What should be cut?

[Long Run]

Actually, Hen, there has been quite an active debate about whether it is permissible for the federal government to do much of what it does. While there was substantial doubt as to whether Social Security was constitutional as a federal program, that has been settled law for quite some time as the judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution changed right about the time that law was enacted. No one is arguing that the state governments cannot properly institute welfare programs. The question of how much to spend and what type of welfare programs should be in place is, of course, a fair debate to have (since a good case can be made that a gazillion dollars have been spent on the War on Poverty to only make matters worse).

[dgs49]

Scooter Person: The argument about the General Welfare words was intersting two hundred years ago until it was finally resolved. I forget which of the Federalist Papers addresses it, but the rationale is basically as follows:

Article 1, section 8 enumerates several specific powers; the Tenth Amendment states that the powers not granted to the Federal Government in the Constituiton are reserved to the States and to the People.

The broad reading of the "general welfare" wording that today's liberals wish to impose is not only historically and logically incorrect, but it has the effect of rendering the entirety of Section 8 (as well as the tenth amendment) meaningless. If the Founders wanted the Federal Government to be free to spend on whatever they thought would promote the "general welfare," then what on earth would be the point of listing specific powers and saying that everything else is reserved to the states?

It is nonsense.

[Scooter]

Scooter Person: The argument about the General Welfare words was intersting two hundred years ago until it was finally resolved.

U.S. vs. Butler, which is the governing law on the question, was not decided two hundred years ago, but I recognize that in your universe, any court decision with which you disagree is invalid for that reason alone, apart from its legal merit or being able to stand the test of time.

I forget which of the Federalist Papers addresses it

There are actually two conflicting views of the taxing and spending clause presented in the Federalist Papers, Madison's narrow interpretation and Hamilton's broader one. To claim, therefore, that the issue was "resolved" at that time is, to put it kindly, well, stupid. (I guess there isn't a way to put it kindly after all.)

If the Founders wanted the Federal Government to be free to spend on whatever they thought would promote the "general welfare," then what on earth would be the point of listing specific powers and saying that everything else is reserved to the states?

Because the remaining enumerated powers require not only the power to tax and spend, but also the power to regulate. It was the reason why, in U.S. vs. Butler, the SCOTUS struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act even while upholding Congress's broad power to tax and spend, because the AAA sought to regulate in a sphere which the Constitution did not permit.

[Gob]

Really? When someone needs an ass-transplant do they head to canada, norway or uganda? (3 countries on your list)

I don't know, the only person who seems to have had an ass-transplant, onto his head by the look of it, is you.

WE have tractor trailers roaming our roads containing diagnostic equipment that some countries dont even have - period - and most others only have in the most well equipped (read: ruling class only) hospitals have.

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Why would you want these things. And comparing yourselves to, say Somalia, while apt, is very stupid.

And the links you provided, talk about productivity. WTF is that when is comes to pharmecuticals? that they make them cheaper?

IF the defining standard is can people make drugs for pennies on the dollar at gunpoint, then it falls short of 'pioneering' which some may argue is a synonym for 'new development' - those are two non-linked arguments.

Seeing as you are very stupid, I'll point out that "productivity" when referring to medical research means "producing new drugs/treatments/procedures". You thick cunt.

Yet a comprehensive data set of all new chemical entities approved between 1982 and 2003 shows that the United States never overtook Europe in research productivity, and that Europe in fact is pulling ahead of U.S. productivity

Get it now dumbass?

And if the defining standard deals with our FDA approval process being too long and costly then consider this: we have found - after the fact - many well prescribed drugs that tend to wipe out livers, cause seizures and make peoples dicks fall off. NO. OTHER. NATION. has our approval process and ours fucks it up regularly.

That doesn't make sense, are you drunk?

Furthermore, drugs that are now restricted or banned in THIS country, are practically over the shelf in YOURS and others. So how is that 'productivity' number holding up? At some point, common sense has to apply.

That again doesn't make sense, you're tanked aren't you? Care to name some?

I mean c'mon, when we have essentially 3 centers in the world for infectious and exotic diseases - USAMRID, CDC and Pasteur, which deal with items NOT found in the host countries, this does not point to the US lagging behind in anything.

A ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim.

Unlike these;

Life expectancy at birth for American men was 75.6 years and 80.8 for women in 2007 -- 36th and 33rd in the world -- with wide variation from county to county, researchers said.

County-level life expectancies for men ranged from 15 years ahead of an international average of top-performing nations to more than 50 years behind, Christopher Murray, MD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, and colleagues reported in Population Health Metrics.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealt ... alth/27081

Released in October 2008, a new data brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics ranks the United States 29th globally in infant mortality in 2004, the latest year such data were available for all countries. The U.S. ranking, which has risen from 12th in 1960 to 23rd in 1990, currently ties the United States with Poland and Slovakia.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/587840

Death from cancer (most recent) by country

# 9 United States: 321.9 deaths per 100,000 people
# 10 Australia: 298.9 deaths per 100,000 people
# 11 Norway: 289.4 deaths per 100,000 people
# 12 France: 286.1 deaths per 100,000 people
# 13 Austria: 280 deaths per 100,000 people
# 14 Sweden: 268.2 deaths per 100,000 people
# 15 Finland: 255.4 deaths per 100,000 people
# 16 United Kingdom: 253.5 deaths per 100,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_d ... rom-cancer

[liberty]

I find it astonishing that anyone would want to argue against providing for general welfare of fellow citizens.

Hen, I for one am not against welfare in the modern meaning of the word. I believe the word meant something quite different at the time when the constitution was written. However, the mark of a civilization is how well they protect and care for the helpless in their society. And I don’t want it to end in my country. The point I was trying to make is that it is not a constitutionally protected right. No one has a right to a welfare check; it is charity, a gift. We do it because we do not want people dying on our streets. We do it out of Christian charity.

Where as social security on the other hand is a right. It is something that the participant owns, unless the person is an illegal alien that paid into the system under someone else’s SS number.

[quaddriver]

Really? When someone needs an ass-transplant do they head to canada, norway or uganda? (3 countries on your list)

I don't know, the only person who seems to have had an ass-transplant, onto his head by the look of it, is you.

WE have tractor trailers roaming our roads containing diagnostic equipment that some countries dont even have - period - and most others only have in the most well equipped (read: ruling class only) hospitals have.

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Why would you want these things. And comparing yourselves to, say Somalia, while apt, is very stupid.

And the links you provided, talk about productivity. WTF is that when is comes to pharmecuticals? that they make them cheaper?

IF the defining standard is can people make drugs for pennies on the dollar at gunpoint, then it falls short of 'pioneering' which some may argue is a synonym for 'new development' - those are two non-linked arguments.

Seeing as you are very stupid, I'll point out that "productivity" when referring to medical research means "producing new drugs/treatments/procedures". You thick cunt.

Yet a comprehensive data set of all new chemical entities approved between 1982 and 2003 shows that the United States never overtook Europe in research productivity, and that Europe in fact is pulling ahead of U.S. productivity

Get it now dumbass?

And if the defining standard deals with our FDA approval process being too long and costly then consider this: we have found - after the fact - many well prescribed drugs that tend to wipe out livers, cause seizures and make peoples dicks fall off. NO. OTHER. NATION. has our approval process and ours fucks it up regularly.

That doesn't make sense, are you drunk?

Furthermore, drugs that are now restricted or banned in THIS country, are practically over the shelf in YOURS and others. So how is that 'productivity' number holding up? At some point, common sense has to apply.

That again doesn't make sense, you're tanked aren't you? Care to name some?

I mean c'mon, when we have essentially 3 centers in the world for infectious and exotic diseases - USAMRID, CDC and Pasteur, which deal with items NOT found in the host countries, this does not point to the US lagging behind in anything.

A ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim.

Unlike these;

Life expectancy at birth for American men was 75.6 years and 80.8 for women in 2007 -- 36th and 33rd in the world -- with wide variation from county to county, researchers said.

County-level life expectancies for men ranged from 15 years ahead of an international average of top-performing nations to more than 50 years behind, Christopher Murray, MD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, and colleagues reported in Population Health Metrics.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealt ... alth/27081

Released in October 2008, a new data brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics ranks the United States 29th globally in infant mortality in 2004, the latest year such data were available for all countries. The U.S. ranking, which has risen from 12th in 1960 to 23rd in 1990, currently ties the United States with Poland and Slovakia.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/587840

Death from cancer (most recent) by country

# 9 United States: 321.9 deaths per 100,000 people
# 10 Australia: 298.9 deaths per 100,000 people
# 11 Norway: 289.4 deaths per 100,000 people
# 12 France: 286.1 deaths per 100,000 people
# 13 Austria: 280 deaths per 100,000 people
# 14 Sweden: 268.2 deaths per 100,000 people
# 15 Finland: 255.4 deaths per 100,000 people
# 16 United Kingdom: 253.5 deaths per 100,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_d ... rom-cancer

I am not entirely clear on what it is you do for a living - mostly because you are carefully obtuse in this arena - 'more than occasionally drunk blogger' does not have the panache you hoped it would. But suffice to say, once again you have posted about medical issues and your post is entirely nonsense.

First off, to address your assinine cancer assertions, seeing as I have lost EVERYONE older than I to cancer and you have not:

There is not one single thing you or anyone can do to prevent cancer. There is not a combination of things you or anyone can do to prevent it. At the same time there is not one single thing you or anyone can do to get cancer. There is not a combination of things you or anyone can do to get cancer.

That being said, do you think that since there is essentially no treatment for cancer ANYWHERE on the planet for cancer but people come here. And our immigrants come from places where multiple markers are in place since birth? And a countries health system does not cause cancer but rather exposure to various markers as part of a lifestyle. gee - I dunno.

To address the tractor trailer comment seeing as you live in a 3rd world jerkwater nation wholly dependant on the US and china for survival: WE have a gross excess of high tech medical diagnostic equipment in this nation. IF it costs a ton and that drives up the apparent cost of 'medicine' here, that is an entirely different argument. Suffice to say, we have it, we have a shitload of it, so much that we are able to load it into trucks and visit every small town no matter how far tucked away. YOU and ANY OTHER nation - do not. The fact that we do this does not reflect badly on us. The fact that other nations do not do this makes their leaders look like homicidal eugenic maniacs.

As for the life expectancy: it has been a matter of settled debate for well over two decades that if we define as 'children' everyone under the age of 22, and accept as cause of death for the calculation, gunshots, we have a lower life expectancy. I will let you look up any statistic you desire, but even the plain dumb realize that it takes quite a few geezers living to 80 to balance out one banger at 16.

Of course the experts have this to say:

Experts suggest the United States’ ranking near the bottom of 33 developed countries for life expectancy at birth — 27th — may be due to domestic violence.

Tina Bloom, an assistant professor in the Sinclair School of Nursing at the University of Missouri, says leading causes of infant mortality are complications related to pre-term birth or low birth weight-outcomes — both of which can have a life-long impact — have been linked with domestic violence.

The United States remains far behind most other affluent countries in terms
of life expectancy. One of the possible causes of this life expectancy gap is
the widespread availability of firearms and the resulting high number of
U.S. firearm fatalities: 10,801 homicides in 2000. The European Union experienced
1,260 homicides, Japan only 22. Using multiple decrement techniques,
I show that firearm violence shortens the life of an average American by
104 days (151 days for white males, 362 days for black males). Among all fatal
injuries, only motor vehicle accidents have a stronger effect. I estimate that
the elimination of all firearm deaths in the United States would increase the
male life expectancy more than the total eradication of all colon and prostate
cancers. My results suggest that the insurance premium increases paid by
Americans as a result of firearm violence are probably of the same order of
magnitude as the total medical costs due to gunshots or the increased cost of
administering the criminal justice system due to gun crime.

or read the whole damng thing: http://sbm.temple.edu/dept/rihm/documen ... emaire.pdf

I could print out a few thousand more, but they say the same thing: our life expectancy is not due to bad doctors hospitals or drugs, but rather "lack of" for our soon-not-to-be-a-minority immigrant population and our life choices: in the US we have firearm ownership, prolific automobile ownership (the top 2 causes of early death by far), recreational vehicle ownership such as boats, motorcylces (including very large displacement ones) aircraft, ultra light aircraft, as well as dangerous hobbies. WE do these because our rights are protected to allow us to do these things. Yours - for example - are not, nor is most ofthe rest of the planet. Therefore it is likely not an accident that you do not have the ability to die from guns, cars, bikes, airplanes, parachutes and the like. Such are the prices of our freedom, but sadder is the blind acceptance you and the rest of world have towards your oppresive totalitarian regimes. Of course you and the rest of the world, when fed up simply do one thing: move to the US if you can afford the plane fare. IF it makes you feel any better we still think you all are assholes and we dont want you here.

The conclusion that every other rational person has arrived at while you were still stoned on bad whiskey: If we dont live very long in the US it is because we make a conscious effort not to and the staff at rampart general has nothing to do with it. DO they try to legislate cheeseburgers, xbox, v8 engines and r-rated movies for our own good here? yes and we resist at everyturn. san fran can live as san fran desires, the rest of the US will take the status quo. Mebbe you should be a bit more productive and fight for the ability to off yourself earlier?

Turning next to your misunderstanding as you claim about my FDA section. The US and the US alone has an agency on the scale of the FDA and the approvals process for medicines. IS the FDA or its requirements foolproof? No. Take for example the antidepresant nafazodone (trade name serzone) which you and the hen took for years. IT was discovered to cause liver damage even after its testing protocols and hence banned/withdrawn in the US in 2003. It took your country a YEAR to follow suit. A YEAR. Even friggin Canada got on board FIRST and they are pretty much idiots. Of course the fact that your govt allowed bristol meyers to sell it discounted to save money on the prescription benefit service or whatever you call it is irrelevant right?

Oh and lest I forget, twice you have demonstrated you did not read your link. productivity as mentioned in that link, is ultimately tied to cost. uninteresting. (even the UKs largest pharma company - Glaxo, now does the majority of its research and production in North carolina. Why is that? (hint: the US is 45% of worldwide sales?*) prolly costs more....they also make their generics for worldwide distribution in brazil using slave labor. why is that? prolly costs less)

so a little friendly advice: less scotch = less gibberish in your posts. please practice that.



* = this bears studying: the largest pharma not based in the US gets 45% of its revenue from 300M people and 55% from 6.7B people and WE have bad healthcare? wtf?

[Liberty1]

it is charity, a gift. We do it because we do not want people dying on our streets. We do it out of Christian charity.

It is not charity and specifically not Christian charity. Charity is something that is freely and willingly given, not forced confiscation at the point of a gun.

God said, "Thou shalt not steal".

He did not say, "Thou shalt not steal unless you have a majority in Congress".

If I saw a sick homeless person on the street and thought to myself, they could use $500 to go get some medicine and a place to stay until they get better. Then stopped the first person coming down the street at gun point and forced them to give me $500, that is not charity. And yet that is wht the government does.

No, the welfare state has practically killed the charitable instincts from most people.

Where as social security on the other hand is a right. It is something that the participant owns, unless the person is an illegal alien that paid into the system under someone else’s SS number.

And hate to tell you this bud, it aint yours. Just try to withdraw it. It's the classical definition of a ponsie scheme.

[Grim Reaper]

I am not entirely clear on what it is you do for a living - mostly because you are carefully obtuse in this arena - 'more than occasionally drunk blogger' does not have the panache you hoped it would. But suffice to say, once again you have posted about medical issues and your post is entirely nonsense.

More condescension with no real substance.

First off, to address your assinine cancer assertions, seeing as I have lost EVERYONE older than I to cancer and you have not:

You can turn in your victim card and try engaging in rational discussion for once.

There is not one single thing you or anyone can do to prevent cancer. There is not a combination of things you or anyone can do to prevent it. At the same time there is not one single thing you or anyone can do to get cancer. There is not a combination of things you or anyone can do to get cancer.

There are plenty of things that can lower your chances of getting cancer, just as there are plenty of things that can increase your chances.

That being said, do you think that since there is essentially no treatment for cancer ANYWHERE on the planet for cancer but people come here. And our immigrants come from places where multiple markers are in place since birth? And a countries health system does not cause cancer but rather exposure to various markers as part of a lifestyle. gee - I dunno.

Where's your proof that people come here for cancer treatment? Especially, as you so ignorantly put it, that there's no treatment for cancer anywhere on the planet? Why come to the US for what doesn't exist?

To address the tractor trailer comment seeing as you live in a 3rd world jerkwater nation wholly dependant on the US and china for survival: WE have a gross excess of high tech medical diagnostic equipment in this nation. IF it costs a ton and that drives up the apparent cost of 'medicine' here, that is an entirely different argument. Suffice to say, we have it, we have a shitload of it, so much that we are able to load it into trucks and visit every small town no matter how far tucked away. YOU and ANY OTHER nation - do not. The fact that we do this does not reflect badly on us. The fact that other nations do not do this makes their leaders look like homicidal eugenic maniacs.

More ignorant ranting with nothing to back it up.

As for the life expectancy: it has been a matter of settled debate for well over two decades that if we define as 'children' everyone under the age of 22, and accept as cause of death for the calculation, gunshots, we have a lower life expectancy. I will let you look up any statistic you desire, but even the plain dumb realize that it takes quite a few geezers living to 80 to balance out one banger at 16.

Life expectancy is birth to death, regardless of causes.

WE do these because our rights are protected to allow us to do these things.

Get off your moronic high horse. This is just plain pathetic and if you had a shred of decency, you would be ashamed of posting this and thinking it a legitimate point.

Even friggin Canada got on board FIRST and they are pretty much idiots.

You're a xenophobic bigot. You have made zero attempt at engaging in rational discourse. All you do is post deliberately inflammatory remarks such as this one. You are a troll, pathetically seeking for attention. Further attempts at replying to you will be utterly futile, no matter how badly your posts are obliterated by logic and reasoning.

so a little friendly advice: less scotch = less gibberish in your posts. please practice that.

A little friendly advice: Post like an adult for once in your misbegotten life.

[quaddriver]

Responding to the substance in the preceding post:

.

ps: learn what xenophobic means.



dipshit. we have so many of the fuckers we RENT THEM OUT.

[Grim Reaper]

ps: learn what xenophobic means.

You're the one who seems to be having trouble grasping the concept of the word. Especially since your posts are composed entirely of xenophobia. You have repeatedly shown an outright hatred for all things not American. Canadians? Idiots. Australians? Idiots. British? Idiots. Your bias is clear and undeniable. At least man up to your words instead of trying to weasel out of them.

And for the mobile MRI?

Only one of the companies that sells them is American. Which means they get sold in more places than just the US. Which blows your "only we have mobile crap" point out of the water.

Here is a list of mobile diagnostics equipment available in Europe.

Australia started using mobile MRI several years ago.

It's almost as if the rest of the world wasn't as backwards and horrible as you keep imagining it to be.

[Scooter]

It is not charity

You're absolutely right. It is a cost of living in a society that claims to be civilized. Just like police, courts, paved roads and all the rest.

Of course, if you prefer to live in a country where the government does not confiscate your money in order to provide those things, there's always Somalia.

[quaddriver]

ps: learn what xenophobic means.

still waiting.

noted you didnt read your link. The link stated Oz had exactly *2*. In my state alone, we average far more than 1 *per county* we have 67 counties. We are 1 of 50 states.

Mobile MRIs have been operating for some years in the United States. This will be the second mobile MRI unit in Australia (the first services Rockhampton, Bundaberg and Gladstone in Queensland), but the first to participate in a Government-backed trial.

you fell on your face on that one. keep trying tho.

How does england do?

A report published in 2002 found over half a million people were waiting in England and Wales for a MRI scan.

The Audit Commission said a lack of machines and staff was to blame.

Last year, the Royal College of Radiologists warned that cancer patients were dying unnecessarily partly because of a shortage of MRI scanners.

Near as I can determine, the UK is serviced by 'Cobalt' who has apparently *6* of them.

I wont ask Canada. Simply because a Canadian with connections to the Canadian healthcare industry suggested that a viable solution was to get rid of the number of MRIs in the US to put us on equal footing. Gotta love socialized medicine. Cheaper because it is not burdened by pesky diagnostic testing.

. Canadians? Idiots. Australians? Idiots. British? Idiots. Your bias is clear and undeniable.

If I did have one, aint clear to you apparently. If anything, I demonstrated a bias towards those that have some colony/commonwealth connection with england. I would therefore be in the majority with the rest of the world to consider them idiots. IF that of course is what I wrote.

Only one of the companies that sells them is American. Which means they get sold in more places than just the US. Which blows your "only we have mobile crap" point out of the water.

didnt read again? we rent them out. from 4 manufacurers generally. 85-90% of the consumers (read: buyers) worldwide are in the US. oooops to be you again. so, back to the original point, if the US health care is so bad as the OP opined, why do we have all the diagnostic equipment? given the number in the US, one could make the argument that for all intents and purposes, ALL of the equipement for this task is in the US. the point never was stated who built it. the point was who BOUGHT it. but of course to acknowledge that factoid makes you look like a douche....

PS, your link that said:

Australia started using mobile MRI several years ago.

was from mid 2006. 5 years ago. 5 years stacks up to decades HOW? So today you and I have both shown that Oz has lagged the US by 1 year in continuing to use a harmful drug and has lagged by over 15 years for lifesaving diagnostic equipment? Does that country have ANY good news? Paul Hogan might not be the answer we are looking for....

PPS: the rest of the world IS backwards and horrible. It is why they strive to emulate the US in every facet. Immitation might be flattery, but please, stop. We really dont like you all that much. Its why we murricans LEFT WHERE YOU ARE TO COME HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[Liberty1]

It is a cost of living in a society that claims to be civilized. Just like police, courts, paved roads and all the rest

Too bad your confusing Constitutionally required federal responsibilities, with theft.


I'm all for helping the poor, in fact on the CSB I discussed several times mine and my Churches work with the Interfaith Hospitality Network and our monday noon meal that feeds around 300 people. But those are true charity, not theft.

And as always, there's nothing stopping the states or communities from implementing any program they may wish.

[Scooter]

How about this: I think being forced to pay for police, who spend a disproportionate amount of resources protecting the property of the rich and powerful, to be theft.

I think paying for a military, which has spent zero dollars actually protecting the country for decades, and instead has engaged in a series of wars to protect the business interests of the rich and powerful, to be theft.

I think paying for courts, which are increasingly biased towards corporate interests over those they harm, to be theft.

You can't provide any better reason for what you define as "theft" than what I have just stated.

[Liberty1]

You give a few examples of bad government to convince me I want more government?

Police, military and courts all Constitutionally enumerated responsibilities of the federal government, do things you disagree with, all things that are just your own polical opinions and like to call it theft.

I disagree with calling welfare, something that is not an enumerated responsibility of the federal government, charity and intead call it theft.

Sorry, examples of very bad govenrment are not good arguments for more of the same.

[Scooter]

I disagree with calling welfare, something that is not an enumerated responsibility of the federal government, charity and intead call it theft.

Except that you're wrong. Court decisions have said that it is a legitimate function of the federal government. Their opinion counts, yours isn't worth the toilet paper I just used to wipe my ass.

[Liberty1]

The court was wrong.

How do things change? By people not wanting to put up with the status quo and not just accepting the way things are. Things are a changin here in the US, changing back.

[Scooter]

Blah, blah, blah. Get back to me when you get appointed to the Supreme Court.

[Liberty1]

As I've told you before, my opinion counts. Your canuck opinion is just blah, blah, blah.

[Scooter]

Your opinion counts? Then how is it that the federal government is still spending money you say it shouldn't be? If your opinion counts so much, get on the phone to the White House and tell them to stop printing the cheques. What? You can't do that? Guess your opinion doesn't count after all.