Amendment 10

[Pokaris]

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Never mind, the court will just make up new rules, declare whatever you want a tax. Go crazy!

[Thinine]

Tell it to Facebook like the rest of the wannabe scholars.

[Uncle Sherm]

Roberts did a good job, I think, addressing the 10th amendment in his opinion.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

[Gretyl]

If Sherm's less butthurt about it, you're overthinking the situation.

[Pokaris]

Tell it to Facebook like the rest of the wannabe scholars.

Yes, the Constitution starts out we the Constitutional lawyers because it was meant to be a constantly expanding document and not a limit to federal powers. There was no war against an oppressive over-reaching government, it was just a legal challenge and we're apparently Canada.

[Gretyl]

If we were Canada, we'd have better healthcare outcomes.

[Uncle Sherm]

If Sherm's less butthurt about it, you're overthinking the situation.

I've just accepted the fact that hoping the government will restrain itself is a lost cause. This was an awful ruling, and Roberts and his side are horribly wrong. In a time when the president can topple a foreign government without congressional authorization, assassinate US citizens, and congress turns peaceful protest into a felony without the media or general electorate batting an eye, healt insurance mandates aren't something to get upset about.

[Pokaris]

If Sherm's less butthurt about it, you're overthinking the situation.

Perhaps, or maybe I'm better at finances than most of you and can see the writing on the wall that the rest of you are missing.

How are our government's first forays into health care doing financially? http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html The trust fund that was supposed to get us through the baby boomers runs out in 2024, and if I were a gambling man I'd bet we'll still have quite a few boomers around in 12 years.

[Gretyl]

healt insurance mandates aren't something to get upset about.

further evidence I am right to judge Pokaris in this thread

[Gretyl]

maybe I'm better at finances than most of you and can see the writing on the wall that the rest of you are missing.

if it's a budget problem, why base your argument on the tenth amendment?

[Pokaris]

If we were Canada, we'd have better healthcare outcomes.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure the Premier of Newfoundland (aka their governor equivalent) came down here for his heart surgery? I can't think of any governor that has gone to Canada for surgery? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundl ... t-201.html

I spend several weeks a year in Canada (and the wife is Canadian), so please regale me with the stories of how amazing their system is, then head anywhere but the major areas and be amazed at how wrong everything you've been led to believe is. Toronto or Vancouver? Sure it's great. Most of Saskatchewan or Manitoba? Enjoy your wait to get to a specialist.

edit: I misspelled Saskatchewan, damn you easy to draw hard to spell province!

[Pokaris]

maybe I'm better at finances than most of you and can see the writing on the wall that the rest of you are missing.

if it's a budget problem, why base your argument on the tenth amendment?

It can't be both? Expansion of federal powers doesn't relate to an expansion of federal costs?

[Wargazm]

Enjoy your wait to get to a specialist.

Yeah. Kind of reminds me of how my wife's family from rural Iowa has to get on a waiting list to come up to the Mayo Clinic to see the specialists they need to see.

Waiting for specialists sucks. Canada should really do something about that.

[Pokaris]

Enjoy your wait to get to a specialist.

Yeah. Kind of reminds me of how my wife's family from rural Iowa has to get on a waiting list to come up to the Mayo Clinic to see the specialists they need to see.

Waiting for specialists sucks. Canada should really do something about that.

I can get into Mayo a lot quicker than the 8 months it took my in-laws to see a specialist.

[Gretyl]

maybe I'm better at finances than most of you and can see the writing on the wall that the rest of you are missing.

if it's a budget problem, why base your argument on the tenth amendment?

It can't be both? Expansion of federal powers doesn't relate to an expansion of federal costs?

I'm trying to rein in your broad generalizations about "most of you" to follow a coherent argument.

I agree this is an expansion of federal authority, but am not yet concerned about an imminent compulsion for broccoli.

[Gretyl]

If we were Canada, we'd have better healthcare outcomes.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure the Premier of Newfoundland (aka their governor equivalent) came down here for his heart surgery? I can't think of any governor that has gone to Canada for surgery? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/02/01/nl-williams-heart-201.html

This was never about quality of treatment for governors(-equivalent). The ACA as-passed was intended to improve healthcare for the uninsured and ideally (though perhaps un- or dis-proven depending on your political position) reduce long-term costs.

[Wargazm]

Enjoy your wait to get to a specialist.

Yeah. Kind of reminds me of how my wife's family from rural Iowa has to get on a waiting list to come up to the Mayo Clinic to see the specialists they need to see.

Waiting for specialists sucks. Canada should really do something about that.

I can get into Mayo a lot quicker than the 8 months it took my in-laws to see a specialist.

huh. That's weird. Such different experiences we've had...it's almost like anecdotal evidence is unreliable and ultimately has no place in these kinds of discussions.

[Pokaris]

Enjoy your wait to get to a specialist.

Yeah. Kind of reminds me of how my wife's family from rural Iowa has to get on a waiting list to come up to the Mayo Clinic to see the specialists they need to see.

Waiting for specialists sucks. Canada should really do something about that.

I can get into Mayo a lot quicker than the 8 months it took my in-laws to see a specialist.

huh. That's weird. Such different experiences we've had...it's almost like anecdotal evidence is unreliable and ultimately has no place in these kinds of discussions.

You want facts? The vast majority of Saskatchewan, which is like Montana sized, was once without a gynecological oncologist because the one in Regina took an unexpected leave of absence. Not one hospital didn't have one, most of the province had 0, because they lost their only one. Want to do a quick check on how many their are at Mayo? Hell University of Iowa? OMG its more than one? Hmmm.

[Gretyl]

Those are facts. I don't buy your implicit conclusion about the quality of the two healthcare policies.

[Pokaris]

If we were Canada, we'd have better healthcare outcomes.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure the Premier of Newfoundland (aka their governor equivalent) came down here for his heart surgery? I can't think of any governor that has gone to Canada for surgery? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/02/01/nl-williams-heart-201.html

This was never about quality of treatment for governors(-equivalent). The ACA as-passed was intended to improve healthcare for the uninsured and ideally (though perhaps un- or dis-proven depending on your political position) reduce long-term costs.

Based on our amazing track record of predicting health care expenses? I'm pretty sure my unicorn hunting record is on par.

[Wargazm]

You want facts? The vast majority of Saskatchewan, which is like Montana sized, was once without a gynecological oncologist because the one in Regina took an unexpected leave of absence. Not one hospital didn't have one, most of the province had 0, because they lost their only one. Want to do a quick check on how many their are at Mayo? Hell University of Iowa? OMG its more than one? Hmmm.

source please. We source facts.

[Wargazm]

Besides, the point is that you're going to have to travel/wait for specialists if you live in bumfuck nowhere, both in Canada and the US. How many gynecological oncologists are there in Montana?

hint: There's one. Just like that godless backwater socialist hellhole we call the Saskatchewan province. Hope that guy never takes a leave of abscence!!

[MarkK]

Is university of Iowa or mayo in Montana now?

[Wargazm]

Pokaris brought up the Montana/Saskatchewan comparison, not me.

[Pokaris]

Those are facts. I don't buy your implicit conclusion about the quality of the two healthcare policies.

Policy and actual results aren't always the same.

[MarkK]

Pokaris brought up the Montana/Saskatchewan comparison, not me.

Was replying to him, busy at work and didn't see the other replies yet

[Wargazm]

pfff...work. We got constitutional matters to settle.

You're telling me you're gonna work when you have such intimate access to one of the greatest constitutional scholars the country has ever known? I mean, it's not that often you get to speak so directly to someone like Pokaris.

[MarkK]

But if I don't work, I'll lose my insurance, and then I'll be sent to prison

[Wargazm]

and you'd deserve it, too.

[Pokaris]

Besides, the point is that you're going to have to travel/wait for specialists if you live in bumfuck nowhere, both in Canada and the US. How many gynecological oncologists are there in Montana?

hint: There's one. Just like that godless backwater socialist hellhole we call the Saskatchewan province. Hope that guy never takes a leave of abscence!!

They can go outside of Montana to the lovely metro areas nearby (e.g. Denver). In SK they were told to wait while the government healthcare folks looked. Kind of a big difference.

[Pokaris]

You want facts? The vast majority of Saskatchewan, which is like Montana sized, was once without a gynecological oncologist because the one in Regina took an unexpected leave of absence. Not one hospital didn't have one, most of the province had 0, because they lost their only one. Want to do a quick check on how many their are at Mayo? Hell University of Iowa? OMG its more than one? Hmmm.

source please. We source facts.

http://cancerbugsme.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... re-in.html

That's the release, they took it down, but it was in the papers up there too.

I felt like making up gynecological oncology issues because they affect me so.

[Wargazm]

Besides, the point is that you're going to have to travel/wait for specialists if you live in bumfuck nowhere, both in Canada and the US. How many gynecological oncologists are there in Montana?

hint: There's one. Just like that godless backwater socialist hellhole we call the Saskatchewan province. Hope that guy never takes a leave of abscence!!

They can go outside of Montana to the lovely metro areas nearby (e.g. Denver). In SK they were told to wait while the government healthcare folks looked. Kind of a big difference.

so now you've shifted the goalposts, from an argument based on scarcity, to one based on who gets to tell you who you can see. I can safely assume that you've conceded the scarcity argument. One point for me.

In the US, the very insurance companies tell me who I can see by declaring some doctors to be in network and some out of network. Sure, you're *technically* free to see anyone, but they make it so I really don't have a choice unless I want to pay out the ass for an out of network doctor. "Pick any color, so long as it's black," and all that. So in both cases we're not "free."

Apparently you don't mind the insurance companies telling you who you can see, but you don't like the idea of the government making that choice. Fine. Obamacare keeps that status quo completely intact. The benevolent insurance company overlords still tell you who you can see and who you can't see. So what's the problem here? Nothing much has changed from your perspective.

[MarcusAurelius]

Aside:

So, nobody here really knows much about constitutional law. We can probably all admit that. Even dtower5 is functionally retarded, despite having some course in it, and so is easily ignored.

We can probably all also agree that the supreme court justices, at any given time, constitute "experts" in con-law. Probably (hopefully, possibly naively) the very brightest minds in constitutional law anywhere in the world. They've studied this shit their whole lives (hopefully).

That said, am I the only one that thinks it's completely and utterly fucked to the core that this group of "experts" can so consistently disagree with one another along near-perfect (whoopdeedoo, one sort-of crossed over) party lines? Where's the justice in that?

tldr, fuck lawyers

[Gretyl]

Those are facts. I don't buy your implicit conclusion about the quality of the two healthcare policies.

Policy and actual results aren't always the same.

I'm not saying they are. I thought you were implying "# of specialists available in comparable regions is a meaningful result of the difference in healthcare policy". Did I misinterpret your "Hmmmm."?

[Gretyl]

tldr, fuck lawyers

Pokaris already said this isn't a strictly constitutional thread. If you've got beef with Obamacare after the SCOTUS ruling, wag that e-dick in here.

[Pokaris]

Besides, the point is that you're going to have to travel/wait for specialists if you live in bumfuck nowhere, both in Canada and the US. How many gynecological oncologists are there in Montana?

hint: There's one. Just like that godless backwater socialist hellhole we call the Saskatchewan province. Hope that guy never takes a leave of abscence!!

They can go outside of Montana to the lovely metro areas nearby (e.g. Denver). In SK they were told to wait while the government healthcare folks looked. Kind of a big difference.

so now you've shifted the goalposts, from an argument based on scarcity, to one based on who gets to tell you who you can see. I can safely assume that you've conceded the scarcity argument. One point for me.

In the US, the very insurance companies tell me who I can see by declaring some doctors to be in network and some out of network. Sure, you're *technically* free to see anyone, but they make it so I really don't have a choice unless I want to pay out the ass for an out of network doctor. "Pick any color, so long as it's black," and all that. So in both cases we're not "free."

Apparently you don't mind the insurance companies telling you who you can see, but you don't like the idea of the government making that choice. Fine. Obamacare keeps that status quo completely intact. The benevolent insurance company overlords still tell you who you can see and who you can't see. So what's the problem here? Nothing much has changed from your perspective.

Scarcity as in you can get some or none? That's not the same level of scarcity. So that's one for being shitty at math.

You've honestly been in a situation where there was only 1 in network person? I think this falls from anecdotes to just making shit up.

The insurance companies don't have defined powers outside of those I agreed to last I checked. The federal government used to.

Basically, if you're willing to let the federal government pick winners and losers, it's already decided for you.

[Pokaris]

Those are facts. I don't buy your implicit conclusion about the quality of the two healthcare policies.

Policy and actual results aren't always the same.

I'm not saying they are. I thought you were implying "# of specialists available in comparable regions is a meaningful result of the difference in healthcare policy". Did I misinterpret your "Hmmmm."?

No the result in one case was they could do something else, and in the other they were told to wait. I hate trying to type out everything and really don't care to, sorry.

And in that case the number is different but I concede that within the same distance it the results would be similar. We're still talking about a private organizations hiring speed vs a government one. It's not one thing, it's a million tiny inefficiencies that add up to it not being on par.

[Pokaris]

Aside:

So, nobody here really knows much about constitutional law. We can probably all admit that. Even dtower5 is functionally retarded, despite having some course in it, and so is easily ignored.

We can probably all also agree that the supreme court justices, at any given time, constitute "experts" in con-law. Probably (hopefully, possibly naively) the very brightest minds in constitutional law anywhere in the world. They've studied this shit their whole lives (hopefully).

That said, am I the only one that thinks it's completely and utterly fucked to the core that this group of "experts" can so consistently disagree with one another along near-perfect (whoopdeedoo, one sort-of crossed over) party lines? Where's the justice in that?

tldr, fuck lawyers

I think it's a pretty clear illustration of why lifetime appointments should end.

[MarcusAurelius]

Aside:

So, nobody here really knows much about constitutional law. We can probably all admit that. Even dtower5 is functionally retarded, despite having some course in it, and so is easily ignored.

We can probably all also agree that the supreme court justices, at any given time, constitute "experts" in con-law. Probably (hopefully, possibly naively) the very brightest minds in constitutional law anywhere in the world. They've studied this shit their whole lives (hopefully).

That said, am I the only one that thinks it's completely and utterly fucked to the core that this group of "experts" can so consistently disagree with one another along near-perfect (whoopdeedoo, one sort-of crossed over) party lines? Where's the justice in that?

tldr, fuck lawyers

I think it's a pretty clear illustration of why lifetime appointments should end.

why? without those, it'd be even worse, with new interpretations of law every 2-4 years.

[Wargazm]

Besides, the point is that you're going to have to travel/wait for specialists if you live in bumfuck nowhere, both in Canada and the US. How many gynecological oncologists are there in Montana?

hint: There's one. Just like that godless backwater socialist hellhole we call the Saskatchewan province. Hope that guy never takes a leave of abscence!!

They can go outside of Montana to the lovely metro areas nearby (e.g. Denver). In SK they were told to wait while the government healthcare folks looked. Kind of a big difference.

so now you've shifted the goalposts, from an argument based on scarcity, to one based on who gets to tell you who you can see. I can safely assume that you've conceded the scarcity argument. One point for me.

In the US, the very insurance companies tell me who I can see by declaring some doctors to be in network and some out of network. Sure, you're *technically* free to see anyone, but they make it so I really don't have a choice unless I want to pay out the ass for an out of network doctor. "Pick any color, so long as it's black," and all that. So in both cases we're not "free."

Apparently you don't mind the insurance companies telling you who you can see, but you don't like the idea of the government making that choice. Fine. Obamacare keeps that status quo completely intact. The benevolent insurance company overlords still tell you who you can see and who you can't see. So what's the problem here? Nothing much has changed from your perspective.

Scarcity as in you can get some or none? That's not the same level of scarcity. So that's one for being shitty at math.

You've honestly been in a situation where there was only 1 in network person? I think this falls from anecdotes to just making shit up.

The insurance companies don't have defined powers outside of those I agreed to last I checked. The federal government used to.

Basically, if you're willing to let the federal government pick winners and losers, it's already decided for you.

you're mixing up your arguments. Get them straight in your head and then get back to me. I'm not going to fence with you.

[Pokaris]

Aside:

So, nobody here really knows much about constitutional law. We can probably all admit that. Even dtower5 is functionally retarded, despite having some course in it, and so is easily ignored.

We can probably all also agree that the supreme court justices, at any given time, constitute "experts" in con-law. Probably (hopefully, possibly naively) the very brightest minds in constitutional law anywhere in the world. They've studied this shit their whole lives (hopefully).

That said, am I the only one that thinks it's completely and utterly fucked to the core that this group of "experts" can so consistently disagree with one another along near-perfect (whoopdeedoo, one sort-of crossed over) party lines? Where's the justice in that?

tldr, fuck lawyers

I think it's a pretty clear illustration of why lifetime appointments should end.

why? without those, it'd be even worse, with new interpretations of law every 2-4 years.

You can put them off schedule (say 10 years) and still not have them be lifetime.

[Pokaris]

Besides, the point is that you're going to have to travel/wait for specialists if you live in bumfuck nowhere, both in Canada and the US. How many gynecological oncologists are there in Montana?

hint: There's one. Just like that godless backwater socialist hellhole we call the Saskatchewan province. Hope that guy never takes a leave of abscence!!

They can go outside of Montana to the lovely metro areas nearby (e.g. Denver). In SK they were told to wait while the government healthcare folks looked. Kind of a big difference.

so now you've shifted the goalposts, from an argument based on scarcity, to one based on who gets to tell you who you can see. I can safely assume that you've conceded the scarcity argument. One point for me.

In the US, the very insurance companies tell me who I can see by declaring some doctors to be in network and some out of network. Sure, you're *technically* free to see anyone, but they make it so I really don't have a choice unless I want to pay out the ass for an out of network doctor. "Pick any color, so long as it's black," and all that. So in both cases we're not "free."

Apparently you don't mind the insurance companies telling you who you can see, but you don't like the idea of the government making that choice. Fine. Obamacare keeps that status quo completely intact. The benevolent insurance company overlords still tell you who you can see and who you can't see. So what's the problem here? Nothing much has changed from your perspective.

Scarcity as in you can get some or none? That's not the same level of scarcity. So that's one for being shitty at math.

You've honestly been in a situation where there was only 1 in network person? I think this falls from anecdotes to just making shit up.

The insurance companies don't have defined powers outside of those I agreed to last I checked. The federal government used to.

Basically, if you're willing to let the federal government pick winners and losers, it's already decided for you.

you're mixing up your arguments. Get them straight in your head and then get back to me. I'm not going to fence with you.

So you've decided to stop making up shit?

[Uncle Sherm]

Aside:

So, nobody here really knows much about constitutional law. We can probably all admit that. Even dtower5 is functionally retarded, despite having some course in it, and so is easily ignored.

We can probably all also agree that the supreme court justices, at any given time, constitute "experts" in con-law. Probably (hopefully, possibly naively) the very brightest minds in constitutional law anywhere in the world. They've studied this shit their whole lives (hopefully).

That said, am I the only one that thinks it's completely and utterly fucked to the core that this group of "experts" can so consistently disagree with one another along near-perfect (whoopdeedoo, one sort-of crossed over) party lines? Where's the justice in that?

tldr, fuck lawyers

I think it's a pretty clear illustration of why lifetime appointments should end the constitution should be amended before implementing such an obviously controversial expansion of government authority.

[Uncle Sherm]

Even banning alcohol required an amendment, people. That was "commerce" according to this ruling.

[MarcusAurelius]

valid point.

[Thinine]

Even banning alcohol required an amendment, people. That was "commerce" according to this ruling.

Maybe, maybe not. A federal ban on the sale and transport of alcohol was never tried as regular legislation.

[nippletwister]

tldr, fuck lawyers

I think it's a pretty clear illustration of why lifetime appointments should end.

* Citizens United

[nippletwister]

Even banning alcohol required an amendment, people. That was "commerce" according to this ruling.

Since Prohibition, the sale of alcohol has mostly shifted into commerce clause. Mostly. It's happening more and more.

[Uncle Sherm]

Even banning alcohol required an amendment, people. That was "commerce" according to this ruling.

Maybe, maybe not. A federal ban on the sale and transport of alcohol was never tried as regular legislation.

Neither was a ban on the sale and transport of slaves. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FTW!

[Uncle Sherm]

Even banning alcohol required an amendment, people. That was "commerce" according to this ruling.

Since Prohibition, the sale of alcohol has mostly shifted into commerce clause. Mostly. It's happening more and more.

Lately, the power to bomb foreign countries and kill US Citizens has mostly shifted into the executive branch. That doesn't make it constitutional.

[Uncle Sherm]

Also note that the DREAM Act was rejected by congress, but the President has effectively declared it to be law anyway by refusing to prosecute and deport minors living in the country illegally. There's a lot of examples to be shown, whether you support it or not, that are obvious violations of the Constitutional powers of the Government in general, and the authority of the various branches, that are not being called out.

[Thinine]

Even banning alcohol required an amendment, people. That was "commerce" according to this ruling.

Maybe, maybe not. A federal ban on the sale and transport of alcohol was never tried as regular legislation.

Neither was a ban on the sale and transport of slaves. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FTW!

Slavery was legitimized in the Constitution, alcohol was not. Yet again you seem to be seeing our color world in black and white.

[Uncle Sherm]

Even banning alcohol required an amendment, people. That was "commerce" according to this ruling.

Maybe, maybe not. A federal ban on the sale and transport of alcohol was never tried as regular legislation.

Neither was a ban on the sale and transport of slaves. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FTW!

Slavery was legitimized in the Constitution, alcohol was not. Yet again you seem to be seeing our color world in black and white.

Actually, given the clause forbidding any ban on the import and sale of slaves until 1808 would a stronger case for their general regulatory authority on the matter (and there was a general ban on importing slaves passed by congress that went into effect on 1/1/1808), yet it still required a constitutional amendment to ban it entirely.

[Gretyl]

Aside:

So, nobody here really knows much about constitutional law. We can probably all admit that. Even dtower5 is functionally retarded, despite having some course in it, and so is easily ignored.

We can probably all also agree that the supreme court justices, at any given time, constitute "experts" in con-law. Probably (hopefully, possibly naively) the very brightest minds in constitutional law anywhere in the world. They've studied this shit their whole lives (hopefully).

That said, am I the only one that thinks it's completely and utterly fucked to the core that this group of "experts" can so consistently disagree with one another along near-perfect (whoopdeedoo, one sort-of crossed over) party lines? Where's the justice in that?

tldr, fuck lawyers

I think it's a pretty clear illustration of why lifetime appointments should end.

why? without those, it'd be even worse, with new interpretations of law every 2-4 years.

You can put them off schedule (say 10 years) and still not have them be lifetime.

Yeah, because there's absolutely zero ways to politically influence the US census.

[Pokaris]

Aside:

So, nobody here really knows much about constitutional law. We can probably all admit that. Even dtower5 is functionally retarded, despite having some course in it, and so is easily ignored.

We can probably all also agree that the supreme court justices, at any given time, constitute "experts" in con-law. Probably (hopefully, possibly naively) the very brightest minds in constitutional law anywhere in the world. They've studied this shit their whole lives (hopefully).

That said, am I the only one that thinks it's completely and utterly fucked to the core that this group of "experts" can so consistently disagree with one another along near-perfect (whoopdeedoo, one sort-of crossed over) party lines? Where's the justice in that?

tldr, fuck lawyers

I think it's a pretty clear illustration of why lifetime appointments should end.

why? without those, it'd be even worse, with new interpretations of law every 2-4 years.

You can put them off schedule (say 10 years) and still not have them be lifetime.

Yeah, because there's absolutely zero ways to politically influence the US census.

Everyone in the census votes? Hopefully someone is still drunk.

[Gretyl]

I was offering up the census as a 10-year cycle that's by no means immune to politicization.

How does voting apply to appointments?

[Uncle Sherm]

I never got a census form last time. I'm the reason Iowa lost a house seat.

[Uncle Sherm]

I have no problem with politicizing judicial appointments. Politics are not a bad thing.

[Pokaris]

I was offering up the census as a 10-year cycle that's by no means immune to politicization.

How does voting apply to appointments?

If we went to limited terms, I guess I just kind of assumed we wouldn't want them still appointed. That would be kind of counter-productive and just be a pack the court for 10 years kind of deal, wouldn't it if it was left appointments?

[Uncle Sherm]

Judges should not be elected. Stupid voters got us into this mess, it won't get us out.

[Pokaris]

Judges should not be elected. Stupid voters got us into this mess, it won't get us out.

Might as well get the train wreck over with.

[THW]

Besides, the point is that you're going to have to travel/wait for specialists if you live in bumfuck nowhere, both in Canada and the US. How many gynecological oncologists are there in Montana?

hint: There's one. Just like that godless backwater socialist hellhole we call the Saskatchewan province. Hope that guy never takes a leave of abscence!!

They can go outside of Montana to the lovely metro areas nearby (e.g. Denver). In SK they were told to wait while the government healthcare folks looked. Kind of a big difference.

so now you've shifted the goalposts, from an argument based on scarcity, to one based on who gets to tell you who you can see. I can safely assume that you've conceded the scarcity argument. One point for me.

In the US, the very insurance companies tell me who I can see by declaring some doctors to be in network and some out of network. Sure, you're *technically* free to see anyone, but they make it so I really don't have a choice unless I want to pay out the ass for an out of network doctor. "Pick any color, so long as it's black," and all that. So in both cases we're not "free."

Apparently you don't mind the insurance companies telling you who you can see, but you don't like the idea of the government making that choice. Fine. Obamacare keeps that status quo completely intact. The benevolent insurance company overlords still tell you who you can see and who you can't see. So what's the problem here? Nothing much has changed from your perspective.

Come on, this is weak. Those networks are really big. I find it harder to find someone out of network than in. Unless you've got Ned's Insurance Company health insurance or something.