Articles

300 thoughts on “Mortality and lack of health insurance

  1. Harriet Hall says:

    @nybgrus,
    Correction: SBM does not have a booth at TAM. We have held Workshops there every year since 2010 and have done panel presentations on the main program each of those years, most recently here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-AUHCf7eHQ&feature=youtu.be Sure hope you can make it!

  2. mousethatroared says:

    The analogy of putting kittens in a microwave is kinda offensive. Sorry DugganSC – I know you are not usually inflammatory, so I will assume you just feel really emotional about this issue. But a woman faces a higher risk of financial instability, illness and even death due to pregnancy and delivery than she does using birth control or terminating an unintended pregnancy. At the very minimum one should be able to respect the risks that a woman faces in pregnancy and delivery.

    I am aggravated by a nation that rejects default organ donations but thinks they should be able to control a woman’s body to save a zygote.

  3. Narad says:

    Narad…that would be my business..or would I have to spend it on what you tell me to spend it also?

    It is of course your business if you think the best thing to do with your money is to stick it in a mattress or, apparently, invest it in deliverable contracts in the full-stop market. However, you ought not to be surprised when your stream-of-consciousness pronouncements on macroeconomics then fail to generate much in the way of value in the marketplace of ideas.

  4. nybgrus says:

    @Dr. Hall: I sit corrected then. I knew SBM was there, but was unclear with the exact nomenclature involved. And yes, I would love to make it, as would a very good friend of mine from Chicago Medical School. It would be an honor to meet you and the rest of the SBM authorship and whomever from the commentariat that shows up.

  5. Just wanted to add one thing :) The Nazis, even if they were not the exact same brand of big centralized government and ‘majority rule’, of socialism, or communism, they were still a Big Centralized Goverment and..’majority rule’…(the ‘majority’ did vote in Hitler afterall). That’s the problem we (on the right, who’ve actually been accused of being Nazis?) have with Any big centralized government, that our forefathers tried to prevent, and why we’re not a straight democracy, we’re a Republic. And, once again, were meant to have the power to individual States and not to D.C. as our Big Centralized Government ruling us all. That’s being changed more and more in the last 50 years or so..and, more so in the last 4..alarmingly so. I think it was called ‘fundamental transformation’ isn’t that what Obama ran on? And now..’let’s finish the job we started’..And that would mean what exactly? what exactly is ‘fundamental transformation’ anyway? hmmmm

  6. Actually, I believe FDR began it in a big way, LB Johnson advanced it with “the Great Society”..and it has continued to be advanced since…perhaps both sides (being wrong) but, nevertheless, it has. I didn’t consider Bush a true conservative actually… but there it is….and it’s mostly (true) conservatives and libertarians that are trying to reign it back. And, I know the raving will now be..how we don’t care for the poor, or for the free education for all, and sex change ops, or for someone’s bank book $, or for any and all things the left determines they need others to pay for…but, enough…is …enough.

  7. David Gorski says:

    The Nazis, even if they were not the exact same brand of big centralized government and ‘majority rule’, of socialism, or communism, they were still a Big Centralized Goverment and..’majority rule’…(the ‘majority’ did vote in Hitler afterall).

    When called out on her B.S. that Nazis were “socialists,” note how RH retreats back to the silly and meaningless trope of, “Well, maybe Nazis weren’t ‘socialists,’ but they had a big centralized government; so it’s the same thing.” And, no, that’s not a straw man; that’s the implication of RH’s silly argument.

    Oh, and the majority didn’t vote for Hitler, at least not before he came to power in January 1933, after which the Nazis rigged future elections. In July 1932, the Nazis only got 37% of the vote, with the Social Democrats getting 22% and the Communists getting 14%. This was a huge gain, enough to make the Nazi Party the largest single party in the Reichstag, but not enough for a working majority because none of the other parties would form a coalition with the Nazis. Because there was no working majority (leading President Hindenberg to rule at times by emergency decree), another election was held in November 1932, and the Nazi share of the vote actually fell to 33%, with a corresponding increase for the Communist Party and the conservative German National People’s Party. The governing chaos resulting from this situation was what led to the jockeying and negotiations that ultimately ended up with Hindenberg forming a government in which Hitler was Chancellor almost three months later.

    Once Hitler got into power, it didn’t take him long to start crushing all opposition, and the rest, unfortunately, is history.

  8. nybgrus says:

    The founding fathers actually did want a strong central government. There is very little question about that. However, the only way that they could actually have any government was to create a document that appeased the individual states and ensured individual rights deemed important by the people (aka the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendmends to the constitution passed as a simultaneous referendum) which were significantly influenced by the peoples’ experiences during British rule and the revolutionary war.

    If you notice, rustic, the constitution is set up such that States can make whatever laws they want – so long as they do not conflict with Federal law. Federal law always trumps state laws no matter what. Which is why the medical marijuana laws in California are actually illegal and why Bush kept sending in DEA and other federal officials to bust medical marijuana users. It was a political ploy by the California advocates however, because they kept setting up the DEA to bust in on little old grannies smoking a joint for their cancer giving very bad PR to the fed. It was Obama that finally decided enough bad PR is enough, and simply look the other way. That said, if you look at the actual laws governing the prescription of marijuana by a physician, it follows the same guidelines as prescription of any other drug except that it is explicitly stated that while the California Medical Board and state/local police would not inquire into such prescriptions (unless they violated the general principles of responsible prescription) the Feds could come in and make trouble for you and there is nothing the state can do about it.

    So explain to me how you reconcile a constitution set up in an iron-clad way to ensure that federal decress always trump state decrees (regardless of which decree came first!) with your notion that the founding fathers did not want a strong and big centralized government?

    And furthermore, you demonstrate quite nicely exactly why many of us here are proponents of certain legislation in that majority rule does not mean the trampling of minority rights… yet seem to think that only applies to the minority rights you and your ideology agree with.

  9. nybgrus says:

    @Dr. Gorski:

    Thanks for that info… I had always thought that Hitler had won control through a very standard and legitimate popular vote and then started running amok. I wish I had the time to go back to the archives of your alter ego and read up on that….

  10. Well..fine Dr. Gorski…whatever the #s..37% is more than 22%..anyway..if the socialists and communists got together they’d have another Big Government rule..either/or..All Three are Big Government rule…or at least One centralized rule ..and yes Hitler was a dictator..or turned to be when he had the opportunity..that’s how it happens..Stalin became Dictator and murdered millions of Russians too..people don’t vote in evil dictators usually… (at least I hope not), but that’s what happens… and the only safeguard is a Republic, and a Limited one at that.

  11. Nybrus..there Is a question about whether our forefathers wanted a strong federalized government. That’s pretty strange to claim…according to whom? they simply “appeased” the population? wow…and you’re OK with that?

    Well, atleast, a few of them thankfully didn’t..Thomas Jefferson being one. Well, he’s probably my favorite..who actually seemed to remember what they fought against…..Benjamin Franklin seemed to be another “Its a Republic, for as long as you can keep it”…I don’t care what some “allowed” or “appeased” or what you say you know in their minds what they meant they allowed or appeased..whatever happened..or should have happened, there is a terrible danger of Big Centralized government, overruling and trampling on everyone’s individual rights..Right now, my individual right is being trampled on by forcing me to pay for someone else’s health care..health care I don’t even care or choose for myself!..see? what about MY individual rights there? That’s the damned problem here. This centralized now healthcare run from the Feds is now forcing me to pay for something I don’t want ..for myself for one..or actually, for anyone else. Chemical toxic medicine is not my idea of health! I know I know, you believe you know better than I do for myself..I’m almost TOTALLY sure in your mind you think right now..that’s what ‘dictator’ type socialists seem to have a inclination to do. That’s how this all ties in.

  12. mousethatroared says:

    RH – “The Nazis, even if they were not the exact same brand of big centralized government and ‘majority rule’, of socialism, or communism, they were still a Big Centralized Goverment and..’majority rule’…(the ‘majority’ did vote in Hitler afterall). That’s the problem we (on the right, who’ve actually been accused of being Nazis?)”

    Learn history – I already made one crack about Night of the Long Knives, that you were obviously not curious enough to look-up.

  13. and, the federal decree of the Constitution, supposedly federal law, was meant to guard against states Not stepping on the individuals rights..I believe, once upon a time, we had.

  14. mousethatroared says:

    Also – the idea of public education in the U.S. was started by the founding father’s who made it clear that literate citizens are needed to build a strong democracy. Freedom of the press is pointless, if only the elite can read.

    “”If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Thomas Jefferson

  15. Chris says:

    mousethatroared:

    Learn history

    I am amazed at how little history is known by the “health freedom” folks. There is one elsewhere who essentially wants the FDA abolished, and that there be no regulations (all the time claiming FDA approved drugs kill 100000 people per year), and then claims that the Elixir Sulfanilamide Tragedy only killed about six (it was over a hundred).

    The Night of Long Knives was just part of the way the Nazis got rid of their opposition. I recently read about it in Erik Larson’s In the Garden of the Beasts, which is about the American ambassador and his family during that time.

  16. mousethatroared says:

    nybgrus and anyone else – As DG points out, there were problem’s with the democratic structure in Germany that lead to Hitler being able to take control. I don’t have as good a grasp of those issues as I would like, since my main German history was learned in a college German films class*. But I know enough to observe that the saying “those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.” Is more than a warning about individual ethics and predijuce. One needs to look at how government structures and decisions failed, to prevent similar catastrophes. This is the reason that the groundless accusations of communism and fascism (Where labels are empty synonyms for “bad”) from either the left or right, drive me batty. They only get in the way of a nuanced understanding of what mechanisms failed that will help us identify actual problems in governments today.
    DG posts are great for that, and amazingly brief (considering the source ) but I am also left wanting more.
    *Our Professor lived in Germany as a child, immigrated to the U.S. after Hitler established control and then served as a translator for the U.S. military in Postwar Germany and liked to lecture on films within the context of history and culture, so it was an extremely good class for learning history, but still…

  17. lilady says:

    (Not that RH will visit this site), but here it is:

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitler.html

    A few years ago, when my husband and his German colleague were guest lecturers at Donau University, Krems, Austria, we rented a car and drove to Prague. Prague is one of the most beautiful cities in Europe. We and our German friends spent an entire day “touring” sites within the Jewish Ghetto. Here we saw the many synagogues that were part of Jewish life before the Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia, 1939. More than 250,000 Jews in Czechoslavakia perished in concentration camps during World War II.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Prague.html

    When I was growing up in Brooklyn, New York, many my friends’ parents and grandparents had “identifying” numbers tattooed on their forearms. They were the “lucky” Jews, who survived the work camps and concentration camps. The “unlucky” Jews (6,000,000 of them), were those that were systematically exterminated by the Nazi regime and their collaborators.

  18. mousethatroared says:

    nybrgus “If you notice, rustic, the constitution is set up such that States can make whatever laws they want – so long as they do not conflict with Federal law. Federal law always trumps state laws no matter what.”

    Well, just to be clear, unless those federal laws are deemed an unconstitutional infringement upon state rights. Checks and balances.

  19. mousethatroared says:

    Darn editing, my little crack about David Gorski’s short posts was supposed to have a ;) indicating gentle ribbing. Doesn’t read right without the wink.

  20. Chris says:

    mousethatroared, there is a reason that there are whole university courses devoted to Europe and WWII, along with a whole section of literature in both libraries and bookstores. There are lots of issues that can be studied, including the fractious nature of many governments on that continent. My daughter was thinking of taking a Europe in WWII class, but opted for history of the Americas before 1800 because it may actually be less complicated. ;-)

    If you ever get to Europe, be sure to visit a museum about that era. We visited one in Amsterdam and the one in Copenhagen. There was a definite lesson in how different they were from each other. (we were visiting relatives in both countries, including one who had spent time in a German camp as a child)

  21. lillady..I’m sorry, but do I give any impression whatsoever? that I’m anti Jewish? I’m a christian, and the One I believe in was Jewish actually! :) so, I’m not sure where or why this constant implication, accusation, insinuation, that anyone not a leftist is antisemite and I RESENT IT…yet another socialist tactic to label anyone not socialist to be racist or antisemite or ‘greedy’ or hatefilled…seriously you all need to grow up.

  22. and, lilady, don’t dismiss Stalin’s exterminating millions too..let’s not leave that out.. or are you OK with that?

  23. mouse, honestly, I question the FDA’s need also..they’re passing meds untested, unproven, anyway!..as demonstrated with the constant horrendous results and lawsuits that follow. They’ve allowed gmos/ges in our foods without our knowledge or testing/proof that they’re ‘harmless’…we’re on our own apparently anyway.

  24. mousethatroared says:

    @Chris – I’ve been to Europe, a couple times, but you know artists in Europe…we spend most of our available time gawking at art…There is a lifetime to study even before the Twentieth Century. One thing I know about Nazis and art, they hated most of the good stuff.

    If I get a chance to got to Europe again, I will have to be more well-rounded. Thanks for the links.

  25. David Gorski says:

    Well..fine Dr. Gorski…whatever the #s..37% is more than 22%..anyway..if the socialists and communists got together they’d have another Big Government rule..either/or.

    So, now having been shown that, contrary to her historically and politically ignorant blather, Nazi-ism is not socialism and that, contrary to her historically ignorant right wing talking points, the Nazis never got a majority of the vote before they took power, RH retreats to even more historically ignorant speculations about the socialists and Communists getting together. Amusing. That’s why I love being so knowledgeable about World War II, Nazi-ism, and the Holocaust; it amuses me to point out just how dumb arguments of the sort that RH likes to make are.

    Seriously, RH. You need to read some history. Some real history. Jonah Goldberg doesn’t count.

  26. estockly says:

    >>>>Which is why the medical marijuana laws in California are actually illegal and why Bush kept sending in DEA and other federal officials to bust medical marijuana users.

    Just to clarify, the medical marijuana laws are not illegal. California has chosen to not make possession of small amounts of marijuana a crime and to not make using marijuana for medical purposes a crime.

    The state has regulations and if you follows those regulations you are not violating state laws, but may be in violation of Federal law. That does not make the state law “illegal.” The states are not required to make possession and use a crime.

    It just happens that there are federal laws that make using marijuana a crime, but it’s not up to the states to enforce federal law.

    ES

  27. Chris says:

    ES:

    It just happens that there are federal laws that make using marijuana a crime, but it’s not up to the states to enforce federal law.

    And that may be tested in at least one state in next month’s elections.

  28. @Chris, mouse, and Dr. Gorski: A systematic problem in the Weimar Republic might have led to the rise of the NSDAP all the way to 1933, yes. But let’s not forget the terrible economic situation Germany was in after 1918, between the astronomical reparations demanded by the Treaty of Versailles and the German currency being terribly deflated. I remember one of my history professor telling us a bottle of Coke costing 5 billion marks in 1932. This was a situation that was already bad, but made even worse with the start of the Great Depression. In such times of despair, it’s not a surprise to see people flock to those who offer a nicer and simpler narrative. You can see a similar movement today, with the rise of the Golden Dawn in Greece, the score Marine Le Pen received in the first round of the French presidential election this year, and the Tea Party in the United States.

    It’s this notion of nicer narrative and this economical aspect that make me wonder about the popular success (and the predatory nature) of CAMs. On one hand, you have a narrative that strives toward truthfulness, even if it might be painful (using a very extreme example: You have cancer. We have this treatment, but we have to cut you open, and it only has a success rate of 75%. It might also give you an extra X number of years). On the other hand, you have the nicer and simpler narrative (you have cancer? No worries, we will heal you with my reiki touch of awesomeness and those needles. We’ll add moxibustion for good measure as well. Oh, you still died? Well, that’s because you didn’t believe hard enough). And this “alternative treatment” only costs you a fraction of what a medical treatment would cost.

    Personal anecdote: An ex-girlfriend took me to a naturopath a couple of years ago, to have a skin condition checked. I went, because I was curious and because I had no clue what a naturopath was. The naturopath only asked me questions about my diet and had a 5-minute look at the skin of my forearm. She told me I had a fungal infection and sold me a bottle of calendula and a brush. Total cost: Less than $100, without insurance (my HMO didn’t cover “alternative care” at the time), and she offered me a sliding scale. My actual skin condition? Just a very sensitive skin that gets very dry after a shower if I forget to apply lotion. It also happens to my father and my brother.

  29. mousethatroared says:

    RH – It was Chris that mentioned the FDA – I’m the one that’s keeps harping on history and the Constitution. Lilady brought up the Holocaust links because we were talking about learning from the WWII history, I don’t see ANY implication that you are a nazi, only that you are sadly lacking in knowledge of the era.

  30. lilady says:

    @ rustic health:

    ““The Nazis, even if they were not the exact same brand of big centralized government and ‘majority rule’, of socialism, or communism, they were still a Big Centralized Goverment and..’majority rule’…(the ‘majority’ did vote in Hitler afterall). That’s the problem we (on the right, who’ve actually been accused of being Nazis?)”

    I did NOT accuse you of being antisemitic; the first link I provided is an accurately-detailed, historically-correct documentation of Hitler’s rise to power in Germany. The monster Hitler was not elected by the “majority” as you seem to believe.

    The second link I provided, describes what I experienced during my visit to the Jewish Ghetto in Prague.

    BTW, I’m a Christian…and a Liberal…and I deeply resent the hijacking of my religion by the far-to-the-right wing of the Republican party, who are against universal health care.

    WWJD? (What Would Jesus Do?) He would be in favor of universal health care.

    “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.” (King James Bible, Matthew 4:23)

  31. I forgot my point to tie my comment to this post: without any insurance and proper regulation, quacks will be more accessible than doctors.

  32. Francois..I have a comment on my site “Nip it in the Bud”…and one reference is the very very dry chapped hands I used to get…but since taking vitamins regularly and going organic it no longer occurs..here’s a link on it..Vit. A, C E and B complex deficiency perhaps…http://www.ehow.com/facts_4779968_home-remedies-dry-cracked-skin.html

    and you can try coconut oil if you like. just an fyi :)

    mouse I looked it up..Night of the Long Knives..I’m not saying they were compatible..obviously Hitler had other ideas and wanted it all…but they’re both still big dictating gov crushing the individual’s rights…that’s my point

  33. Chris says:

    And I only mentioned the FDA in regards to not knowing history. And true to form RH is responding with the uneducated knee jerk platitudes.

    Mr. Luong, when I was in high school I spotted an English translation of Mein Kampf in the library. I checked it out and caused wide eyed wonder and guffaws of laughter as I read passages from it in the lunch room. The history of WWII in Europe does not start in the 1930s, it starts with the power struggles and political changes in the mid-19th century.

  34. @Chris: You’re right, I’m omitting a lot of things in my comment, such as the issues of Pan-Germanism, colonialism and antisemitism, among other things. I limited my scope to 1918, the German Fall from Empire, to 1933 to have a look at the economic factors that might have lead a significant proportion of Germans (and Austrians) to turn to the far right. I’ve also omitted the case of Italy, which came out a victor of WWI, and where Mussolini came to power in 1922 (granted, through a coup).

  35. lilady says:

    Here are articles about two *home-grown* antisemites…both of them Christian:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dearborn_Independent

    Henry Ford was a pacifist who opposed World War I, and he believed that Jews were responsible for starting wars in order to profit from them: “International financiers are behind all war. They are what is called the international Jew: German Jews, French Jews, English Jews, American Jews. I believe that in all those countries except our own the Jewish financier is supreme . . . here the Jew is a threat”. Ford also believed Jews, in their role as financiers, did not contribute anything of value to society.[1]

    In 1915, during World War I, Ford blamed Jews for instigating the war, saying “I know who caused the war: German-Jewish bankers.” Later, in 1925, Ford said “What I oppose most is the international Jewish money power that is met in every war. That is what I oppose – a power that has no country and that can order the young men of all countries out to death’”.

    And, the Ford-owned Dearborn Independent published the “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”:

    The newspaper published The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was discredited by The Times of London as a forgery during theIndependent’s publishing run. The American Jewish Historical Society described the ideas presented in the magazine as “anti-immigrant, anti-labor, anti-liquor, and anti-Semitic.” In February 1921, the New York World published an interview with Ford, in which he said: “The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on.” During this period, Ford emerged as “a respected spokesman for right-wing extremism and religious prejudice,” reaching around 700,000 readers through his newspaper.[7

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

    After the 1936 election, Coughlin increasingly expressed sympathy for the fascist governments of Hitler and Mussolini as an antidote to Communism.[27] He claimed that Jewish bankers were behind the Russian Revolution,[28] and that Russian Bolshevism was a disproportionately Jewish phenomenon.[29] On November 27, 1938, he said that “there can be no doubt that the Russian Revolution… was launched and fomented by distinctively Jewish influence.”[30]

    He promoted his controversial beliefs by means of his radio broadcasts and his weekly rotogravure magazine, Social Justice, which began publication in March, 1936.[31] During the last half of 1938, Social Justice reprinted in weekly installments the fraudulent, anti-semitic text The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[32] Charles Tull states, “Originally published in Russia in 1905, the Protocols purports to be an account of a Jewish conspiracy to seize control of the world”.

    Seriously RH, get a grip, get a life, stay away from your right-wing websites…and starting reading some history books.

  36. @RH: Not interested in remedies for dry skin. It doesn’t even affect my quality of life. I only used this personal anecdote to illustrate how an economic factor, that is to say how cheap CAM providers compared to doctors when insurance is not taken into consideration.

  37. so Lillady…I suppose BO is one too :) right? according to you :)

  38. and lilady..what were you insinuating with this?..

    (Not that RH will visit this site), but here it is:

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitler.html

    Please cut bull..I’m from NY too..and I don’t take too much of it from anyone..but, I especially have a problem with LW BS

  39. lillady..WWJD? He would tell us to give of our own free will..not a Gov Dictatorship. Libs have hijacked actually christianity in this false self-delusion, that you’re giving when you vote for a Gov to take other’s money from them, and redistribute it…but, not of your own giving in fact. You’re Delusional.

  40. nybgrus says:

    @mouse & estockly:

    Perhaps my language is not as precise as need be in legal terminology since that is certainly far from my field expertise. And yes, there are indeed checks and balances and both an implicit and explicit expectation for the federal government and state government to work together rather than against each other whenever possible. Additionally, there is a very complicated (well beyond my superficial understanding) set of rules which define the way in which federal case law can or cannot become binding precedent.

    However, the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the Constitution states that in all matters the federal law shall be the supreme law of the land and bind all citizens – regardless of state laws.

    If a state law is more restrictive than a federal law, then the state law takes precedence within the state and if a federal court (due to jurisdictional issues) tries a case wherein a relevant state law is more restrictive then the court is bound to apply the state law as if it were a court within the state. However, the reverse is not true. If a law in a state is less restrictive than a federal law the restriction of the federal law take precedence and are the basis of trial.

    In cases where the state and federal law are in direct opposition then the federal law will always trump the state law. This can actually be used to strike down a state law if it is brought to court. For example in Cooper v Aaron (1958) Arkansas tried to nullify desegregation (thus nullifying Brown v Board of Education) by passing a state law based on the theory of states rights. It was struck down by the SCOTUS continuing the precedent that federal law controlled and could not be otherwise changed by state law. In Edgar v Mite Corp (1982), the SCOTUS said explicitly “A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute” which is defined as situations where compliance with both state and federal law is impossible or “…state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress…”

    It has even been established that federal and international treaties will always be supreme to any state concerns, even when the state claims that the action on the part of the federal government would abrogate states rights as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment (Missouri v Holland (1920)).

    There have has even been SCOTUS case law that the mere intent to act in a certain area by Congress triggers the Supremacy Clause and can nullify state law (California v ARC America Corp (1989)). Even more recent SCOTUS ruling further expounds upon federal supremacy by determining that a state law can be determined unconstitutional even if there is no relevant contradictory federal law but the “state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress’s full purposes and objectives” (Crosby v National Foreign Trade Council (2000)).

    So, my legal understanding is extremely superficial and the likes of Jan Bellamy could certainly set me straight on this, but from my readings and understanding when it comes down to it States Rights is purely a function of the convenience of the federal government. States are allowed to do what they wish but only so far as it does not raise the ire of the fed – even to the point where there need not be a federal law in order to obviate a state right, but merely the “intent” of Congress. And States rights can be abrogated knowingly and intentionally as long as it serves the interest of Congress.

    So perhaps in a techincal sense “illegal” is not the correct term, but the California law is definitely in direct contradiction with the federal law and is thus nullified and unconstitutional. The fact that the state is not enforcing it and that the fed is no longer enforcing it and not enjoining the state to enforce it (which it can, if it so desired) is merely a matter of political convenience but does not bear on the legality of the law, whether it can actually stand, or the theoretical requirements of the state to nullify its own law and enforce the federal law. And yes, if Washington and Oregon pass the decriminalization laws they also will be “illegal” and be immediately technically nullified and the fed can either enforce the law itself or enjoin the state to do so.

    So even checks and balances isn’t quite the case, since Congress/the Fed can – at any time – abrogate any state law by defining it as necessary for the intent of congress. And all these precedents have been upheld since nearly the inception of the country. It was in Ware v Hylton that the fed struck down a state law using the Supremacy Clause… all the way back in 1796. As such, I still contend that our government – and the founding fathers – is one intended to be a strong centralized power with states rights thrown in as an appeasement for the sake of united the first 13 colonies (since we have precedent to ignore the 10th Amendment at the convenience of the federal government).

    Also, in California marijuana possession itself is not decriminalized. You still must have a valid prescription for it. It is the same as any other controlled substance – a person with a script for vicodin can possess it but a person without said script is in violation of federal narcotics laws.

    (I did not include the copious links to reference all the case law since it would hold up in moderation and I figured anyone interested could just google the cases)

  41. mousethatroared says:

    “So, my legal understanding is extremely superficial and the likes of Jan Bellamy could certainly set me straight on this, but from my readings and understanding when it comes down to it States Rights is purely a function of the convenience of the federal government. States are allowed to do what they wish but only so far as it does not raise the ire of the fed – even to the point where there need not be a federal law in order to obviate a state right, but merely the “intent” of Congress. And States rights can be abrogated knowingly and intentionally as long as it serves the interest of Congress.”

    Well, I wish we had a lawyer it then. because I’m remembering the recent Supreme Court case where the states were opposing Obama Care. It was only narrowly upheld when the court observed that the fine was actually a tax, which was within the fed’s power. It’s my understanding that just as individuals have rights under the Constitution, so do states and the Supreme Court can strke down laws that it decides are inconstitutional, regardless of the demand of congress.

  42. mousethatroared says:

    RH – you missed my point of Night of the Long Knives. It was not that the Nazi Regime and the German Communists didn’t get along. It was that the ruling political party sent out death squads and executed 85+ political opponents, terrifying the members of the courts and other political offices into supporting the regime.

    You keep talking about being oppressed and having your rights trampled. For an oppressed party, the right’s political leaders are surprisingly alive, at large in the community, in possession of huge campaign budgets and healthy media outlets.

    I guess they don’t make oppression like they used to…unless you’re Syrian.

    You are not being oppressed. You disagree with the current laws, you have a right to speak about that, you have a right to disagree at the ballot box. That is not oppression. That is a fair representative government.

    If you truly had a commitment to, something like lowering the deficit, you would educate yourself. Seek to find the most efficient ways to lower the deficit, use your speech to win people over to your ideas and vote for representatives that supported those ideas.

    Instead, because you have no idea about the real issues or real solutions, you throw around groundless accusations of socialism, fascism and oppression, which only someone who already agrees with you and takes a similar shallow approach would believe. In addition, you vote based on those groundless claims of oppression, socialism, fascism without any real idea of which representatives would best accomplish your goals.

    Your unwillingness to challenge yourself mentally is crippling you in the war of ideas. Don’t you think you can do better?

  43. mousethatroared says:

    FL – Excellent points about the population response to economic depression!

    Lilady – I meant to thank you for the links earlier…ask for information and you shall recieve!
    Also, many of us in Michigan would prefer to leave Henry Ford’s daker side unexamined. He did a lot of brilliant things and his approach to worker pay was very economically insightful, but his antisemitism, very sad.

    Just goes to show you, never trust someone because they are brilliant or make alot of good decisions. Question whether they have good logic and evidence for their position.

    Okay, I’m done with my Sunday morning sermon, now. Where’s the donuts?

  44. mouse.. I agree I have to vote (so far) in order for change. Unfortunately, now that the very ambiguous 2400 page!! HCR Law is already passed by one majority party and prez, (not reading it themselves before the fact:) it will be difficult to change, but I’m hoping it happens. I still resent being accused of being greedy and racist and evil, because I don’t want to meet someone else’s Demands… believing in my own, and everyone else’s freedom to do with what They so choose with Their money and property. I get that, (not being rich myself)…I respect Freedom more. Especially the b.s. of WWJD?, as if .. somehow some think they’re doing by Them demanding and Taking other’s money and freedom through government laws for Their own gain and so choosing. I’m amazed how many people in this country can’t see that…but, it’s an easy tactic to play on…with the “you owe me” crowd. I thought lilady was insinuating I was antisemetic too..with her ‘holocaust’ link as if I were denying it. Then she brings up how 2 other so called ‘christians’ were antisemetic..so therefore what? see..anyway..I’m tired of this now..too..I’m making Sunday pancakes..with organic ingredients of course..where I rather spend my $ on my personal ‘healthcare’ in healthy non toxic foods..that I now have to defend :)

  45. lilady says:

    RH…Is this you? (From your website that you referred to “Nip It In the Bud”)

    http://www.nipitinthebudusa.org/about.html

  46. mousethatroared says:

    RH – I agree I have to vote (so far) – There you go again…

  47. No lillady..my nic has my site..sorry…http://gethealthybehappy.yolasite.com/ and in the ‘Comment/New Findings:) there’s a comment titled “Nip it in the Bud”.. http://gethealthybehappy.yolasite.com/comments-and-new-findings/nip-it-in-the-bud- among other comments :)

  48. lilady says:

    Oh I made a mistake…by not clicking on rustic health’s name.

    Look what I found…

    http://gethealthybehappy.yolasite.com/comments-and-new-findings/barking-up-the-wrong-tree

    Time for me to post this again. Woof, woof, grrrrrr….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvw-9XEyPKk

    I just bet that RH home-schools her kids as well, so why isn’t she aware of 20th century history?

  49. nybgrus says:

    @mouse:

    Yes, the fed also has limits as to what it can do. There are certain laws that are not explicitly or traditionally something the fed does and all laws must be constitutional. In the case of the PPACA (my understanding at least) is that the states raised a challenge because… well, it doesn’t matter why – they can and that is their right. However, the fed and the SCOTUS then review it and can decide if it is, in fact, unconstitutional and if not then can decide under which legal standing or precedent the law can remain. The SCOTUS in this case decided that the preferred way to uphold the constitutionality of the law was to call it a tax and leave it at that. However, once again from my understanding, the SCOTUS could have just as easily said “Congress has decided that national health policy is in the best interest of the government, the people, and the desires of Congress” and the law would have stood on the Supremacy clause alone.

    Of course people and states can always challenge a law – they may say that it is unconstitutional, or not within the purview of Congressional legislative capacity, or anything else really. But that doesn’t change the Supremacy Clause nor the case law precedent that the fed always has the right to the last word, no matter what. For some things they just get challenged and need to find ways to uphold what they want to do.

  50. mousethatroared says:

    Okay – nybgrus, I think I’ve got you better the second (or is it the third) time around. I see what you mean, but I’ll have to do some reading before I whole-heatedly agree.

  51. lilady..I did teach my kids this…

    You’re Not Giving by Taking Other People’s Money. That’s Not Giving …

    it seems to be something “WWJD” lefty’s haven’t as yet learned and that’s what I’m here to teach as well! :)

  52. @RH: Funny that you should be harping about this country being a Republic. Here is something that you didn’t teach your kids, the notion of public good, which is where the word “republic” takes its etymology in the first place (“res publica,” the public thing). Making sure people have access to health care AND are not bankrupted by it has nothing to do with socialism, it’s basic republicanism, something that even Richard Nixon understood with the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Now, are you going to call Nixon a socialist too?

  53. mousethatroared says:

    FL – Nixon went to China, so clearly he’s a Communist. ;)

  54. Actually, I don’t know what to call ‘moderates’ on the right…not as bad as left..but, not conservatives either..like Bush also.

    In any case..the lesson stands…repeat after me…I’m Not Giving by Taking Other People’s Money. That’s Not Giving

    and..sorry again, but, I don’t have a bank account..should I be able to demand you to give me one..or only if I had one, got sick, and so you then pay for me to keep mine…but, only if I have one..and if I get sick…otherwise..tough luck…funny how particular lw laws are…Obamacare is the Law of the land..except 100′s of unions and towns and companies are Exempt!..the illogical lunacy of the left knows no bounds it seems. :)

  55. FL yes ..the public good..except for the crony voters exempted themselves from Giving to the Public Good..hmmmm: ) and..I believe Congress is exempt from ‘giving to the public good’! let’s not forget them.

  56. lilady says:

    Folks, this is the science illiterate who gets her education about preventive health from Livestong.com and Mercola.

    This same science illiterate is enthralled with bee pollen, “alkaline balanced diets” and blackstrap molasses.

    Ditto, for “natural cures” for herpes, natural cures for pertussis (Vitamin C!) following the advice of Dr. Suzanne Humpries…who in turn…is following Hilary Butler’s Vitamin C cure for pertussis. Rather than prescribed antibiotics…the science illiterate has “natural cures”.

    Ditto for “natural cures” for cancer; she’s a fan-girl of Burzynski and Gerson.

    “lilady..I did teach my kids this…

    You’re Not Giving by Taking Other People’s Money. That’s Not Giving …

    it seems to be something “WWJD” lefty’s haven’t as yet learned and that’s what I’m here to teach as well!”

    Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

    For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

    But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

    When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

    For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

    And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

    -St. Paul, Letter to the Corinthians, I Corinthians 13:8-13, St. James Bible

  57. weing says:

    @lilady,

    “Folks, this is the science illiterate who gets her education about preventive health from Livestong.com and Mercola.”

    Much as I dislike to, I have to point out that this is an ad hominem argument. Just because she knows squat about medicine, does not mean that what she argues is just as stupid. It may very well be, but not for this reason.

  58. @RH: “the crony voters [who] exempted themselves from Giving to the Public Good“? Do you mean the infamous 47% who pay no income taxes? Like those on Social Security, an entitlement they paid into for 50 years of arduous work, which in most cases is not even enough to ensure a proper retirement? Or those in the military, who are giving their lives in the service of their country? Like Dr. Hall, whom you have accused of being a socialist, and yet served for years in the US Air Force? Well, RH, how dare you invoke the notion of “public good” when you are insulting those who are making sacrifices in the service of others? Like nybgrus when he was a resident, who despite an extremely low pay, would work 48-hour shift to make the lives of others better and yet, despite the grueling and thankless job, has not given up to cynicism and still believes in basic human decency? Because basic human decency is what is at stake here, and you have demonstrated none. You are acting like an embarrassed millionaire. I therefore refuse to call you or anyone in the Republican Party a “conservative”, because to do so would tie you to the honorable tradition of Thomas Hobbes, Edmund Burke, Otto Von Bismarck, and Charles De Gaulle. You people are barbarians who have no interest in the fabric of society, but in sucking its marrow dry. For what matters, I am not an American citizen. I am still, after 12 years, a French citizen. But I still pay my taxes to the Federal Government and the State of California. This is not my country, but I would gladly pay more taxes if this means you people get a decent healthcare system. Because I believe a society should be judged by how it treats its weakest members, and you, RH, have shown nothing but contempt for those.

  59. Narad says:

    In any case..the lesson stands…repeat after me…I’m Not Giving by Taking Other People’s Money. That’s Not Giving

    “Stands”? It’s meaningless. Do you, as a matter of self-consistency, also abstain from voting, which is an inherently coercive act?

    and..sorry again, but, I don’t have a bank account..should I be able to demand you to give me one..or only if I had one, got sick, and so you then pay for me to keep mine…but, only if I have one..and if I get sick…otherwise..tough luck…funny how particular lw laws are…

    Perhaps you would like to try restating this in English. Nobody particularly cares about your personal financial incompetence, which would seem to be severe in that conducting transactions with money orders seems to be demanded, i.e., paying to use your own funds.

  60. lilady says:

    Hardly ad hominen, weing…just follow from the top of the thread RH’s comments about “medicine”.

    “My personal ‘healthcare’ is vitamins vs. vaccine, less carcinogens and more vitamins to curve cancer rates.”

    “lillady..asthma is helped by vitamins..C, omegas..in my own experience having got off of 2 inhalers and 2 meds including steroids :/…most childhood diseases are vitamin deficiency…causing low immunity.”

    “For medicinal purposes, no I’m not familiar with how contraceptives will work for it, and we all pay for doctor visits don’t we…in any case that would be an exception to the rule, and could easily be done through doctor and insurance company I’m sure, not to make it a blanket Demand by all for “unintended pregnancies”… and, going to a catholic university, expecting them to go against their own belief and policy for her (who chose to go there) or anyone else is ‘attacking’ the freedom of one’s religious belief..actually.”

    “Won’t you all love the watchful eye of socialism when it takes full root, making sure you spend every penny you get on approved items only? let’s see..drugs are good, contraceptives (of course), mercury filled lightbulbs…chemical filled foods,..what a life:)”

    “ok..I’ll go now, going shopping…what can I buy..is there a socialist approved list out? :) because, I don’t want to spend my $ on vitamins and organic food..so I can pay for your chemical drugs and bank accounts. :)

    “mouse, honestly, I question the FDA’s need also..they’re passing meds untested, unproven, anyway!..as demonstrated with the constant horrendous results and lawsuits that follow. They’ve allowed gmos/ges in our foods without our knowledge or testing/proof that they’re ‘harmless’…we’re on our own apparently anyway.”

    I think you will find that RH interjected “politics” into this thread with her ad hominem attacks about posters here accusing us of being Nazis, Socialists and Liberals. I provided her with links to a historical correct website (The Jewish Virtual Library), to check out how Adolph Hitler came to power…he did not have the majority in the Reichstag.

    She then accused me of labeling her as antisemitic and then provided us with this “Confession of Faith”

    “lillady..I’m sorry, but do I give any impression whatsoever? that I’m anti Jewish? I’m a christian, and the One I believe in was Jewish actually! :) so, I’m not sure where or why this constant implication, accusation, insinuation, that anyone not a leftist is antisemite and I RESENT IT…yet another socialist tactic to label anyone not socialist to be racist or antisemite or ‘greedy’ or hatefilled…seriously you all need to grow up.”

    No weing…I think you are directing your comments about launching an ad hominen argument to the wrong poster.

  61. weing says:

    @lilady,

    I honestly cannot follow her arguments. If you understand them, then more power to you.

  62. lilady says:

    I’ve been following her arguments weing and her type of “medicine”…based on her spectacular science illiteracy.

    She’s as ignorant as they come…about medicine, about American and world history. She’s also clueless about politics…so obvious, because she confuses repeatedly fascism, communism, socialism and Liberalism.

    Here’s Federal income Tax Rates in the United States for the past century and its effect on the economy. Except for the past few years, we have had a “Progressive Income Tax Rate” and there is a reason for labeling Non-Progressive Income Tax Rates as “Regressive”.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates-2012-5?op=1

  63. weing says:

    Thanks for the link. I will check it out. My expertise is medicine. I look upon all political and economic solutions with great suspicion. The ACA is a work in progress. There is no way Romney could get rid of it if he wins. I don’t think either party has a solution to our problems as there is no utopia. Hopefully, we will muddle through again.

  64. Francois..no..I mean..all of these unions, towns, companies…

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2900475/posts

  65. rokujolady says:

    I recently had a conversation with someone of the more conservative bent whose opinions I respect but don’t often agree with (although we both have a soft spot for giant multinationals). He named some people on various forms of public assistance whom he knew had relatives who could afford to help them out. He asked me ‘Do you want your tax dollars to pay for them to mooch off of the system? Their relatives are gaming the system by not helping them out.’ I said ‘Sure. I don’t mind if my tax dollars go to them, even if they are mooching off the system.’ Why? Several reasons, and this all applies to healthcare too. Firstly, there are always going to be freeloaders. You’ll never weed them all out without weeding out people who “deserve” the assistance too. I asked this friend what rule could possibly be applied to the welfare system such that these particular people could be denied service but a similar case, say where someone had been disowned by their wealthy family, would be accepted?
    To me, the risk that my tax dollars might pay for a few moochers is worth it because there are people I know who’ve used public assistance who needed the safety net. I would want it to be there , and I think anyone who can admit that they don’t have control over everything in their life would like to have it there.
    And on those lines, rustic, when you do something dumb and get injured (and we all do something dumb every once in a while.) to the point where vitamins just won’t pay the stupid tax, and the jar of quarters that you’ve been stashing under your bed because you’re too paranoid to have a bank account runs out, I would be happy to have my tax dollars go towards keeping you alive and reasonably comfortable. I will even pay for the jello that they give you at this hospital. I don’t know or even particularly like you, but in order to reap the benefits of an advanced society which gives me a chance to do the most I can with my life, I have to give something back.
    PS. Did you just claim to know more about Christianity than the Jesuits? LOL.
    PSS. Render unto Caesar…

  66. :) We’ve had a majority of Left since 2006..and spending increased more and more, Trillions added to the debt..shouldn’t that have affected the economy by now? Shouldn’t that have helped the poor? No.it Increased the poor! ..I just heard a poor dear woman say she wasn’t happy with BO who she voted for …what happened to it? Why wasn’t the UE affected by it? Lil? how do you explain the awesome economy we had when Bush cut taxes on all for all those years …and Everyone benefitted from it, and the Miserable economy we had for the last 4 years despite LW micromanagement? still blaming the right? :) Nevermind what those charts say..what do the last 12 years say? Cutting taxes and atleast Less spending..until the LW took control, resulted in great economy, Increased Spending resulted in worst economy. You all are either that Stupid, or that hell-bent on destroying America. I have to end this..sorry ..to hear you all is making me sick :)

  67. BillyJoe says:

    “Because I believe a society should be judged by how it treats its weakest members, and you, RH, have shown nothing but contempt for those.”

    The irony is that she is one of those weakest members.

  68. Billy, us ‘weakest members’ are even More Weak since the Big Spending of LWr’s in D. C. in last 4 years.

  69. And, just a ‘reminder’ ..it was a LW Majority Congresswoman Speaker who said..it was “Unpatriotic” to vote against Bailing Out Rich Corporation Cronies! Remember?? lol please spare me

  70. ((Just because she knows squat about medicine, does not mean that what she argues is just as stupid.)) thanks for that weing :)

  71. mousethatroared says:

    RH – Rewriting history again. The AWESOME economy is what we call a bubble. The debt didn’t start building when Pres. Obama came into office.

  72. mouse..no it didn’t..it started more so when the LW took majority 2007/8 and doubled spending..from 1.6 Trillion the last budget of a RW majority ..to 3 Trillion..and 3 Trillion each year since..in addition another 4 Trillion in 4 years of Obama.

  73. And..what you call a ‘bubble’ is what we call an Awesome Economy!..housing burst, but, that was a bunch of Bad banking policies..oh yes..brought on by ..Fannie and Freddie?… but, even that didn’t have to burst the economy..certainly not keep it spiraling since..and still, why didn’t 4 Trillion $ added spending turn it around? and still didn’t help the middleclass Or the poor! A whole Lot of “Misspending” there.. and these are the brainiacs of brainiacs right? that we so ‘trust’ stewardship with and so ‘greedy’ not to trust our money with. :)

  74. mousethatroared says:

    The Awesome economy was based on credit. Housing burst, Banks wouldn’t loan money. Businesses go under without money. Even the conservative economists would wince at your misrepresentation of the situation. You’re also neglecting to mention TWO wars that might have something to do with the debt that Bush and the Congress accumulated.

    RH -Iif you have a good argument for your beliefs, why would you have to misrepresent the facts?

  75. mousethatroared says:

    By the way – The Automotive bail-out helped this middle-class person AND probably over a million other people in this country. It’s likely that it helped you. Because those kind of job loses and the resulting lost tax revenue and additional pension revenue would have had wide ranging consequences to the whole country.

  76. weing says:

    @MTR,

    That’s it. Hit her with facts. All we can do is examine the data. I still don’t understand why they won’t bring back Glass-Steagall.

  77. 2 wars..that is true..but that’s one ‘expense’ the Federal gov is supposed to be there for. Not bailing out corporate buds, or buying votes.

  78. mousethatroared says:

    weing “I still don’t understand why they won’t bring back Glass-Steagall.”

    Me either.

  79. @weing: “That’s it. Hit her with facts.” Sadly, she’s just going to ignore them. Or misread them. Or call them socialist.

  80. Narad says:

    that we so ‘trust’ stewardship with and so ‘greedy’ not to trust our money with.

    “Our” money? L-rd knows that when I’m looking for macroeconomic analysis, the first place I turn is to someone with no assets.

  81. well..why don’t you ‘share’ some of yours with me Narad :)

  82. right Lil? Give and it shall be given to you? :)

  83. mousethatroared says:

    @FL – Ancient Painter Wisdom – One does not straighten a painting due to the believe that the painting will learn to be straighter. One straightens for the brief satisfaction of seeing a level painting.

  84. lilady says:

    I suggest we all ignore RH, now…maybe she’ll just “go away”.

  85. DWATC says:

    Does anyone want to go over all the various socialist programs we have in the country, and how they are the reason RH is in business? Socialism isn’t bad, and majority of the programs in the US are socialist. I always find it humorous how it’s condemned yet they rely on them for many many things…oh and how they like to use it interchangeably with communism.

  86. windriven says:

    @weing and mouse

    ” I still don’t understand why they won’t bring back Glass-Steagall.”

    Three reasons:
    1. It makes perfect sense and is therefore impossible given the current political climate;
    2. Banks make far more in investment banking than in commercial banking;
    3. Banking has an extraordinarily powerful lobbying presence; essentially they pay for laws that suit them.

    Larry Kotlikoff (BU economist) has a wonderful riff on limited purpose banking:

    http://www.kotlikoff.net/sites/default/files/LimitedPurposeBanking1-27-09_0.pdf

    I’m figuring that we’ll have a sensible health care system about 37 minutes after the return of Glass or upon the ambient temperature in hell reaching 0C, whichever comes last.

  87. ?? I’m sorry…do I have go to D.C. and Demand you get me a bankaccount? So, when I get sick, I won’t have to use it?

  88. mousethatroared says:

    Windriven – ha! Silly me, I was looking for a GOOD reason why. Thanks for the link.

  89. O did I get that one wrong? That one’s for the well off ..I get it. :)

  90. and, so, if that ‘credit’ economy was the reason for the burst, I wonder what kind of burst that 16,000,000,000,000 ( 16 Trillion) $ “credit” bill we have in D.C. will cause.hmmmm ;)

  91. windriven says:

    @mouse

    “I was looking for a GOOD reason why.”

    Laughter is really the only reasonable way to approach some of these issues because the alternative would involve opening an artery.

    I’ve avoided this thread until now because Dr. Gorski (quite reasonably) seems to want to keep SBM at some distance from partisan politics. When I think about the issues involved with health care delivery, insurance, and the political process I just want to shriek incoherently.

    I was just in D.C. for the American Society of Anesthesiologists annual meeting. While there I strolled down to the National Mall, past the Washington Monument to the memorials for veterans of WWII, Korea and Vietnam. It is a profoundly humbling experience. The memorials are just a short walk from both the White House and the Capitol. It is a measure of just how callow our politicians are that the likes of Eric Cantor and Chuck Schumer can argue who has the bigger schlong in the shadow of such sacrifice.

  92. Just so you know also, this ‘weakest’ member has to pay more for gas (because of lw policies) food (because gas is so high because of lw policies), and now healthcare, because I have to pay for someone else’s bank account, 25 year olds who should be out of the house, and contraceptives for other’s sex life. ;) So, I have very little left over for a bank account to save for when I get sick and won’t have to use it! ;)

  93. Narad says:

    The memorials are just a short walk from both the White House and the Capitol.

    You didn’t hit the Hahnemann statue?

  94. windriven says:

    @Narad

    I did, actually. But I paid it no more attention than to note that the pigeons were paying him his due.

  95. Dr. Gorski: It’s now obvious that rustichealthy’s comments are under moderation. While they were entertaining thanks to their sheer stupidity, I wonder about the use of letting them appear, at least on this thread. There is nothing constructive left to say on this thread. The conversation derailed long ago. It seems a little cruel to let it go on, since all we are doing is making fun of rustichealthy’s talking points. Surely, there will be another opportunity to talk about insurance policy and science at a later point.

  96. mousethatroared says:

    FL – i believe the SBM policy is to post all comments except in the case of extreme and obvious trolling and sockpuppets. What makes you think that RH’s comments are gong through moderation? Did I miss something.

    Windriven – agreed, best to laugh, so you don’t cry.

    RH – “O did I get that one wrong? That one’s for the well off ..I get it. :)” I don’t understand this sentence. Are you saying that understanding the financial crisis is for the well-off? Are you saying joking about Glass-Steagall is for the well-off? You clearly have internet access, checking-out Wikipedia doesn’t cost extra.

    Really, Really, Really. When looking for solutions. Don’t start with your preferred solution then make up the “evidence” to fit. You will never find a good solution that way.

    Start with a good definition of the problem, look at the evidence, formulate possible solutions, compare them against the evidence, then select the best solution.

    This should not be a left wing/right wing thing. It’s understandable that different parties would support different solutions in a complicated problem. But any valid solutions should be compatible with history and the evidence.

    It’s NOT acceptable when a supposed solution relies on rewriting history or ignoring evidence to look good. Why is it not acceptable? Because it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work in engineering, it doesn’t work in economics, it doesn’t work in home budgets, it doesn’t work in medicine, it doesn’t even work in ART and that is saying something.

    Really, RH, you must know this to be true. You wouldn’t try to fix your bike by deciding the tires need replacing when the evidence shows the chain is broken. You wouldn’t ignore the broken chain, because you prefer replacing tires.

    Why would you ignore the history of the financial crisis?

    Okay, lecturing over. If my numerous comments haven’t convinced you to educate yourself before formulating an opinion, then I doubt any additional ones will do the trick.

  97. mouse..when I said: O did I get that one wrong? That one’s for the well off ..I get it. :)

    I was referring to the hc provision that one can keep their bank account without going bankrupt in order to have health care coverage. In other words, complicated as it is that lw seem to make things, one can keep their savings (if they have one…those who are able to have one :) more than likely well-off already! So, kiddingly, I was asking for a bank account, so I can have it when I get sick..so I don’t have to use …o…nevermind .. it’s complicated :)

  98. @mouse: rustichealthy’s comments don’t appear in my RSS feed at all. When I visit the SBM site, they also appear after I have read everyone else’s comments.

  99. mousethatroared says:

    Okay – yeah, I haven’t been checking in enough to see when things pop-up and I don’t do RSS feed. But could be her comments are going through moderation. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen SBM stop posting someone’s comments on a particular topic. All I’ve seen is extremely rare but open bans on particular posters who are abusive or engage in solely trollish posting over an extended period of time.

    Personally, I’m thinking this thread has just about reached the end of it’s lifespan. Things are heating up over in “American Medical Students Associate, etc” though :)

  100. Chris says:

    RH:

    So, I have very little left over for a bank account to save for when I get sick and won’t have to use it!

    RH:

    So, kiddingly, I was asking for a bank account, so I can have it when I get sick..so I don’t have to use …o…nevermind .. it’s complicated

    RH:

    I’ve been to Europe, a couple times,

    One wonders how she paid for the plane ticket and everything else that goes with international travel.

Comments are closed.