The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Gil Gunderson]

Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state.  Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?

Wouldn't that fall under the 10th Amendment to the responsibility of state/local governments who hold the police powers (health, safety, and public welfare)?

You haven't heard of incorporation, have you?

[ChuckD]

Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state.  Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?

Wouldn't that fall under the 10th Amendment to the responsibility of state/local governments who hold the police powers (health, safety, and public welfare)?

The right to the assistance of counsel appears in the 6th amendment, but the Gideon case said that the 14th amendment made it applicable to the states at public expense.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I was talking about health care.

You haven't heard of incorporation, have you?

Is that a rhetorical question?

[Gil Gunderson]

Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state.  Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?

Wouldn't that fall under the 10th Amendment to the responsibility of state/local governments who hold the police powers (health, safety, and public welfare)?

The right to the assistance of counsel appears in the 6th amendment, but the Gideon case said that the 14th amendment made it applicable to the states at public expense.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I was talking about health care.

You haven't heard of incorporation, have you?

Is that a rhetorical question?

It's a legal concept.  I should have been clearer.  First year law school fun.

[ChuckD]

Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state.  Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?

Wouldn't that fall under the 10th Amendment to the responsibility of state/local governments who hold the police powers (health, safety, and public welfare)?

The right to the assistance of counsel appears in the 6th amendment, but the Gideon case said that the 14th amendment made it applicable to the states at public expense.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I was talking about health care.

You haven't heard of incorporation, have you?

Is that a rhetorical question?

It's a legal concept.  I should have been clearer.  First year law school fun.

Ah, I thought you were talking about "municipal incorporation." I just skimmed the article, but "incorporation" in the sense you're referring seems to be a devolutionary mechanism. If the state/local is tasked (as I was suggesting above) with providing for "health, safety, and general welfare," wouldn't elevating health care to a constitutional right require a change in law that's completely infeasible? Maybe I'm misinterpreting.

[Gil Gunderson]

Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state.  Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?

Wouldn't that fall under the 10th Amendment to the responsibility of state/local governments who hold the police powers (health, safety, and public welfare)?

The right to the assistance of counsel appears in the 6th amendment, but the Gideon case said that the 14th amendment made it applicable to the states at public expense.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I was talking about health care.

You haven't heard of incorporation, have you?

Is that a rhetorical question?

It's a legal concept.  I should have been clearer.  First year law school fun.

Ah, I thought you were talking about "municipal incorporation." I just skimmed the article, but "incorporation" in the sense you're referring seems to be a devolutionary mechanism. If the state/local is tasked (as I was suggesting above) with providing for "health, safety, and general welfare," wouldn't elevating health care to a constitutional right require a change in law that's completely infeasible? Maybe I'm misinterpreting.

Ehh, not really.  The necessary and proper clause, taken with the commerce clause, gives the Congress alot of power.

[Wheezer]

I'd like to ask this question from a purely rational point of view, devoid of emotion that may be associated from asking it.

Is it wise for a country to spend money healing a person who, in their old age, probably won't contribute much to society versus not spending money on those, in their younger and middle ages, who would?

It's an old saw that mathematicians have until age 25 to complete their best work, physicists until age 30, and chemists until age 35.  This gets formulated and "measured" in different ways, but the upshot is that in the hard sciences, most people have turned into seat-warmers by their mid 40s, if they weren't to start with.  Is it wise for a research institution to spend more on these people than on those, younger types who, as a group, will "probably" be more productive?

[CubFaninHydePark]

I'd like to ask this question from a purely rational point of view, devoid of emotion that may be associated from asking it.

Is it wise for a country to spend money healing a person who, in their old age, probably won't contribute much to society versus not spending money on those, in their younger and middle ages, who would?

It's an old saw that mathematicians have until age 25 to complete their best work, physicists until age 30, and chemists until age 35.  This gets formulated and "measured" in different ways, but the upshot is that in the hard sciences, most people have turned into seat-warmers by their mid 40s, if they weren't to start with.  Is it wise for a research institution to spend more on these people than on those, younger types who, as a group, will "probably" be more productive?

Probably not--but it's a race to the bottom sort of thing.  If all institutions spend a ton on the seat-warmers, the irrationality is obvious.  But there's no incentive to defect, since young people will go where they'll get taken care of when they're, at best, a name on a door that teaches a course or three.

Of course, if nobody spends more on the seat-warmers, there's an obvious and huge incentive to be the first to defect, since you'll be able to get the best minds with the promise to pay them when they're not worth that much.

This illustration can be flipped back to demonstrate the need for state intervention in all sorts of markets where there are rational incentives for individual action, that when done by a large group of individually rational people is on the whole terribly irrational.  Only the coercive power of the state can overcome the market when its incentives waste everyone's money.

Health care is no different--that coercive power needs to come down on so many fronts: tort reform, limits on the amount of money that can be spent out of the collective pool on any one person, etc.  It's the only way we can reign in health care costs that have become insane and out of control.

[Gil Gunderson]

I'd like to ask this question from a purely rational point of view, devoid of emotion that may be associated from asking it.

Is it wise for a country to spend money healing a person who, in their old age, probably won't contribute much to society versus not spending money on those, in their younger and middle ages, who would?

It's an old saw that mathematicians have until age 25 to complete their best work, physicists until age 30, and chemists until age 35.  This gets formulated and "measured" in different ways, but the upshot is that in the hard sciences, most people have turned into seat-warmers by their mid 40s, if they weren't to start with.  Is it wise for a research institution to spend more on these people than on those, younger types who, as a group, will "probably" be more productive?

Probably not--but it's a race to the bottom sort of thing.  If all institutions spend a ton on the seat-warmers, the irrationality is obvious.  But there's no incentive to defect, since young people will go where they'll get taken care of when they're, at best, a name on a door that teaches a course or three.

Of course, if nobody spends more on the seat-warmers, there's an obvious and huge incentive to be the first to defect, since you'll be able to get the best minds with the promise to pay them when they're not worth that much.

This illustration can be flipped back to demonstrate the need for state intervention in all sorts of markets where there are rational incentives for individual action, that when done by a large group of individually rational people is on the whole terribly irrational.  Only the coercive power of the state can overcome the market when its incentives waste everyone's money.

Health care is no different--that coercive power needs to come down on so many fronts: tort reform, limits on the amount of money that can be spent out of the collective pool on any one person, etc.  It's the only way we can reign in health care costs that have become insane and out of control.

I think it's been liberally estimated in most parts that tort reform would reign in approximately 2% of the total costs of health care.  I'll rustle up some sources for this, but I am pretty sure that the percentage is very small.

[Wheezer]

Health care is no different--that coercive power needs to come down on so many fronts: tort reform, limits on the amount of money that can be spent out of the collective pool on any one person, etc.  It's the only way we can reign in health care costs that have become insane and out of control.

I think it's been liberally estimated in most parts that tort reform would reign in approximately 2% of the total costs of health care.  I'll rustle up some sources for this, but I am pretty sure that the percentage is very small.

I was actually trying to make the point that "probability of contributing much to society" is a hopelessly age-neutral metric.  Tax the production of babies!

[Brownie]

One of the bills Congress will consider is screwed! Chuck Norris, great American hero, is against it!

That said, even I find his argument less than convincing, and actually can see a good argument for "parenting classes," even run by the government.

[RV]

As for the health care issue, her rhetoric might be incendiary, but I think it comes from this feature on Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm.

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

Ezekial Emanuel has the ear of the president, I suppose, but the bigger issue should be that there is no way you can convince me that a government bureaucrat is going to reject fewer claims than an insurance company.

A little late here, but I needed to note how shocked I am that an article written by Betsy McCaughy is filled with distortions and scare tactics. She's been such a reliable, even-handed source for health care reporting in the past.

[Brownie]

Here's Zeke, then.

[Canadouche]

I wonder if MikeC could explain why the right wing needs to use scare tactics when smearing the plan if it's such a bad idea based only on its merits. 

Or does he actually believe in the death camps, the grandma death act, and every thing else?

[RV]

Here's Zeke, then.

So what part of Zeke's paper do you have a problem with? I think we've had the rationing discussion before. If you believe that health care is a privilege rather than a right, aren't you saying that it should be allocated to those who can afford it? Isn't Zeke just arguing for a different type of allocation system than the current one?

As to Kurt's point, I'd agree that Palin's "death panel" rant leans more toward factually incorrect fearmongering than just "incendiary" language.

[CBStew]

One of the bills Congress will consider is screwed! Chuck Norris, great American hero, is against it!

That said, even I find his argument less than convincing, and actually can see a good argument for "parenting classes," even run by the government.

What a discovery.  When you press "quote" that becomes legible.  Not comprehensible.  But legible.