the dog and the State doesn't tell the Feds what to do. Do you really think the federal government will care what Kansas does.
beawolf (anonymous) says…
I moved here from Minnesota. I thought they were the looniest state government in the nation. Wrong. Kansas makes their politics seem like Utopia.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
This needs to be cited again and again and again, because it is indicative of the debate.
Nobody is actually upset about government health care, they are just upset that somebody else might start getting it, too.
They want government health care all to themselves.
Paul Degener of rural Shawnee County said, “Our federal government is our own worst enemy. It continues to grow and gets more dictatorial.” Degener said he was on Medicare, but didn’t like it. He said people should be allowed to deal directly with their doctor even if that meant paying with chickens.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
"Proposed constitutional amendment to block federal mandate to buy insurance considered"
There, I fixed it for you.
SnakeFist (anonymous) says…
"Degener said he was on Medicare, but didn’t like it."
Yet another hypocritical conservative.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
This Degener guy is delusional. This is the kind of rhetoric upon which this bill is based? Lord help us all.
"Degener said he was on Medicare, but didn’t like it."
Last I knew, you aren't forced to use medicare. Paul, maybe you should opt out of medicare and see much medical care you can get with your chickens. Idiot.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
I wonder how many chickens it would take to have a knee-replacement, or possibly an open-heart surgery?
I'm thinking it would be a lot of chickens.
Pay with chickens! -- what an idiot. Degener is a fool, and he is playing with the possibility of denying people medical care access for petty political gain. He isn't looking to improve anything.
Yeoman2 (anonymous) says…
I am no big fan of some of the parts of the proposed "health care" legislation, but if elected idiots in Kansas think that they are going to block the Federal Government, they obviously have not read the history of the Civil War. Is this what we elect and pay these mental midgets for, dreaming up utterly useless drivel when the state is claiming poverty and cutting off funding to vital and needed rosources? Gads, how did we ever let these loons into the state government?
Guardian (anonymous) says…
Judging from the comments, there must be a large number of people living in this town who live on government handouts. I can't help but wonder if they would feel the same way if they were the payors rather than the payees.
rooster (anonymous) says…
Seems to me this whole state is run by red green.
Bunch of dumb hicks who have mustered up enough capacity to recite even dumber talking points.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
WHY (Anonymous) says…
"Oh and one other thing. The tail doesn't wag the dog and the State doesn't tell the Feds what to do."
Wrong, the states created the federal government, the states came first and have every right to declare an act of the federal government unconstitutional. Look up State Nullification. This isn't some fringe concept, this is how the founders intended the relationship between the states and the federal government to be. See Thomas Jefferson's writings on the issue. The states are supposed to protect their citizens against the federal government and the federal government protects the citizens against the states. It's called checks and balances, a key concept in American politics.
pace (anonymous) says…
The NO parties plan is to not change a thing, well except they would like to get the higher risk people, the elderly or ill off their group plan. hey, can we cancel their public funded health care. The only people this No plan will hurt is everyone but stock holders and those on the graft.
ilikebutter (anonymous) says…
Liberty_One: Though you are right in tone, States are not subservient to the Federal government, you are misusing the power of state nullification. This has been tried by states since the Civil War and each time, the Federal government had their way. Recent examples are the Real ID law, the removal of Federal "legal tender" (because it was no longer based on the gold standard), and now healthcare. The problem is that the Federal Government will either argue "nullification" is unconstitional and doesn't carry the weight of law or they will simply tie accepting the health care mandate to any Federal funding (which Kansas relies on), or both. The point is nullification isn't a sound principle, a legal likelihood, or, in all probability, constitutional. Next ideas.....
werekoala (anonymous) says…
Like the sign some idiot was carrying at the town hall meetings:
"Keep the government out of Medicare!"
Y'know what, though? I say we take him up on it. Let's allow anyone over 65 who finds the awful burden of Medicare too oppressive to opt out of it. We'll even stop taxing them for it. Because Medicare is about 14% of the federal budget, and even if your annual income is $50,000 (high for most seniors), you pay $9,000 in federal tax. 14% of that is $1,260.
And while twelve hundred dollars IS an awful lot of chickens, good luck getting quality medical care for $100 a month. I pay twice that just in employee contributions for myself and my wife, and we're a lot healthier and younger.
In fact, he should probably just shut up, since my wife and I are paying for his medical care too. I hear Somalia is nice this time of year, and no pesky gubbermint regulations making life tough for rugged individualists like himself...
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
ilikebutter,
1. state nullification is clearly constitutional, just ask Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 nullifying the Alien and Sedition Acts.
2. Real ID has been nullified by the states. 25 states have passed laws refusing to implement the federal law which is now de facto void.
3. There's several efforts currently underway in many different states to nullify unconstitutional federal laws and regulations.
"The point is nullification isn't a sound principle"
False. Please read the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions as Jefferson and Madison's arguments are more eloquant than would be mine.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent...
http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg...
sunny (anonymous) says…
I say more power to them!
My taxes pay for way too many handouts for losers who won't take care of themselves!
I should not have to pay for your healthcare or health insurance!
Obama is stealing from the American people and he should be sentenced to prison for theft!
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, why are you arguing with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison about the interpretation of the Constitution? Are you that much of a fool?
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
"porch, why are you arguing with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison about the interpretation of the Constitution? Are you that much of a fool?"
That was, of course, a rhetorical question, the answer to which has been proven over and over.
Keith (anonymous) says…
Yeah porch, why are you arguing with Jefferson and Madison, they've been dead for hundreds of years and don't have much to offer these days.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Keith, I know, why would anyone defer to Madison or Jefferson when it comes to interpreting the Constitution? It's not like they helped write it or anything, right?
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
One of the great things about the founders was that they knew they didn't know everything. They certainly didn't know what the future would bring, which is why they created the Constitution as a malleable document.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
"they created the Constitution as a malleable document."
No. The Constitution can be changed by the amendment process, otherwise it is the law. Laws are something we set in stone, not a malleable material. When you want changes you have to chisel them in, you don't get to try and bend the laws to suit your needs. Otherwise there's no purpose to writing down anything other than: the government can do what it thinks is best, which is how porch views the Constitution.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
One of the great things about the founders was that they knew they didn't know everything. They certainly didn't know what the future would bring, which is why they created the Constitution as a malleable document.
-------------------
That wasn't Jefferson and Madison.
That was Marshall.
This is a convenient point strict constructionists like Liberty_One choose to ignore. In their minds, John Marshall never happened. That's a shame, because their interpretations really only mattered in this nation for fewer than 20 years. I, for one, choose to embrace the following 200 years of our nation's history.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
This is happening nation wide.
This is exactly what happens when elected representatives stop listening to their constituents.
IT is a wonder than congressmen and senators have not been shot to date.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Bob, what's worse is that in your mind Jefferson and Madison never happened. Why have laws at all if they are so meaningless?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, read the links, the resolutions aren't that long. They both explain it far better than I can and they answer your issue about federal power. Please point out to me where Madison and Jefferson got it wrong.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
oh, BTW porch, the federal power issue is what you are referring to with your General Welfare clause statement. I know these things go over your head and heaven forbid I "garfinkel." Which apparantly is addressing your point with terms that you aren't familiar with.
feeble (anonymous) says…
in other news, Anthem Blue Cross is hiking personal insurance premiums by 39%.
The insurance coipany blamed the increase on a shrinking pool of younger, healthier policy holders.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"I wonder if the Secret Service keeps track of public expressions of assassination like that?"
It's always helpful to have citizen spies who will report their neighbors' anti-government statements to the state. I'm sure you're more than qualified.
Mixolydian (anonymous) says…
This is just stupid.
True. Absolutely true. Without reservation true.... either bill in the House or the Senate would be disasters for our country.
But to amend our state constitution in response to federal bills that, in all liklihood (and thank God) will not be enacted is just stupid.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, I take it you did not read either resolution. Pity that you reject the opportunity to learn. All the answers you are looking for are right there.
Your 'mandate' theory is easily disproved though. If that were true then why didn't they have universal health care in 1796?
Porch, you are the last person to be giving out legal advice, a person who thinks malpractice isn't a tort.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"No, I wasn't interested in your off-point exploration of whatever-the-hell you were talking about. It certainly wasn't on point."
Too sad. This entire conversation has apparantly gone over your head if you don't think that the concept of state nullification is on point. That's what the article was about dummy. So not only do you not know that malpractice is a tort, you don't know that what the legislature is talking about doing here is called state nullification.
Do yourself a favor and read what Jefferson and Madison have to say about the issue. Come back after you've educated yourself on the topic of the article so you'll quit looking stupid.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"About 10 people testified in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 1626, saying Democratic health reform pending in Congress was unconstitutional because it would require that Kansans have health coverage."
If it's already unconstitutional, why is a constitutional amendment needed?
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
Bob, what's worse is that in your mind Jefferson and Madison never happened. Why have laws at all if they are so meaningless?
------------------------------
You don't understand US history at all.
Like most ridiculous partisans, you think it is a choice between Jefferson and Madison and 211 years since then.
It is not a choice. It is both. Stop ignoring the latter, for your own sake.
FWIW, even if I was arguing that Jefferson and Madison didn't matter, it would not be worse than your asinine dismissal of US history from the Marshall Court going forward.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Like most ridiculous partisans, you think it is a choice between Jefferson and Madison and 211 years since then."
Of course it doesn't matter. I'm buying a couple of slaves tomorrow.
true_patriot (anonymous) says…
I see Pilgrim doesn't understand what balance of powers is, but then neither did George Bush - they had to bring in a tutor to explain the fundamentals of American government to him when they ran him the second time for Guv of Texas.
With Kansas facing a crisis of massive proportions, it is the highest from of dereliction of duty for Congress to be wasting time on such a backwards attempt to block reform of the most unsustainable and broken health care system of all developed countries. As a nation we pay the most for and get the least return on the dollar for our health care, and are way down the rankings with other first-world nations in such critical measures as infant mortality.
Whatever happened to the drive for America to be a leader in the world? Our collective ignorance and post-911 corrosive and polarizing mindset is making it even harder to try to regain our competitive foothold in the world, from jobs to education to health care, and they are all interrelated.
Every hour counts. Congress, summon up at least a vestige of responsibility and do the people's work and quit hiding behind the apron and wasting our money on frivolous, ideologically extreme concerns because you're facing a difficult situation and don't have the fortitude to tackle it head-on and do what is best for everyone.
Ricky_Vaughn (anonymous) says…
@ Liberty_One
You've been watching too much Glenn Beck, buddy. Ask Jefferson and Madison? Sounds like you're a few beers short of a six-pack.
====================================
@ true_patriot
I couldn't have said it better myself!
livingstone (anonymous) says…
Maybe they can add one more amendment to the constitution. As long as the president didn't win majority vote in our state, he's not our president. Well, we can do anything to the constitution.... just amend it. So why are some Republicans and Libertarians hanging on to the constitution so tightly when they know they can change it anytime they like?
Ricky_Vaughn (anonymous) says…
@ livingstone
It sounds better for them to say "We support the Constitution" rather than "we're scared of change".
MyName (anonymous) says…
Ugh, fix the dang budget! Deal with this Healthcare stuff if and when it actually gets to you.
salad (anonymous) says…
Quick!!! Lets spend our time solving a problem that doesn't exist!!! The R's are gonna need a baler for all that political hay they're makin'.
goldwater (anonymous) says…
Paul Degener - Guess what Paul, you can disenroll from medicare parts b, c, and d. Contact CMMS and they can help get you off of medicare.
I assume this amendment would also prevent Kansas residents from getting Medicare part A.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Bob_Keeshan (Anonymous) says…
"It is not a choice. It is both. Stop ignoring the latter, for your own sake"
"I, for one, choose to embrace the following 200 years of our nation's history."
OK, I see that we're playing by your rules here, and I'd rather not.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
@ Ricky_Vaughn, no, I get a lot of my information from the Mises Institute and Dr. Tom Woods is my favorite author when it comes to US History.
But you are right about one thing, I'm very afraid of the kind of change that's being forced on us. Our country is already trillions of dollars in debt and these morons in DC want to add yet another huge entitlement program? How long do you think our country will last at this pace? It's only a matter of time before countries stop using the $ as their reserve currency and then hyperinflation will begin. But keep living in your dream utopia where government and paper money can solve all our problems.
Ricky_Vaughn (anonymous) says…
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
Our country is already trillions of dollars in debt and these morons in DC want to add yet another huge entitlement program?
============================================
Our country is always trillions of dollars in debt. Nobody seems to care if the money gets spent on missiles and tanks. When was the last time the country wasn't in debt?
Oh yeah, some guy named Clinton cleared that up a few years back...
rhd99 (anonymous) says…
All of you proponents of Obama Care, tell me why I should support individual mandates. What are the benefits behind these stupid mandates? So far, no politician as been able to sell the reason why individual mandates are good for this country. For what purpose do they serve? Well, Obama supporters..........? Do you have an answer? I think not.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Ricky_Vaughn (Anonymous) says…
"Oh yeah, some guy named Clinton cleared that up a few years back…"
Obama is nothing like Clinton. Clinton had economic sense and was willing to cut spending to achieve a balanced budget. Clinton was actually a decent president, Obama is just a pro-choice republican.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
I love it. Great Idea. Tell the Feds to take a hike. I'd like to see more of this attitude. But at the same time our state is considering making it legal for a cop to pull you over simply for not having on your seat belt. So I still don't have a lot of faith in them.
jackbinkelman (anonymous) says…
Kansas, as usual, shooting yourself in the foot, and then sawing it off.
ivalueamerica (anonymous) says…
Lets amend the Constitution every time we disagree
whatthehell (anonymous) says…
This proposed amendment in Kansas is ridiculous. It is good and constructive to discuss at all levels the current state of affairs but... It is not up for debate that R. controlled congress and whitehouse have had many attempts to address the problem of funding for healthcare in this country and have declined to do so. Worse, everytime the D's attempt to do something about this it get's shut down. I have spoken several times about this and the arguments on these posts always seem so much alike. There are wayyyy too many young uninsured folks who are messing with this: A) they are not paying into the insurance system which screws up the risk/reward ratios used to set rates and B) when they do get sick or injured they do not have insurance that can pay the Dr. or hospital for treament so those costs have to be passed on. As much as I do not like the Fed govt telling people what to do, this is an area that must be addressed.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
whatthehell, considering that younger people tend to be poorer, you want to redistribute what little wealth they have? Do you know you sound like a monster?
whatthehell (anonymous) says…
to the Lawyers and Law students... debate the constitution all you want but stay on point. What is the state of health care and funding for healthcare in this country? Situation is all screwed up. Period. So.... let's do nothing. Is that what you really think should be done? I know, I know... let the free market run free... We can't do that. It simply does not work and cannot work. Humans, and particularly die-hard capitalists are too greedy when it comes to this all-important issue. There really should be a hard look taken at what works in other countries and adopt SOME aspects that seem to work for other countries and get the change started, somewhere.
J_Roper (anonymous) says…
Why isn't this today's lead?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
whatthehell (Anonymous) says…
"So…. let's do nothing."
No, let's get rid of the problem--government intervention. You can't make the problem better by adding more of what's causing the problem.
"Humans, and particularly die-hard capitalists are too greedy when it comes to this all-important issue."
Die-hard capitalists are too greedy. That's why people like John Rockafeller found a way to cut the price of kerosene by 90% to outsell the competition. That's why Andrew Carnagie cut the price of steel by 90% to outsell the competition. That's why JP Vanderbilt undercut his competition by offering steamboat service down the Hudson for free and getting revenue solely from concessions. How awful! We would never want those die-hard capitalists to get into the health care field and cut prices by 90%! Wouldn't that just be terrible! We don't want those greedy capitalists anywhere near health care or else the price will rapidly drop.
ilikebutter (anonymous) says…
Liberty_One: Here is why this is a waste of time: State Nullification does not work. I am not arguing that is shouldn't work OR that it is unconstitutional, I am simply saying it is a moot point.
25 states passed "nullification" measure for the Real ID act and Bush was still on course to implement it, even withholding funds from Western States who refused to properly update their laws. The only reason Real ID is defunct is the administration changed.
Don't talk about Madison and Jefferson they were on very different sides of a Constitution (and would be on this debate) which has been hemmed and hawed over and interpreted differently by each generation. States can legally nullify a federal law, but when push comes to shove and the Federal Government refuses to help states pay for Medicare if they don't allow the federal healthcare reform to cover all citizens, who will win?
If you want to stop laws you think are unjust you need to stop them prior their passage. Once the federal government passes them--it is too late.
ilikebutter (anonymous) says…
..then why do we spend more per capita for health care than any other developed nation, and comparitavely get so little? Health care is a market failure and it is appropriate for government to be involved. Business and competition are vital for the majority of goods and services, but they do not provide the correct competition for services like health care or national defense.
Ricky_Vaughn (anonymous) says…
It only took Clinton 8 years, so it's not impossible. We've spent a lot of money on Obama's watch so far, but I expect that will soon be coming to an end.
I think it's one of the good things about a two party system. One side will never let the other get things too far onto their side. The best presidents seem to be the "middle-walkers". They do things that are characteristic of both sides.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
ilikebutter (Anonymous) says…
"25 states passed “nullification” measure for the Real ID act and Bush was still on course to implement it,"
Nope. Implemention kept getting "delayed" for two years and finally it was given up. State nullfication worked. Like I said, several other measures are in state legislatures that will do the same thing. Sure, the federal government can threaten to withhold funds, but at this point the states are starting to not care about that anymore as several have proposed measures that threaten to withhold taxes from going to the federal government.
"Don't talk about Madison and Jefferson they were on very different sides of a Constitution (and would be on this debate)"
They were on different sides, but not on this debate. Read the two links provided for proof.
"then why do we spend more per capita for health care than any other developed nation, and comparitavely get so little?"
Because we don't have a free market in health care. Not even close.
"Health care is a market failure "
Nope. Health care is a government failure. Get the government out of health care and watch as prices fall, quality and innovation go up, and we see an increase in the number of providers.
whatthehell (anonymous) says…
Liberty, I am not that old, and I am certainly not a monster. I have a problem with people who CHOOSE not to own insurance, who by their choice cause ME to redistribute what little finances I have in the form of increased rates because the eventually get hurt or sick. BTW, these young people you are defending... do you think they choose to buy smartphones, cable movie channels, have car payments for newer vehicles than they really need. please.
ilikebutter (anonymous) says…
Hilarious! Look at any dataset and you will quickly see the countries with "Government-run" healthcare, any of the Nordic States, France, England, Canada, all have achieved an equal (or higher) life expectancy, while spending per capita is significantly less. The US is in the middle. Compare this with countries who have no government healthcare and rely solely on the market to provide competition and see where their quality of life and life expectancy is at.
Again, if market-competition is the gold standard why not simply let the Market provide for our national defense? There are certain things which are simply outside the scope of the market.
If we can't agree on the facts we aren't going to agree on the solution, so you stick to your view of nullification, and I'll stick to reality. States cannot refuse to send funds to Washington D.C. This is another example of why nullification can't work...it quickly translates in successionist talk. Again, the powers of the constitution, the executive branch, and the Federal Government are constantly changing---if health care reform is passed, nullification will mean absolutely nothing.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
whatthehell, why should they choose to buy insurance? Because of government regulations, insurance companies cannot separate out risk pools. Hence the young and healthy are forced to be in the same pool as the old or the unhealthy. That's nothing more than a tax on being healthy. In addition because of government regulations insurance companies cannot offer piecemeal insurance, hence customers cannot put together their own plan and choose what they are willing to pay to have covered and what they aren't willing to pay for. Government has created this insurance mess, that's the last place we should turn to fix it.
whatthehell (anonymous) says…
Liberty, your same-old-arguments just don't work AND you talk out of both sides of your mouth at times (you have in the past allowed that SOME regulation is necessary). You will not and cannot get rid of all regulation of health care, Insurance and related industries. It would not work. Continuing to argue such is just naive and there is no way that the founders could possibly conceive of the complexity of these issues. Enough with the Rockefellers, Carnegies et.al. Yes they were groundbreakers but what you fail to aknowledge is that they did require regulation and still do - although I think the anologies are just completely off base.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
whatthe, it's not your fault that you think it wouldn't work. You've lived your entire life in a government regulated world, so you can't possibly imagine HOW it would work. You naively assert that regulation is necessary but fail to provide any reason why. You say my analogies are off base but fail to provide any reason why. You say it would not work if we got rid of regulations but fail to provide any reason why. Are you seeing the pattern? This is blind faith in the necessity of the state, probably nutured in a state-run education facility.
I don't talk out of both sides of my mouth. I don't advocate for SOME regulation as I've consistently said that the common law is sufficient. I don't fail to acknowledge that they did require regulation. Falling prices and innovative new products is not a bad thing in my opinion. Why would you not want that?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
ilikebutter (Anonymous) says…
"Hilarious! Look at any dataset and you will quickly see the countries with “Government-run” healthcare, any of the Nordic States, France, England, Canada, all have achieved an equal (or higher) life expectancy,"
No, they have lower life expectancy when you take out things like our higher homicide rate and highway car accident deaths.
But that's beside the point, we have government-run health care too. Our government spends more money per person on health care than does Canada. Sorry, but we aren't even close to a free market in health care.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
No, they have lower life expectancy when you take out things like our higher homicide rate and highway car accident deaths.
-----------------------
Because of their government-run healthcare, the survival rate from attempted homicide and highway car accidents is higher.
Why would you take those out?
jadkansas (anonymous) says…
Auto insurance is required by anyone who owns a vehicle. How is being required to have health insurance truly going to be worse? If I paid the same or near the same for health insurance as I do for auto insurance, I'd be a happy camper indeed. And that's without even considering a government sponsored system of insurance, which I doubt I would buy into.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Bob_Keeshan (Anonymous) says…
"Why would you take those out?"
Because homicide rates and car accidents have nothing to do with the quality of health care, but they do lower the average life expectancy. If you are going to use life expectancy as a measure of the quality of health care, you need to remove things that affect average life expectancy but have nothing to do with health care. When you do that the US becomes #1.
Look at the death rate per 1000 people in the US for homicides and traffic accidents compared to some other countries in this chart made with information from the World Health Organization and the US Department of Health and Human Services:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RPTAaOI4RN8...
SirReal (anonymous) says…
newsflash Kansas, you can't supercede the federal government.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
That link doesn't work. Here's the chart plus another showing the standardized rankings:
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/liber...
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
SirReal (Anonymous) says…
"newsflash Kansas, you can't supercede the federal government."
Newsflash SirReal, it's called checks and balances.
whatthehell (anonymous) says…
Liberty, I have offered examples and explanations in the past. You don't want to listen to any other arguments or discussions that do not include,
"let the free market be left entirely alone".
What's with the crack about state schools? I do not see where that belongs in the conversation, but since you asked... Private school through HS, then public university. Good Grades. Very good ACT scores... none of which is important to this thread. What might be worth noting is that you seem to have a certain level of disdain for anyone with a different opinon from yours, or who refuses to cite examples that are at least 80 yrs old.
whatthehell (anonymous) says…
Liberty and others.... Is there even one shining example of health care and for-profit health care insurance that are running efficiently in a free market system? Anywhere? If so, is this location anywhere near the top of the lists that rank health care? I don't think so but if I am wrong I would really like to know about it.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
whatthehell, I'll listen to examples and explanations aplenty if you provide them. But don't list myths like that of the evil die-hard capitalist, or that the 19th century capitalists like Carnagie and Rockfeller "required" regulation, whatever that means.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
Bob_Keeshan (Anonymous) says…
“Why would you take those out?”
Because homicide rates and car accidents have nothing to do with the quality of health care, but they do lower the average life expectancy.
------------------------
They have plenty to do with the quality of health care.
If the quality of health care is poor, you are less likely to survive an attempted homicide or car accident.
Homicides and car accident deaths aren't instantaneous. Plenty of people survive attempted homicides and car accidents.
In other countries, more people survive. Gotta leave those in.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
whatthehell (Anonymous) says…
"Liberty and others…. Is there even one shining example of health care and for-profit health care insurance that are running efficiently in a free market system? Anywhere?"
No, there were in the past, but I guess you have disdain for any examples that are more than 80 years old.
whatthehell (anonymous) says…
If there are none in the modern era of health care then certainly there must be a reason for it. What are the reasons that there is not one example of modern health care working in the environment you desire?
It isn't that I have disdain for historical examples of success, I just don't think citing them is always useful in a discussion of the current or modern scenarios.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
whatthehell (Anonymous) says…
“Liberty and others…. Is there even one shining example of health care and for-profit health care insurance that are running efficiently in a free market system? Anywhere?”
No, there were in the past, but I guess you have disdain for any examples that are more than 80 years old.
----------------------------------------------------------
Are you advocating for leeches?
I assume you still travel in a horse and buggy, given you have disdain for anything that is newer than 80 years old.
whatthehell (anonymous) says…
what I meant when I said they required regulation was just that.... Major industries have required some level of regulation. I am certain that you have agreed with this point in the past on at least one occasion (EPA regulating factory emissions perhaps). It is a simple fact that if you let any organization, company, market force, monopoly, or other get too big then they/it wields too much power and the forces for the greater good fail to the forces of greed and hunger for power.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
whatthehell (Anonymous) says…
"What are the reasons that there is not one example of modern health care working in the environment you desire?"
I can't speak for other countries, but in the US we moved away from free markets because of big business's influence on government. Cartels and monopolies don't work in a free market, so businesses asked the government for regulations to enforce their cartels and hamper competition. For example, the AMA lobbied for licensure in every state so that they could limit the number of doctors and thus raise prices. Railroads lobbied for regulation and got the interstate commerce commission, who's first act was to force all prices to be published to prevent competitors from undercutting the cartel in secret. etc.
rhd99 (anonymous) says…
Auto insurance is ONLY required if you buy a car or drive on the road. Health insurance mandates are unnecessary & stupid & unconstitutional. What the heck does auto insurance have anything to do with this stupid health care debate that includes these stupid individual mandates?
Sparko (anonymous) says…
Kansans suffer disproportionately in health care because of how poor the state is. The simple fact is Kansas is desperate for single payer of medicare for all type insurance plan. More than half of Kansas has no health insurance or is minimally covered. They attack unions, health care for all, and fair wages every day in the name of Tea Parties. The tea party movement is just Exxon, Wal-Mart and Aetna triple-teaming you into an early grave. Sad. What is the matter with Kansas? See Libertyone. A poor sad basement dweller looking for approval from his corporate masters. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Bob, what's your purpose here? Everyone here (even porch) understands that we are talking about laws and policies, not technology. Your analogy that my wanting to follow policies of the 19th century are equivilant to using technology from the 19th century is spurious at best. I think I'm done with you until you have something intelligent to say.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
sparko, corporate masters? You should be careful before you make such ignorant statements. Corporations are nothing but welfare for the wealthy, and I've said many times before that they should be done away with. But don't let that get in the way of your hasty generalizations. Basement dweller? What's next in the internet flame attack list? Are you going to make a comment about my momma?
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
Liberty_One, you suggested a free market health care system from 80 years ago.
That isn't laws and policies, that is referencing a tangible product from 80 years ago.
What other tangible products from 80 years ago do you find relevant today?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Sure, free market capitalism isn't an economic policy, it's a tangible product. Next.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
Ah, so you hanker for the Gilded Age.
Wouldn't this exacerbate the unemployment situation, what with all the cheap child labor flooding the market? And how will our 21st century health care system handle all the injuries from our suddenly deregulated work environments?
For someone who is having a hard time clearly stating a position you are awfully dismissive.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Bob_Keeshan (Anonymous) says…
"For someone who is having a hard time clearly stating a position you are awfully dismissive."
Yes, I'M the one having a hard time clearly stating a position:
Bob_Keeshan (Anonymous) says…
“It is not a choice. It is both. Stop ignoring the latter, for your own sake”
“I, for one, choose to embrace the following 200 years of our nation's history.”
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, have you figured out that we were talking about state nullification yet? Remember how you thought my citing Jefferson and Madison's Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions as proof of the concept wasn't "on point"?
Any more laughers for me today?
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
You da man, Liberty. Keep up the good work, bro.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, the General Welfare clause is in relation to spending. It has nothing to do with health care reform. Regulatory powers come from the commerce clause, dummy. Please stop playing armchair lawyer. Remember when you thought that malpractice wasn't a tort?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, cite anybody who thinks the General Welfare clause and not the commerce clause is the source of the federal government's regulatory power. Anyone porch. Anyone at all would do, but an attorney, author, congressmen, senator, professor, historian etc. would be preferred. That's all you've got to do, give me one name and a citation.
My source for state nullification is from a speech given by Dr. Tom Woods, senior fellow at the Mises Institute, where he talked about the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, which I found and read. That's my source for my idea. What's your source for this nutjob idea that the General Welfare clause is the source of regulatory power and not the commerce clause? Please don't tell me you thought it up yourself. Please tell me some idiot mentioned it to you and you naively believed him.
And porch, please stop embarrassing yourself about malpractice. You'd do well not to bring up your past mistakes where your ignorance shined through. Remember how you thought that a trust was the same thing as a cartel?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, you crazy interpretation of the General Welfare clause is something you completely dreamt up on your own and is thus completely invalid. I bring up my reference to my source for the state nullification issue to show the difference between me and you. My ideas have sources from people like Thomas Jefferson, your idea is something you completely made up. Provide a source for you nutjob idea about the General Welfare clause. Cite any one person who agrees with you.
"I pointed out that it would be hard to sue someone for malpractice when your suggestion does away with standards of care."
A word of advice: it's not wise to parade your ignorance like this. Malpractice is a tort dummy. How many times do I have to set you straight on this before you get it?
"The General Welfare Clause of the Constitution says that the United States Government can intervene in an issue which affects the welfare of its citizens."
According to who? Are you a legal scholar? No. Cite someone, anyone who agrees with your nutjob thesis.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, Hamilton was talking about spending power, not regulatory power, so try again. Please cite any authority that supports your nutjob notion that the General Welfare clause and not the commerce clause is the source of regulatory power.
"You can sue anyone for anything but you won't get much if no one can tell you what “practice” is so that you can claim that someone injured someone through “malpractice”."
How do you think people sued for malpractice before the licensure movement in the late 1800s? Malpractice is a tort. Torts are common law and have nothing to do with licensure. How many times do I have to tell you malpractice is a tort before that sinks in?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
So I take it you've given up on trying to find anyone who agrees with your nutjob theory. This is the problem you run into when you make things up porch.
9070811 (anonymous) says…
I still don't understand citizens who don't want to have health insurance that is included in their taxes. No dealing with insurance... the ability to see a doctor wherever you go.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, just throwing names is desperate. You can't cite anyone and grabbed a couple of names. You also cited a court case dealing with spending. The case relating to reugulatory power is Wickard v. Filburn, LOL, you just keep piling on embarassment after embarssment. That's just sad that your position is so weak you have to make stuff up. Like how you thought you could cover your hilarious mistake when you thought a trust was the same thing as a cartel by calling it a "business trust," as if that's what you really meant all along! Let's hear some more idiotic ramblings from the archair lawyer. Tell me how people sued for malpractice before licensing began in the late 1800s?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"Sit down. You're beaten."
Desperate eh? I've read the documents in question and they don't say anything like your nutjob theory. You're lying porch and you've been caught. No where does anyone say that federal regulatory power comes from the General Welfare clause instead of the commerce clause. Clearly you can't cite to a single Federalist paper as you provide a link to the main page and not to a specific one. You haven't read them and you have no clue what you're talking about. Quit making stuff up and this won't happen porch. When you lie you end up getting caught. You can't provide a single citation for your nutjob theory and it's getting to be sad. Just admit that you made it up yourself because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
The problem I see with Storys interpretation of the GWC is that it doesn't seem to jive with the reasons the founders went to such great efforts in forming the constitution. If the Constitution was written to establish a Federal Government and at the same time limit the power of that Government going so far as to specifically list the powers of the Governnment why would they have included a GWC and ICC that gives them a loophole to regulate anything? That doesn't make sense to me. The 18th and 21st ammendments show that Government even in the last century understood there were limits on its power and had to ammend the constitution to increase its authority. If this health care reform is so vital I think it should be introduced as an ammendment to the constitution. If the GWC and the ICC can be used to justify so many things for the Federal Government its like the constitution is almost meaningless.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, lol, you pick two quotes that completely contradict you nutjob theory. Nowhere in either quote does it say that the source of regulatory power is the General Welfare clause. In fact, in quote #2, it specifically talks about *spending*.
"and congress may appropriate money in aid of it; for it is then in a just sense for the general welfare"
You provide two quotes that disprove your nutjob theory and you don't even know it! Too funny! Regulatory power comes from the commerce clause, not the General Welfare clause, which, as you have so nicely proven, is in regards to *spending* power and not regulatory power.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, I'm from Kansas too dummy. Regardless, what's sad is that you don't even understand why you're wrong, do you? Is the difference between the spending power and the regulatory power that hard for you to understand? By all means, feel free to provide another quote that proves my point.
"and congress may appropriate money in aid of it; for it is then in a just sense for the general welfare”
Too funny that you disproved your own argument!
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
"they said would prevent the federal government from forcing Kansans to have health insurance"
That's from the article dummy. That's what we've been talking about all along, in case you didn't notice. An insurance mandate would fall under a regulatory power. I guess this is too complicated for you, but forcing Kansans to have health insurance isn't spending. Of course you don't know that this is a key difference because you make stuff up! porch, quit making things up. Why don't you actually do some reading for a change and make an informed opinion. Believe me, you'd be much more likable if you weren't so arrogant and ignorant at the same time.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, you wrongly cited the only portion of the Constitution you're familiar with. You know how sad it is that you keep going to that hole time and time again? Every single time there's a Federal power question you go to the one thing you can remember. That's just pathetic, and it's so predictable.
Regardless, the states can nullify any federal law that they find unconstitutional. Obviously you didn't read the Virginia or Kentucky resolutions of 1798. Geez, man, are you really that lazy that you can't read a couple of webpages?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"You challenged me to back my General Welfare Clause mandate argument up and I did successfully."
Sure you did. You only provided a quote that said exactly what I've been saying all along which is that the General Welfare clause refers to the spending power.
"The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 didn't fly, did they?"
Umm, yeah, they did. You're not very good at hiding the fact that you have no idea what they are and that you didn't read them. Seriously, you couldn't take five minutes to read what Jefferson and Madison wrote?
Please do some reading. Next time there's a federal power issue don't be the only person who doesn't know what we're talking about. I'm embarassed for you that you keep going to the only part of the Constitution that you know about.
Good night porch. Please, do some reading. You don't know everything and you can't just go around making stuff up.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"Like I said, go ahead and secede if you want to. Saying that you'll secede rather than accept universal health care is a first class temper tantrum but it's not an argument proving unconstitutionality of said reform."
You're right, it doesn't prove that the reform is unconstitutional at all. And since it's the morning and I'm feeling refreshed I'll throw you a bone. If the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the powers you claim it does, then it's failed to prevent the federal government from acquiring those powers anyway. So regardless of whether your interpretation or mine is technically correct, you are de facto correct because the federal government is going to do what it wants to anyway.
But, however disillusioned you think people like me are, there is a growing anti-government movement in this country. Will it continue to grow or die off, who knows? But I think that if you continue to shove these kinds of reforms down our throats, you will only add fuel to the fire that will destroy the Union. Maybe you think I'm blowing this out of proportion, and maybe I am. I guess we'll see.