Welcome to Big Government
Click download link to listen on this device: Download Show
My friend, James Farley, is a long time veteran of the medical industry. He is now the Chief Operating Officer of a large organization. He discussed the implications of the Supreme Court Decision with me.
Morning Ken,
I am very, very concerned right now!
Big government is a concept that I think is wrong. What ever happened to individualism?
Holy smoke!
Big Al
Oh, don’t worry Big Al,
The rise of the totalitarian fourth Reich party is just getting stated here in Amerika.
Just keep voting those Democrats and Republicans back into office so we can get this slave gulag fully implemented. Lets quit messing around, lets get the show on the road.. The ruler’s personal cabinet of 535 is going to take care of everything and assist in the smooth transition of full blown collectivism.
This illusion of liberty and freedom is so much fun. Hell I don’t even need to think for myself anymore. Obama, my ruler and his gaggle of 535 cronies do all of that for me.
Boy this freedom thing is great…………..sarcasm off!
V
KEN & VORTEX………….DITTO DITTO DITTO………..Wake up Americans & take back your freedom & liberty……For in a few years it will be too late.
How much lower can precious metal stocks go?
Beginning to believe that us gold bugs are the only ones interested…
Hi Allen,
I think that we all need to consider the environment that we are in.
This environment is truly confusing to me at this moment in time. Things are happening that make no fundamental sense.
Based on your comment, I will do a Daily Editorial on your question later today.
Best,
Big Al
I do not believe that the supreme court “takes sides” they mearly interprate the law according to the US constitution. Maybe I am wrong?
Hi Bobby,
I would probably agree that it does not take sides. I would love to have been in the room when conversations occurred between officials and judges. (If in fact those conversation actually did happen.)
I believe that the decision was incorrect as my two guests earlier today seemed to also think.
I amazed that the decision came down the way that it did.
Big Al
Bobby you are wrong.
A formalist judge like Thomas looks at the 4 corners of a contract and/or law and decides based on the contents thereof. Let the chips fall.
An activist judge aka Gingsburg decides who should win and writes a tortured reversed legal engineered decision to arrive at her bias result. Today unfortunately the activist judge was Roberts.
Roberts made Obama breach another 2008 promise…apparently Obama did raise taxes on those making under 250,000/year….he not only raised taxes on them he raised taxes on the baby in their newborn baby.
If we let the uninsured free access to our hospitals via the ER, we are all taxed as well. Isn’t it better to calculate the tax explicitly than just keep subsidizing the uninsured when we need to save their lives or cure their helpless sick children? What to do?
Must a health care provider be paid for every procedure?
Must they bill and bankrupt the down and out?
Did people die in the streets prior to health insurance and Medicare/Medicaid?
No….. to all the above.
Government has caused a problem they now want to remedy by making it worse.
Oh! goody…more government involvement in an vital service that was just fine before they became involved.
There is a big difference between compelled government programs /taxes and altruistic assitance to those in need. They are not mutually exclusive until they are….and that unfortunately is the mis-direction we are going. Today we arrived….we can all get out and stretch our now enslaved legs.
Did people die in the streets prior to health insurance and Medicare/Medicaid?
No….. to all the above.
— Dennis, ever read Dickens? Answer to your question is “Yes.” Moreover the problem is it’s not just the poor who can take advantage of the ER freebies. What about healthy younger families up to age 40. They figure, what the hell they’re not sick and if the unlikely need arises, they can go to the ER just like any illegal and get free care.
Morning Joe,
My thoughts exactly!
Good to have you with us,
Big Al
1) Dickens was fiction
2) Dickens settings were 1830 England
3) The laws of which i complain LBJ’s Medicare and Medicaid and the monster just sanctioned by the Court are US……..
SO JOE……
Were people left to die in the streets of The United States of America prior LBJ’s over reach in 1964.
Joe ….the answer is NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, let me understand what you envision, Dennis. Are you suggesting that the medical profession, doctors, labs, hospitals etc “should” work for free when a patient claims not to be able to pay. This seems like an undue burden on the providers and it also seems like an invitation to cheat the system to get free health services. I’m asking, wouldn’t it be better to figure out some way to share that expense assuming we do indeed wish to provide care to those who cannot or will not pay?
Prior to Medicare being passed in 1965 poor elederly received health care.
Many did not have ‘coverage’ but they received care through a combination of pro bono healtcare and charity. The big difference is services were delivered out of a civic virtue rather then a government coercion. In 1964 The United States did not look like Dicken’s 1830 England…Dr’s still made an occasional house call and may have been compensated with an apple pie. How American!
LBJ and now Obama put an end to that. It is sad. Coverage is not care! The high irony is now that everyone will be ‘covered’ we will see care denied because we will be unable to afford the medical inflation no matter how many apple pies we bake.
Hello Big Al and thanks for the welcome.
Unquestionably believe that which you sttead. Your favorite justification seemed to be at the web the simplest factor to take note of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed at the same time as people think about issues that they just don’t understand about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the top as neatly as defined out the whole thing with no need side effect , people can take a signal. Will probably be again to get more. Thanks!
D M O,
As the Justice himself proclaims:
“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.”
“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
A Justice not engaging in policy puts his pen down.
The Supreme Court cliche is that “when reasonable minds can differ deference should be given to the legislature”. If Roberts was doing this he would not have re-written the law!.
Dennis, saying we should go back to the good old days when everybody played fair and the Doctors worked pro bono is kind of like saying the “too big to fail” banks should stop speculating like hedge funds with their customers’ deposits. In the long run history has shown if there’s a way to “game the system” and cheat, somebody will do that. It’s like Gresham’s Law. So we can’t just wish to go back to when Doctors gave service for free. And by the way even 50 years ago medical care was a lot simpler, a lot less costly technology and lab use in play and there’s a reason why that model broke down. The local doc with his leather bag is not going to spring for a CAT scanner if the patients or somebody else is going to pay for it. That’s why so many hospitals are going broke in every state.
My perspective is do not allow the people who caused a horrible problem fix it.
Take the shovel our o their hand!.
How is this for a solution:
Ban all health insurance. It would not go over well in Hartford but,,,think abour it! Maybe Roberts was on to something….health insurance always has been a tax on the healthy…..allowing the stethescopes to put down thier black bags in favor of a BMW.
Dennis, I was trying to sort through a tough issue with the group here. Surely you do know the difference between insurance and taxation?
BOBBY…….I have to disagree…….i believe they did what they were told to do by ..”THEY”
Irish,
You make a good point. Look at the rhetoric bo spewed toward the court making the right decision and thje rhetoric was directed at the court. The court was listening and the weak chose to act.
JERRY M…….It was simply a matter of not biting the hand that feeds you , those judges are just puppies, scared of the BIG DOG.
Irish, see my comments above.
From a strictly practical standpoint, I am wondering how this decision will influence Health Savings Accounts (HSA)?
Personally, the HSA concept works best for me: (a) I pay a relatively low premium, (b) I get to decide what doctors I see and what tests/imaging they perform, (c) I don’t pay that annoying co-pay, and (d) I can pay directly for my dental and eye care, knowing that I’m getting a 25% discount (due to the tax advantages).
I hope that the new laws enacted in 2014 do not destroy the HSA health insurance model
Brian
I think the time has come to start civil disobedience.
cfs……………i am very sorry to have to say this…but i agree with you….Signed a soon to be fully paid up slave.
Johan Liljegren November 13, 2007 Jeff,Great to get some new blog tips! However, the link to Matt Evans’ The Admin Exchange is most likely incoerrct, as it is the same as the one to Salesforce Times.My Google karma doesn’t give me any tips on where to find it either. Do you have an updated link to it?Regards//Johan
As a Canadian, I am curious what this will cost the average American out of pocket. Even though we have “free” healthcare in Canada, the province I live in charges us an extra $500-$1000 per year in ‘Health Tax’ depending on what our income is.
Also, how does your president get away with presenting no budget in 3 years? That’s mind boggling. Sooooooooooo disappointed in Obama.
PEDC,
I’m originally from Vancouver, now in Phoenix, One day I should write a book about each system. I’ve had the good fortune to have friends who are practicing doctors in each country and I have a lot of stories from different views. There’s quite a bit of dogma and angst when one tries to compare each system. The US Constitution is (well, was) unique in the world…Canadians most certainly do not have the same freedoms from our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although we have always felt that we did. From someone who knows, we don’t (maybe back in the 1930’s we did). Taxes for different purposes and caused by different motivations, or population density, or collectivist vs individualist responsibilities and expectations, and a whole whack of other differences such as a combination of French civil law mixing with British case law, shaped each nation more differently than is popularly understood, particularly in Canada where we feel we know it all.
There’s no question the cost to average Americans will go up, but not because more people are in the system (who are already receiving care), but because a new and very inefficient layer of bureaucracy has been added, one with no expertise in medicine or economics or in anything.
As you have also probably gleaned, the most destructive outcome of this decision is it further subjugates people to the Federal government. In Canada, or the UK, or Australia, etc. we are accustomed to letting Federal “servants” have the first and the final say on most issues, because the word “federal” has been aggrandized into some ultimate authority. When I moved to the US in 1998, there was some of that for certain, but there was a very powerful awareness that individuals mattered and should be free to choose. It was quite invigorating, actually. Not like Vancouver’s bylaw-per-minute or everything-is-illegal-unless-approved mentality. I’ve watched a lot of free attitudes in the US disappear, as more Millenials grow-up and take their positions in the world. Once the United States takes on the role of running medical care for its citizens, it will be burdened beyond the ability to support than and its large (and to some extent, necessary) military role. The irony is, the country now takes on that responsibility (and related ability to control) right at the time it can least afford to. When other Commonwealth nations established universal care, it was done when those countries were generally running surpluses and had average population ages of 25 or less, and expanding workforce demographics because productivity could not keep up. Every one of those factors is the opposite. It is, quite literally, the worst possible time to add a new expense to the system. It might begin by costing the average American an extra $500-1,000/year, but it might soon cost everything.
Yikes… you can’t even vote them out…
I do believe all of the ideas you have offreed for your post. They are really convincing and can definitely work. Still, the posts are too quick for newbies. May just you please prolong them a little from subsequent time? Thank you for the post.
It’s all a charade. Conservative, liberal…makes no nevermind…they all believe gummit should have more control over our lives. And why not? They, after all, run the gummit! Of course they want more control!
And what a joke the election is. You have the inventor of Obammie Care vs the implementor of Obammie Care. What a choice!
No matter which of these criminal clowns win I guarantee you gummit spending will continue to go up as will gummit debt as will gummit control over YOU.
And as long as they call it a tax gummit can do pretty much anything, right Roberts? You good old conservative. Thanks, Bushie for putting him on the bench!
Anyway, anything goes if it’s a tax. I guess the molestations and porno scans at the airport must be taxes.
And the whole financial house of cards will collapse. It’s only a matter of time.
The country truly is a nation of sheep ruled by perverted criminals.