1. So now we tax things that we don't want people to eat? .[/B]
What do you mean "so now" ????? This country has long taxed items where there was a desire to change behavior. Tobacco, booze, various automobiles, and probably many more I dont know about. Nothing new here my friend.
On the numbers, I say you're misinformed and you say I am. As they say, "left wants information and the right wants ammunition" and like most topics that applies to the healthcare debate. When the numbers dont support your ideological position you attack the source and the methodology. When all else fails you try to spin them to make them say something more to your liking. You might not like it but the fact remains that the US spends far more per capita then any other developed country and gets far less for it. Come to think of it, I dont think any other country has chosen our model.
It is an irony that we spend the most, have the fanciest hospitals and yet do not have the best health. It seems to show that the sometimes the best solution is also the simplest one. The countries with the best health put much more money toward promoting healthy lifestyles and preventative care. We on the other hand put much more money toward treatment. Why? Treatment is revenue and prevention is not. Our healthcare industry needs people to be sick. The sicker they are, the more often they are sick, they longer they are sick the better. I know. I've been in those meetings. I've sat at the table where the value of various conditions, in different settings with different treatments are calculated and figured into revenue. It all sounds very business like until you stop and think about what you're doing.
The costs, same as above. You can listen to policy discussions all day long but the admin costs of private and public systems only get debated by people on the fringe.
As for The Consitution, yes I've read it. There's a copy sitting about two feet from me. I look at it often. The government has been doing things that are unconstitutional for a long time yet people act like the world has changed in the last six months. Both current wars are unconsitutional, most federal agencies are unconsitutional, the list is long.... Given that you accept all the other unconsitutional acts why take a stand on the consitution now?
The goverment does a great job with both social security and medicare. Extending the medicare program to cover all Americans, following the successful models of other developed countries, and ending the current corporate welfare system makes good sense. And for that reason alone will probably never happen.
As for The Consitution, yes I've read it. There's a copy sitting about two feet from me. I look at it often. The government has been doing things that are unconstitutional for a long time yet people act like the world has changed in the last six months.unreal. men gave their lives...blood, families for things we take for granted, and our excuse for looking the other way is "govt has been doing it for years... Both current wars are unconsitutional,what? most federal agencies are unconsitutional, the list is long.... Given that you accept all the other unconsitutional acts why take a stand on the consitution now?some of us DON'T accept ther unconstitutional acts.
The goverment does a great job with both social security huh? ponzi mechanism is running out of steam. in like 25 years the party is overand medicare. Extending the medicare program to cover all Americans, following the successful models of other developed countries, and ending the current corporate welfare system makes good sense. And for that reason alone will probably never happen.what?
there will be a constitutional battle. the s#!t will hit the fan. maybe blood will be shed. will i see you there shoto? seriously. answer this: what line will you NOT allow the govt to cross???
What do you mean "so now" ????? This country has long taxed items where there was a desire to change behavior. Tobacco, booze, various automobiles, and probably many more I dont know about. Nothing new here my friend.
Never said the taxes you mention here were "ok" either, because they aren't. Just because we've done something already doesn't mean its right. We are heading towards communism/facism slowly but surely. Its not all Obama, we've been doing it for quite sometime, he's just speeding the process along.
Quote:
On the numbers, I say you're misinformed and you say I am. As they say, "left wants information and the right wants ammunition" and like most topics that applies to the healthcare debate. When the numbers dont support your ideological position you attack the source and the methodology. When all else fails you try to spin them to make them say something more to your liking. You might not like it but the fact remains that the US spends far more per capita then any other developed country and gets far less for it. Come to think of it, I dont think any other country has chosen our model.
It is an irony that we spend the most, have the fanciest hospitals and yet do not have the best health. It seems to show that the sometimes the best solution is also the simplest one. The countries with the best health put much more money toward promoting healthy lifestyles and preventative care. We on the other hand put much more money toward treatment. Why? Treatment is revenue and prevention is not. Our healthcare industry needs people to be sick. The sicker they are, the more often they are sick, they longer they are sick the better. I know. I've been in those meetings. I've sat at the table where the value of various conditions, in different settings with different treatments are calculated and figured into revenue. It all sounds very business like until you stop and think about what you're doing.
The costs, same as above. You can listen to policy discussions all day long but the admin costs of private and public systems only get debated by people on the fringe.
The WHO itself admitted the way they calculated those things were off base and so they stopped making those rankings for that reason. When you divide by the amount spent (per capita) countries that spend near $0 get inflated numbers. Add that onto the fact that numbers like life expectancy is a crappy measure of overall health since its kind of hard to blame doctors/hospitals for American's eating themselves into diabetes, heart problems, etc. We do that to ourselves and anyone with common sense can see that you can't blame 100% our lower life expectancy in the US (still pretty high, just not the highest) on the doctors. Promoting a healthy lifestyle is one thing, and its a good thing, but taxing "unhealthy" life styles, like you said about red meat, is facism, and a very bad thing.
Also, if you know anything about quality control, six sigma, ISO 9000+, etc you know that quality vs cost is NOT linear. To get double the quality you might have to spend 4x as much money. So yes, we spend much more than any other country in the world on a per capita basis, but theres a REASON that every other country's citizens flock to the US for procedures. When you take a ranking of the top 50 hospitals in the world, you will find about 30-40 of them are in the US, not in Europe, not in Canada, not in Japan.
Quote:
As for The Consitution, yes I've read it. There's a copy sitting about two feet from me. I look at it often. The government has been doing things that are unconstitutional for a long time yet people act like the world has changed in the last six months. Both current wars are unconsitutional, most federal agencies are unconsitutional, the list is long.... Given that you accept all the other unconsitutional acts why take a stand on the consitution now?
I agree, the government has been doing unconstitutional things for a long time, does that mean we should be ok with them continuing to do it?
Both current wars are unconstitutional? People who attacked us on 9/11 ran to/setup their base in Afghanistan, they declared war on us by attacking us, therefore the President does not have to wait for Congressional approval when another entity declares war on us. Its called defending yourself.
A quick google search negates your Iraq war is unconstitutional as well, the President needs Congressional approval right?
"The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War."
Quote:
The goverment does a great job with both social security and medicare. Extending the medicare program to cover all Americans, following the successful models of other developed countries, and ending the current corporate welfare system makes good sense. And for that reason alone will probably never happen.
If you think the goverment does a great job with both SS and medicare then you are in the wrong discussion. Social security is on the verge of bankrupcy since the general fund of the government can't seem to keep its hand out of the social security cookie jar.
If you truly think medicare is done well, then quite frankly, you've never been on medicare. I was at one point, well, my wife and oldest son was. I was in college full time and got married, 1.5 years later, while still in college, my son was born. My grand total of about $17k/yr income at the time working part time jobs was too much for me to be covered, but my pregnant wife and later son could be (she was off once all pregnancy issues were taken care of after birth).
Medicare sucks, it is the most inefficient thing the government runs next to NASA.
Matter of fact, if you've ever had to deal with any social service, welfare, unemployment, they are all extremely inefficient and huge time/money sinks.
Now, I am by no means saying that these social services should go away, because they serve a purpose. Some better regulations on their use/abuse, and making it more efficient can be done, but they are important social services.
I am also all for people having health insurance. Side note, the President saying people don't have health care is a lie, anyone can go to the ER in the US and get treated, that's health care, health insurance is a different thing than health care. I'm also all for making health insurance more affordable for businesses to supply to their employees and even people to buy on their own. However, if we really think the government, who doesn't run anything but the military efficiently, will make health insurance and the health care system better, then we really haven't looked closely at socialized health insurance in other countries, the socialized health insurance offered in our country (medicare, and VA).
I'm all for some insurance, tort, law suits, etc reform to make it cheaper, but not for a government ran health insurance.
One easy fix would be if medicare/medicaid would just pay what the procedures cost, then the difference in what medicare doesn't pay wouldn't get transferred to those of us who have health insurance. It would quickly lower private health insurance costs and start to show the real costs of medicare.
Voivod - I'm a big fan of the consitution and honor and respect what it took to achieve what we have. I fly my flag with pride for the good that has been done over the past two hundred plus years and with hope that we learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. I am not much of a fan of originalism however and believe that the principles must be applied to modern life as best we can. What I'm also not a fan of are people who only have take principled positions when the party they dislike comes to power. There is nothing new in any of this. The only thing that has changed is who's at the helm.
Husband - the emphasis was on "so now", the point being that people are selective about what government abuses they care about. The seletive outrage ends up ringing of hypocrasy. I hope you are as vocal about the other issues mentioned.
Voivod / Husband - a quick check of the consitution negates your google search. Article One, Section Eight clearly gives the congress the exclusive power and responsibility to declare war. An "authorization to use force" that says you can do if you want to depending on how you feel about any negotiations you care to engage in does not cut it. When the congress allows these back door wars to go on they abdicate their constitutional authority and in doing so diminish the voice of the people in our government all for political cover because they have no spine and do not deserve the seats they sit in. A few other points of note: Japan attacked us and the congress made a formal declaration of war....no different. The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to a nuetral country for trial. Why didn't we just say "OK". Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't have......wasnt the lives or our troops worth finding out?
Husband / Voivod - the programs mentioned run well, the fraud and abuse that exists is another issue. (side note: if Greenspan had not suggested to Reagan that he could hide his deficit/debt by including SS in the general fund we might not be so bad off today) By your standard the government does not run the military well either. The pentigon is famous for $800 toilet seats and $500 hammers and those are the small items. We could half the pentigon budget and still be spending way more then the next closest country. (another topic)
Husband - yes we have the best hospitals in the world but that is not the point. The idea is to stay the heck out of the hospital no matter how good it is. The countries have the healthiest people put the emphasis on prevention and ealry primary care. Our system is the opposite and in fact is dependent on you getting sick so layers and layers of companies can profit from your illness. If you like that model fine. I don't and I want a choice not to have to have it.
Voivod - on the day the Russians or anyone else lands on our beaches I will meet you there, gun in hand, and we will give them hell. Short of that, while I think we would agree on many issues and are mad as hell about them (guns, immigration, fiscal policy etc) I do not see how in the long run we can stem the tide.
You say "freedom vs. socialism" I say "freedom vs. corporatism". We both favor freedom, we probably disagree on the enemy. I fear that in the end we're both going to feel like the loosers in the battle.
Voivod - I'm a big fan of the consitution and honor and respect what it took to achieve what we have. I fly my flag with pride for the good that has been done over the past two hundred plus years and with hope that we learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. I am not much of a fan of originalism however and believe that the principles must be applied to modern life as best we can. What I'm also not a fan of are people who only have take principled positions when the party they dislike comes to power. There is nothing new in any of this. The only thing that has changed is who's at the helm.
Husband - the emphasis was on "so now", the point being that people are selective about what government abuses they care about. The seletive outrage ends up ringing of hypocrasy. I hope you are as vocal about the other issues mentioned.
Voivod / Husband - a quick check of the consitution negates your google search. Article One, Section Eight clearly gives the congress the exclusive power and responsibility to declare war. An "authorization to use force" that says you can do if you want to depending on how you feel about any negotiations you care to engage in does not cut it. When the congress allows these back door wars to go on they abdicate their constitutional authority and in doing so diminish the voice of the people in our government all for political cover because they have no spine and do not deserve the seats they sit in. A few other points of note: Japan attacked us and the congress made a formal declaration of war....no different. The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to a nuetral country for trial. Why didn't we just say "OK". Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't have......wasnt the lives or our troops worth finding out?
Husband / Voivod - the programs mentioned run well, the fraud and abuse that exists is another issue. (side note: if Greenspan had not suggested to Reagan that he could hide his deficit/debt by including SS in the general fund we might not be so bad off today) By your standard the government does not run the military well either. The pentigon is famous for $800 toilet seats and $500 hammers and those are the small items. We could half the pentigon budget and still be spending way more then the next closest country. (another topic)
Husband - yes we have the best hospitals in the world but that is not the point. The idea is to stay the heck out of the hospital no matter how good it is. The countries have the healthiest people put the emphasis on prevention and ealry primary care. Our system is the opposite and in fact is dependent on you getting sick so layers and layers of companies can profit from your illness. If you like that model fine. I don't and I want a choice not to have to have it.
Voivod - on the day the Russians or anyone else lands on our beaches I will meet you there, gun in hand, and we will give them hell. Short of that, while I think we would agree on many issues and are mad as hell about them (guns, immigration, fiscal policy etc) I do not see how in the long run we can stem the tide.
You say "freedom vs. socialism" I say "freedom vs. corporatism". We both favor freedom, we probably disagree on the enemy. I fear that in the end we're both going to feel like the loosers in the battle.
question: what is "originalism"??? the consitution was built to be changed, i.e. amended. there is a process
i say "freedom vs. fascism." govt run corporations???
the russian don't need to "land on our beaches", just their philosophy. the bear has landed, my friend. the beach isn't the sandy one i think you picture.
Voivod / Husband - a quick check of the consitution negates your google search. Article One, Section Eight clearly gives the congress the exclusive power and responsibility to declare war. An "authorization to use force" that says you can do if you want to depending on how you feel about any negotiations you care to engage in does not cut it. When the congress allows these back door wars to go on they abdicate their constitutional authority and in doing so diminish the voice of the people in our government all for political cover because they have no spine and do not deserve the seats they sit in. A few other points of note: Japan attacked us and the congress made a formal declaration of war....no different. The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to a nuetral country for trial. Why didn't we just say "OK". Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't have......wasnt the lives or our troops worth finding out?
In the end, like it or not, Congress gave the authorization, which is what is required by the Constitution. You can twist the wording to fit your argument, but Congress gave the go ahead.
Quote:
Husband / Voivod - the programs mentioned run well, the fraud and abuse that exists is another issue. (side note: if Greenspan had not suggested to Reagan that he could hide his deficit/debt by including SS in the general fund we might not be so bad off today) By your standard the government does not run the military well either. The pentigon is famous for $800 toilet seats and $500 hammers and those are the small items. We could half the pentigon budget and still be spending way more then the next closest country. (another topic)
Medicare and SS are not run well. Medicare only looks "cheap" because they dictate what they will pay (they call it a 'negotiated' price for a procedure, but really its a dictation) and the extra cost gets pushed onto those of us with private insurance. They also fudge the books on their "overhead", they get "free" overhead with the government umbrella, studies have shown that if they included the real amount of overhead, their overhead % would nearly double private health insurance.
I will give you one thing, SS isn't as bad off as medicare, but it still isn't great.
Oh, and the "$500 hammer" isn't an inefficiency, its a fudging of the numbers to hide some of the national security/secrets stuff that the Pentagon does.
Quote:
Husband - yes we have the best hospitals in the world but that is not the point. The idea is to stay the heck out of the hospital no matter how good it is. The countries have the healthiest people put the emphasis on prevention and ealry primary care. Our system is the opposite and in fact is dependent on you getting sick so layers and layers of companies can profit from your illness. If you like that model fine. I don't and I want a choice not to have to have it.
Funny, because I thought having the best possible CARE was paramount when it comes to health CARE. We could preach healthy eating habits until the cows come home, but if people don't want to eat their vegetables they won't do it. Its called freedom, they can eat what they want.
Shoto, unfortunately history has proven you wrong over and over again. Socialism/facism has never worked, every single country that has tried it has failed. If you don't believe we are headed there quickly, look at this fact. Back in Hitler's hayday the government of Germany owned about 45% of the countries economy, and it was a socialist economy by definition.
If we pass universal health care, every estimate out there says we'll be at about 45% of government ownership.
"The Canadian and most European countries have a better healthcare system then we do by every standard measure (life expectancy, infant mortality, etc)."
Uh, the reason the infant mortality rate for U.S. is higher is that the U.S. counts ANY baby as a "live birth", no matter the weeks gestation, as long as the fetus attempts to breathe.
Other countries only count it a "live birth" ONLY past a specific gestational age.
And another thing: Canada sends it's NICU babies over our border as they haven't ENOUGH NICU bed slots to enable ALL infants care within their country.
See Investor's Business Daily, somewhere around week of Monday, July 6th, 2009; could have been Friday, 3rd July:
"Canada's Single-Prayer Health Care":
"A critically ill premature baby is moved to a U.S. hospital to get the treatment she couldn't get in the system we're told we should emulate. Cost-effective care? In Canada, as elsewhere, you get what you pay for..."
Health care access is never going to be equal. MANY people in countries with "public health care" pay private insurance to get what the govt does not GIVE: above "standard" basic health care. And the GOVERNMENT determines what "standard" and basic is going to be. RUN AWAY.....
If public health is so great in other countries, why do they keep cominghere to get medical care?
I am not for socialized medicine, the doctors are already bad enough without making them govt employees.
Already tired of all the liberal talk on the media. Makes me feel sick.
Voivod - Originalism is one type of consitutional interpretation. It holds that the consitution is a dead document and that we should not attempt to apply its concepts to modern issues that it does not address. Probably the most well known proponent of originalism in Justice Scalia. Examples of orginalist positions are that there is no "right to privacy" in the constitution and that there is nothing in the consitution that allows for or prohibits abortion.
Fascsim or Socialism - you're going to have to pick one. Both ends of the spectrum dont really work for you here. I think the argument about a social democracy much like most of Europe probably works the best for your cause.
If the beach is a symbolic one then you must fight the war with symbolic weapons and not talk about shedding blood.
Husband - you're the one twisting the meaning. I'm holding to a strict interpretation. The power to declare war is given to the congress. It is not given to the congress so that they can then give it to the president. I can just imagine the howles if a democratic congress gave a democratic president the "authorization" to make war when and if he chose to.....right!
If a single payer system is so bad then the experiment wont last long will it? All the issues you raise can be addressed in how it is set up. At the end of the day it will be more cost effective if for not other reason then it will not be a "for profit" system. The bottom line is that healthcare is not like buying a car. It is not a choice. If your child gets sick it shouldn't mean financial ruin. Your illness should not be a profit opportunity for the healthcare industry.
Originalism is one type of consitutional interpretation. It holds that the consitution is a dead document and that we should not attempt to apply its concepts to modern issues that it does not address. Probably the most well known proponent of originalism in Justice Scalia. Examples of orginalist positions are that there is no "right to privacy" in the constitution and that there is nothing in the consitution that allows for or prohibits abortion.
akhil amar's originalism or antonin scalia's originalism? you've already noted scalia. a pretty good examply of a judge who applies his interpretation of the theory of originalism. having post-graduate studies the debates on the constitution for 8 years at UW and Gonzaga and having my work recognized by universitas pelita harapan, i can uneqivocally assure you that originalism does not operate under the assumption the the US Constitution is a "dead document" nor that we should not apply it's concepts toward modern issues that it does not addess.
if you have read my posts here, you should gather that my leanings ARE towards originalism as a theory. Originalism reduces the likelihood that unelected judges will seize the reigns of power from elected representatives.
Originalism best respects the notion of the Constitution as a binding contract.
consider this: the framers at the convention in philadelphia indicated that they did not want their specific intentions to control interpretation.
i'm tired right now, but would love to continue this discussion in the near future as it applies to current events. shoto, it seems you are an intelligent sort. good input. thank you for that.
let's discuss the "right to privacy" issue as is applies (or doesn't) to abortion. i think observers would gain valuable knowledge and may adjust their opinions. sound good?
If a single payer system is so bad then the experiment wont last long will it? All the issues you raise can be addressed in how it is set up. At the end of the day it will be more cost effective if for not other reason then it will not be a "for profit" system. The bottom line is that healthcare is not like buying a car. It is not a choice. If your child gets sick it shouldn't mean financial ruin. Your illness should not be a profit opportunity for the healthcare industry.
1. Why is it so bad that a doctor, hospital, or insurance company works for profit? If no profit was involved (socialized health insurance) then you lose the best/smartest doctors to other scientific fields like engineering where there is still a profit (at least for now). Then you end up like Canada and can barely break the top 50 in North American hospitals. If a hospital, doctor, etc can't make a profit, then the best doctors and the best hospitals disappear, I'm sorry, but its a fact.
2. Your argument really is "well, if it is really that bad then it won't last long so we might as well do it"? Come on, you know better than that, we (the governent) are better than anyone at pumping money into a crappy program just to keep it running, we are better than anyone (Americans) at continuing to do things even though they are bad/wrong. I mean look at welfare and medicare, those systems are either near bankrupt or corrupted and we continue to pump money into them instead of fixing them. Look at slavery, 100% wrong and we did it for almost 100 years as a country. And finally, socialized health care will send us into even more debt, that is a fact, talk to any economist that has researched it and they are talking doubling the current deficit for socialized health care. So no, we don't do it and pay a crap load for it then say "well, that sucked so lets stop it now". You don't do bad ideas that will cost a ton of money just to see if they will work.
question: what is "originalism"??? the consitution was built to be changed, i.e. amended. there is a process.
Voivod - you go from ignorance to scholar in a remarkably short span That said, I'm sure your depth is much greater then mine. Perhaps I should have said that Scalia's version of orginalism includes the idea that the consistution is a dead document. He has made this statement on several occasions including during a recent 60 minutes interview. I do not hold this view as stated in a previous post.
As for the right to privacy in the abortion debate. We can do it as an exercise but we might end up with a rather limited discussion. I put more weight on the viability part of the equation.
Husband - No, I'm saying you have your healthcare and let me have my healthcare. We can do it so that all your concerns about costs and government support are addressed. Then let the chips fall where they may. Right now your supporting a government supported corporate welfare system that looks a lot like corporate fascism to me. I say democratic socialism is the better path and I should be allowed to make that choice.
Now that we've beat that horse to death, I like to hear your ideas to improve the current system you're defending. As costs continue to head for the clouds with no end in sight what is your plan?
Voivod - you go from ignorance to scholar in a remarkably short span
sorry, just wanted to isolate your comment on originalism and make sure you were talking about what i was talking about. i was "setting up" or "begging the question". my appearance of ignorance toward the theory of originalism was nothing more than a debate tactic. crude, but possibly effective. my apologies ...i was thinking that your use of the word, rather than the theory, was suspect. your use of "originalism" as a theory rather than a layman's use of a word, ended the need for such subterfuge or ruse. again, my apologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoto1984
I'm sure your depth is much greater then mine.
no, i'm sure you come from a learned place as your reference to originalism was timely and intelligent with regard to the conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoto1984
Perhaps I should have said that Scalia's version of orginalism includes the idea that the consistution is a dead document.
He has made this statement on several occasions including during a recent 60 minutes interview. I do not hold this view as stated in a previous post.
agreed. and reference noted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoto1984
As for the right to privacy in the abortion debate. We can do it as an exercise but we might end up with a rather limited discussion. I put more weight on the viability part of the equation.
viability was anticipated to be a major part of my presentation, or planned response, to you.
Husband - No, I'm saying you have your healthcare and let me have my healthcare. We can do it so that all your concerns about costs and government support are addressed. Then let the chips fall where they may. Right now your supporting a government supported corporate welfare system that looks a lot like corporate fascism to me. I say democratic socialism is the better path and I should be allowed to make that choice.
Now that we've beat that horse to death, I like to hear your ideas to improve the current system you're defending. As costs continue to head for the clouds with no end in sight what is your plan?
1. The problem with "you have your healthcare and I have mine" is that everyone who can think knows it won't happen that way. Since there are talks of taxing healthcare benefits, talks of taxing companies and the health care, and just the fact that why would a company pay to insure their employee when the government will give that employee healthcare for "free"? You and I both know, unless you are not that smart, that it won't take long for government healthcare to be the only healthcare, and then we end up like other countries with government healthcare...their actual care (hospitals, doctors, time of procedures, waiting lists, etc) SUCKS.
So your ascertation that we can have both, private and public health insurance is a farce, you know it, I know it.
2. How do we lower the costs? Stop allowing medicare to choose what they will pay for a procedure, and make them pay what it actually costs. The difference that medicare pays is just transferred to those with health insurance and therefore our premiums go up. Also, frivolous lawsuits have driven up medical malpractice insurance so high that a lot of doctors can't afford to practice anymore. A friend of mine, is a OBGYN, and he had to move out of the state, to a bordering state, just to practice because our state's malpractice insurance is so high due to the number of frivolous lawsuits that get won in our state, and won with huge penalties.
I'm not saying that someone who gets grossly abused by the medical system and something that should have been done different, but doctor's aren't perfect, they are human, and everytime they miss something they shouldn't have to worry about million dollar lawsuits. What if everytime you made a mistake at your job you had to worry about being sued for millions of dollars? Well, thats another reason unneeded tests get run all the time, jacking up health insurance costs as well, the doctor's have to cover their ass. I mean a sprained ankle needs an MRI to make sure it isn't bone cancer, because the 1 in a million that it is bone cancer, if the doctor didn't order that MRI, he will be sued for millions.
Re: New taxes 
That said, I'm sure your depth is much greater then mine. Perhaps I should have said that Scalia's version of orginalism includes the idea that the consistution is a dead document. He has made this statement on several occasions including during a recent 60 minutes interview. I do not hold this view as stated in a previous post.
...i was thinking that your use of the word, rather than the theory, was suspect. your use of "originalism" as a theory rather than a layman's use of a word, ended the need for such subterfuge or ruse. again, my apologies. 
