Ms. Universe Canada contestant kicked out because she's transgendered and was born a boy.
First of all, damn. Clearly the conception of attractiveness that I have absorbed doesn't give a shit about how she was born, because I'd go for a gender role in the hay with her any time.
Second of all, she's probably had less surgery than half the other girls in the pageant.
Saw this yesterday before I went to class. She is very very pretty. But there is one word to describe why she can't participate...Trump.
Ms. Universe Canada contestant kicked out because she's transgendered and was born a boy.
First of all, damn. Clearly the conception of attractiveness that I have absorbed doesn't give a shit about how she was born, because I'd go for a gender role in the hay with her any time.
Second of all, she's probably had less surgery than half the other girls in the pageant.
Saw this yesterday before I went to class. She is very very pretty. But there is one word to describe why she can't participate...Trump.
Uh, does he partake in the Canada beauty pageant?
Trump owns the pageant in some major part. I remember reading that yesterday. It will take me a bit to dig up the source.
@Spool32 I know have stated the medicare for all argument numerous times. And you seem to ignore it. Would you be for removing the age requirement on medicare, as it was originally designed to do, and allowing people to buy into medicare at any age of their life? Basically medicare for all. It isn't free, you pay for it but it is universal government health insurance with a lower cost and overhead compared to private insurance. It would accomplish exactly what the ACA wants to accomplish by increasing access and lowering cost in the long run.
Edit: And would you be okay with it being a required purchase? It isn't private goods but a public service that you must be part off. In fact you could even call the cost a tax. In Japan it is considered a tax but you get direct benefits.
Constitutionally, I'd say tentatively yes. I have a great deal of concern about the way universal healthcare will end up looking, but those concerns are of the sort I could pursue within the scope of a law expanding medicare.
Next question, ignoring the propaganda that the US has the best health care in the world because by most stats it doesn't, why would socialized medicine/national insurance be a concern to you? And isn't it a requirement of the government to look after the general welfare and thus after the health of population? And since socialized health systems have the best outcomes overall for the populations health shouldn't the government institute some sort of system?
Ignoring the propaganda (most stats are shit and compare apples to oranges):
1) I have some personal concerns after experiences with terrible national healthcare abroad, and don't wish to see them repeated here at home. Note: these experiences were a result of the bad healthcare system, not experiences with bad care itself. In fact, we were denied the chance to experience care of any sort, multiple times, despite healthcare being universal and considered a human right in that nation, and despite the care being ordered by a doctor.
2) It's not a requirement of the government here to look after the general welfare. it is one of the reasons Congress can justify collecting a tax, but it's not a requirement. I don't believe that it necessarily should be, either. Not in all cases at least.
3) I thought we were ignoring the propaganda?
I think you missed where I am getting my masters in global health(public health with a global policy aspect). And in major areas such as DALY ranking the US is not that great. Stats are great when looking at overall systems. I am choosing DALY(Disability adjusted life years) because it is an excellent stat for looking at care and quality of life in a country. I can bring up HDI as well mostly because of our infant mortality rates are exceptionally high for a developed country. But by markers we aren't that great and yes you can do some decent comparisons to the US population as a whole. Now if you break it down into socioeconomic chunks the comparisons breakdown. The poorest of the poor(medicade), the ultra-wealthy and the elderly have better quality and access than all those in the middle and that skews some of the numbers.
Now I have also had a lot of experience with national health care. In fact I use Japan a lot because the system is based on private practice doctors and hospitals with a national insurance system. You cannot be denied care but cost are dependent on if you have the insurance or not. Those with out it is 100% out of pocket. This is basically medicare for all designed as a requirement. The care I received in Japan was excellent. In fact it was better in its coordination between doctors and listening to my symptoms the US private system was. And I have insurance, good insurance. So we can compare anecdotes but if you look at rankings and numbers public health systems have overall better outcomes. In high income countries, I am arguing those in similar level of the US here not in middle or low income countries.
Also DALY rankings from the WHO. It is only 2004 it is a decent comparisons.
I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion about whether the US has great healthcare or not - all I have are anecdotes, and it's incidental to the discussion anyway. Now, would it get better if we socialized it completely? I would squint very hard at a study suggesting it would - I would want to see something that takes our immigrant population into account, as well as the size and population of the country. I would want to see an example of some other nation where they made a similar change with good outcomes.
Anyway, I'm not one to say our current system is great and we should keep it. My problem is with the mandate, not with trying to make the health system better, and also not with trying to extend coverage to everyone in the nation.
That is why I tend to bring up Japan and other nations with public insurance and private providers. Also with access to premium insurance if you wish to partake. The immigrant population will still utilize healthcare. There is no moral reason to turn away a person in need. Best way to fix that is to bring them out of the stigmatized and abused illegal immigrant population to the legal immigrant population with all protections under the law. But that is another discussion.
I think though if you want to look at recent transitions from a system like the US to a national system, Switzerland and the Netherlands have both done it in recent history. Many of the socialized systems developed out of WWII under governments who felt that they needed to provide such services to their populace. The other system would be the Canadian system which was a province to national transition. That is already happening with Vermont and Montana asking for exemptions to developing state based single payer systems themselves.
When I say "the immigrant population" I mean the legal immigrants. Illegals we can leave out of the discussion altogether. Besides, the Obama administration swears up and down that not a single illegal alien will ever get health coverage under the ACA!
Looking at Switzerland and Japan as a model concerns me because both of those nations are geographically and numerically small, insular, homogeneous populations with few poor immigrants and a low birthrate. The Netherlands has more diversity, and if you're looking for places where I'll have a natural proclivity to sit up and listen, that's one nation to mention. How did it work for them?
@Mazzyx My personal experience was with Ireland, where they also have a dual model of public providers and private hospitals. The public ones were basically a terrible ghetto option for the poors, and the good care needed to be purchased. Everyone who could afford it carried private health insurance out of their own pocket in addition to the universal public care, because they felt they needed it to actually get healthcare.
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
In BF3.
Shot the pilot of a helicopter with my hand held LMG, stole the helicopter and rocketed the fleeing gunner down. Proceeded to lay down law on the enemy team with their attack helo. Our team now had two attack helos, and they had none. Because as long as I had it I knew that it wouldn't respawn for them (I had it for the rest of the game).
@Spool32 I know have stated the medicare for all argument numerous times. And you seem to ignore it. Would you be for removing the age requirement on medicare, as it was originally designed to do, and allowing people to buy into medicare at any age of their life? Basically medicare for all. It isn't free, you pay for it but it is universal government health insurance with a lower cost and overhead compared to private insurance. It would accomplish exactly what the ACA wants to accomplish by increasing access and lowering cost in the long run.
Edit: And would you be okay with it being a required purchase? It isn't private goods but a public service that you must be part off. In fact you could even call the cost a tax. In Japan it is considered a tax but you get direct benefits.
Constitutionally, I'd say tentatively yes. I have a great deal of concern about the way universal healthcare will end up looking, but those concerns are of the sort I could pursue within the scope of a law expanding medicare.
Next question, ignoring the propaganda that the US has the best health care in the world because by most stats it doesn't, why would socialized medicine/national insurance be a concern to you? And isn't it a requirement of the government to look after the general welfare and thus after the health of population? And since socialized health systems have the best outcomes overall for the populations health shouldn't the government institute some sort of system?
Ignoring the propaganda (most stats are shit and compare apples to oranges):
1) I have some personal concerns after experiences with terrible national healthcare abroad, and don't wish to see them repeated here at home. Note: these experiences were a result of the bad healthcare system, not experiences with bad care itself. In fact, we were denied the chance to experience care of any sort, multiple times, despite healthcare being universal and considered a human right in that nation, and despite the care being ordered by a doctor.
2) It's not a requirement of the government here to look after the general welfare. it is one of the reasons Congress can justify collecting a tax, but it's not a requirement. I don't believe that it necessarily should be, either. Not in all cases at least.
3) I thought we were ignoring the propaganda?
I think you missed where I am getting my masters in global health(public health with a global policy aspect). And in major areas such as DALY ranking the US is not that great. Stats are great when looking at overall systems. I am choosing DALY(Disability adjusted life years) because it is an excellent stat for looking at care and quality of life in a country. I can bring up HDI as well mostly because of our infant mortality rates are exceptionally high for a developed country. But by markers we aren't that great and yes you can do some decent comparisons to the US population as a whole. Now if you break it down into socioeconomic chunks the comparisons breakdown. The poorest of the poor(medicade), the ultra-wealthy and the elderly have better quality and access than all those in the middle and that skews some of the numbers.
Now I have also had a lot of experience with national health care. In fact I use Japan a lot because the system is based on private practice doctors and hospitals with a national insurance system. You cannot be denied care but cost are dependent on if you have the insurance or not. Those with out it is 100% out of pocket. This is basically medicare for all designed as a requirement. The care I received in Japan was excellent. In fact it was better in its coordination between doctors and listening to my symptoms the US private system was. And I have insurance, good insurance. So we can compare anecdotes but if you look at rankings and numbers public health systems have overall better outcomes. In high income countries, I am arguing those in similar level of the US here not in middle or low income countries.
Also DALY rankings from the WHO. It is only 2004 it is a decent comparisons.
I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion about whether the US has great healthcare or not - all I have are anecdotes, and it's incidental to the discussion anyway. Now, would it get better if we socialized it completely? I would squint very hard at a study suggesting it would - I would want to see something that takes our immigrant population into account, as well as the size and population of the country. I would want to see an example of some other nation where they made a similar change with good outcomes.
Anyway, I'm not one to say our current system is great and we should keep it. My problem is with the mandate, not with trying to make the health system better, and also not with trying to extend coverage to everyone in the nation.
That is why I tend to bring up Japan and other nations with public insurance and private providers. Also with access to premium insurance if you wish to partake. The immigrant population will still utilize healthcare. There is no moral reason to turn away a person in need. Best way to fix that is to bring them out of the stigmatized and abused illegal immigrant population to the legal immigrant population with all protections under the law. But that is another discussion.
I think though if you want to look at recent transitions from a system like the US to a national system, Switzerland and the Netherlands have both done it in recent history. Many of the socialized systems developed out of WWII under governments who felt that they needed to provide such services to their populace. The other system would be the Canadian system which was a province to national transition. That is already happening with Vermont and Montana asking for exemptions to developing state based single payer systems themselves.
When I say "the immigrant population" I mean the legal immigrants. Illegals we can leave out of the discussion altogether. Besides, the Obama administration swears up and down that not a single illegal alien will ever get health coverage under the ACA!
Looking at Switzerland and Japan as a model concerns me because both of those nations are geographically and numerically small, insular, homogeneous populations with few poor immigrants and a low birthrate. The Netherlands has more diversity, and if you're looking for places where I'll have a natural proclivity to sit up and listen, that's one nation to mention. How did it work for them?
So far the Netherlands from my understand love their system. Access has increased and cost has been stabilized. There was no great rationing or preventing others from getting care.
Legal immigrants must still pay taxes and thus pay into the insurance system while in the country. This is consistent in all countries I have been to. In Japan for those living in the country under 1 year payed a smaller amount but still to use the national insurance had to pay for it. Otherwise they get charged full price(tourist and short term non-working). If you worked more than 1 year you were required by law to pay for the national insurance since it was considered a tax and was based off your income.
A similar system could easily be instituted for legal immigrants. It is a non-issue overall. And if they do not have any insurance, well they pay for the full cost. Also subsidies or at least a progressive rate could be designed for the cost of the health care which I found common in my research.
Wickard is striking not for its similarity to our present case, but in how different it is. Although Wickard represents the zenith of Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause, the wheat regulation therein is remarkably less intrusive than the individual mandate.
Under the AAA upheld by the Court, farmers were only indirectly “forced” to enter the market for interstate wheat by the exercise of Congress to prohibit them from growing more than a certain amount of wheat, not from directly mandating they do so; and remember, when Justice Jackson uses the word “forcing,” he is paraphrasing an objection to the scheme.
...
The logic of Wickard is that people’s economic activity — such as the activity of wheat farmers — may be “restrict[ed]” even if such a restriction has the effect of “forcing” them into the interstate market over which Congress has control. The Court in Wickard scarcely could imagine, much less endorse, a direct command by Congress to farmers that they must buy interstate wheat.
But more important, Wickard and Raich were both as-applied challenges, while the challenge to the individual mandate is a facial challenge.
So what Greenhouse is arguing is that because the Supreme Court has in the past refused to countenance as-applied challenges that sought to exempt local activity from a concededly broader scheme of the regulation of interstate commerce, facial challenges to laws that on the grounds they don’t regulate interstate commerce to begin with are also out of bounds.
Yes that is what the conservative legal blog says (run by Eugene Volokh). He will also readily admit that his viewpoints and those on his blog are far from what precedent says and are very conservative. He's another post from that blog http://volokh.com/2011/11/08/silbermans-opinion-as-template/
The D.C. upheld the constitutionality of the health care act today (Silberman and Edwards reached the merits and voted to uphold; Kavanaugh found no jurisdiction and did not reach the merits). Silberman’s opinion reads to me like the opinion I would expect from Justice Scalia upholding the act — notably, that one can distinguish activity from inactivity, but such a distinction is novel and not grounded in doctrine; and that “Appellants’ view … expresses a concern for individual liberty that seems more redolent of Due Process arguments.” Indeed, I will make a bold and perhaps foolish prediction: if Scalia is assigned the majority in the health care act case, my guess is that it will bear a considerable resemblance to the Silberman opinion. Let me add that I think Scalia or Kennedy is the most likely author of the majority in the case. And, yes, I do think Scalia (and Kennedy, for that matter) will vote to uphold the act.
Judge Silberman (a conservative from the DC Circuit court that I've posted here before) relied heavily on Wickard.
Judge Silberman’s view is pretty much what I’ve been arguing since the mandate challenges were first filed, so it’s no surprise that I find this a persuasive reading of existing Supreme Court precedent. Of course, the Supreme Court is highly likely to review this issue soon, and the Justices are not bound by the implications of their prior precedents — or even the precedents themselves.
Thus under current Supreme Court doctrine, the constitutional issue raised by the individual mandate is only whether an individual mandate for health insurance is “really calculated” to regulate interstate commerce — not whether the actual conduct prohibited by the mandate is itself interstate commerce.
As I’ve blogged before, I don’t happen to support the individual mandate as a policy matter. But if I’m right that this is the standard, it seems to me that the individual mandate was “really calculated” to regulate interstate commerce: As I understand it, the basic idea was to stop people from burdening the health care system with the costs of emergency care that resulted when people opted out of health insurance. Whether that was wise or not, it’s a genuine effort to regulate interstate commerce. It therefore would seem to be constitutional under the deferential standard of current Supreme Court doctrine on the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Your quotations are from a very conservative blog and even it can't agree that this should be Unconstitutional. The quotations you include don't even say precedent says its Unconstitutional. One says the 11th circuit says its Unconstitutional (your quote is from them quoting the 11th circuit). One is a restatement of slippery slope (if they can do this they can do anything!) and that the conservative Justices will overturn precedent. One says Wickard doesn't apply because it didn't apply to personal growing of wheat and when pointed out that Raich definitively corrected that old conservative trope, all but conceded precedent is on the side of Silberman and the mandate being Constitutional. When you can't get anything approaching agreement that a federal program enacted by Obama is Unconstitutional at a hard right legal blog you're probably a bit to far to the right. Especially when the big names on that blog - Orin Kerr (above) and Eugene Volokh - have publicly disagreed. Most big name conservative legal scholars don't agree either. Sure you can get three guys who are all members of the Federalist Society and the Cato Institute to say its Unconstitutional, but you can get them to say just about anything is Unconstitutional.
Punk-Rock tried to kill the metal, but they failed, as they were smite to the ground
New-wave tried to kill the metal, but they failed, as they were stricken down to the ground
Grunge tried to kill the metal, hahahaha! They failed, as they were thrown to the ground
@Mazzyx My personal experience was with Ireland, where they also have a dual model of public providers and private hospitals. The public ones were basically a terrible ghetto option for the poors, and the good care needed to be purchased. Everyone who could afford it carried private health insurance out of their own pocket in addition to the universal public care, because they felt they needed it to actually get healthcare.
Ireland has overhauled their system recently as well. Part of becoming the Irish tiger. I am not describing a socialized hospital system, which exist in the US anyways, but a nationalized health insurance program. I am taking insurance out of the private sector where it has profit motive to limit and reject care to the public sector where its priority is the health of the patient.
The Swiss system is interesting because it doesn't remove private insurance but makes it have minimum requirements and to be sold not for profit.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
This is the second time I done this. But the first time was with a sniper rifle - and after I stole the helo I shot down an APC. So that time was better.
People shouldn't hover so low though, they gon get killt!
I don't plan to! If all I get is a flatter stomach out of these next couple of weeks, then that's good for me.
Man, "these next couple of weeks". i'll be working on myself for the next couple of years at the rate i'm going, before i reach a weight i'm comfortable with. :P
PantsB, I suppose we shall see in June! Also... I knew who ran the shop over at Volohk.com... I've been reading it regularly since they started posting, and I think you're overstating the level of disagreement amongst the contributors. Then again, that's part of what I like about reading them.
I hope I'm right, or that the court reverses Wickard. If the Court agrees with Silberman (and yourself) I'll push for repeal and an Amendment (talk about tilting at windmills) - the federal government should not have this much regulatory power. I don't believe it does, but if the Court believes it does, I believe that power should be constrained. The Congress should not have unlimited regulatory power.
I will admit to being very worried at this point, about the court's possible decision.
I don't plan to! If all I get is a flatter stomach out of these next couple of weeks, then that's good for me.
Man, "these next couple of weeks". i'll be working on myself for the next couple of years at the rate i'm going, before i reach a weight i'm comfortable with. :P
Still, not giving up.
Oh, no I plan to keep working out to maintain. I'm just saying I'd like to see something by the end of the semester while I have free gym access.
PantsB, I suppose we shall see in June! Also... I knew who ran the shop over at Volohk.com... I've been reading it regularly since they started posting, and I think you're overstating the level of disagreement amongst the contributors. Then again, that's part of what I like about reading them.
I hope I'm right, or that the court reverses Wickard. If the Court agrees with Silberman (and yourself) I'll push for repeal and an Amendment (talk about tilting at windmills) - the federal government should not have this much regulatory power. I don't believe it does, but if the Court believes it does, I believe that power should be constrained. The Congress should not have unlimited regulatory power.
I will admit to being very worried at this point, about the court's possible decision.
You have very little faith in your own democracy, it seems.
@Mazzyx My personal experience was with Ireland, where they also have a dual model of public providers and private hospitals. The public ones were basically a terrible ghetto option for the poors, and the good care needed to be purchased. Everyone who could afford it carried private health insurance out of their own pocket in addition to the universal public care, because they felt they needed it to actually get healthcare.
Ireland has overhauled their system recently as well. Part of becoming the Irish tiger. I am not describing a socialized hospital system, which exist in the US anyways, but a nationalized health insurance program. I am taking insurance out of the private sector where it has profit motive to limit and reject care to the public sector where its priority is the health of the patient.
The Swiss system is interesting because it doesn't remove private insurance but makes it have minimum requirements and to be sold not for profit.
I was there from '01 - '05, the height of the Celtic Tiger. It was shit healthcare. Doesn't' the system in the Netherlands also have the same private insurance system with minimum care and low-cost plan requirements?
Posts
he is the prettiest fat goblin with a comb-over
That trans girl is super duper hot
Trump owns the pageant in some major part. I remember reading that yesterday. It will take me a bit to dig up the source.
When I say "the immigrant population" I mean the legal immigrants. Illegals we can leave out of the discussion altogether. Besides, the Obama administration swears up and down that not a single illegal alien will ever get health coverage under the ACA!
Looking at Switzerland and Japan as a model concerns me because both of those nations are geographically and numerically small, insular, homogeneous populations with few poor immigrants and a low birthrate. The Netherlands has more diversity, and if you're looking for places where I'll have a natural proclivity to sit up and listen, that's one nation to mention. How did it work for them?
http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2012/03/27/UPI-NewsTrack-Entertainment-News/UPI-75411332871140/
also god damnit chu i spent like 20 minutes on your picture yesterday, guess it dude
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
huff puff
I heard "super hot girl" and I came as fast as I could
But I'm watching the trailer for Pixar's Brave on repeat, and that makes me feel better.
There is a small chance that my spawn will have red hair. I can only hope.
Now I get to...reinstall everything. How fun.
Shot the pilot of a helicopter with my hand held LMG, stole the helicopter and rocketed the fleeing gunner down. Proceeded to lay down law on the enemy team with their attack helo. Our team now had two attack helos, and they had none. Because as long as I had it I knew that it wouldn't respawn for them (I had it for the rest of the game).
OLOLOL
Girls should be soft.
So far the Netherlands from my understand love their system. Access has increased and cost has been stabilized. There was no great rationing or preventing others from getting care.
Legal immigrants must still pay taxes and thus pay into the insurance system while in the country. This is consistent in all countries I have been to. In Japan for those living in the country under 1 year payed a smaller amount but still to use the national insurance had to pay for it. Otherwise they get charged full price(tourist and short term non-working). If you worked more than 1 year you were required by law to pay for the national insurance since it was considered a tax and was based off your income.
A similar system could easily be instituted for legal immigrants. It is a non-issue overall. And if they do not have any insurance, well they pay for the full cost. Also subsidies or at least a progressive rate could be designed for the cost of the health care which I found common in my research.
Yes that is what the conservative legal blog says (run by Eugene Volokh). He will also readily admit that his viewpoints and those on his blog are far from what precedent says and are very conservative. He's another post from that blog
http://volokh.com/2011/11/08/silbermans-opinion-as-template/ Judge Silberman (a conservative from the DC Circuit court that I've posted here before) relied heavily on Wickard.
Or from Orin Kerr on the same blog
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
George Clooney is a modern Clark Gable.
Scarlett Johansen is a modern Audrey Hepburn.
if you don't have a credit card, then you're not being responsible!!
New-wave tried to kill the metal, but they failed, as they were stricken down to the ground
Grunge tried to kill the metal, hahahaha! They failed, as they were thrown to the ground
Sexist.
What if I want to poke your eye with my pelvis?
he drew me a picture of his stock portfolio and I thought he was drawing a water slide
Hmmmm.... not quite there, Scarlett.
Well that's a very good point.
Ireland has overhauled their system recently as well. Part of becoming the Irish tiger. I am not describing a socialized hospital system, which exist in the US anyways, but a nationalized health insurance program. I am taking insurance out of the private sector where it has profit motive to limit and reject care to the public sector where its priority is the health of the patient.
The Swiss system is interesting because it doesn't remove private insurance but makes it have minimum requirements and to be sold not for profit.
This is the second time I done this. But the first time was with a sniper rifle - and after I stole the helo I shot down an APC. So that time was better.
People shouldn't hover so low though, they gon get killt!
I don't plan to! If all I get is a flatter stomach out of these next couple of weeks, then that's good for me.
I am officially denying you that right. Feminism be damned.
Man, "these next couple of weeks". i'll be working on myself for the next couple of years at the rate i'm going, before i reach a weight i'm comfortable with. :P
Still, not giving up.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
This skinny!
While I can appreciate plank-shaped girls, I like me some curves. Stomachs included.
I hope I'm right, or that the court reverses Wickard. If the Court agrees with Silberman (and yourself) I'll push for repeal and an Amendment (talk about tilting at windmills) - the federal government should not have this much regulatory power. I don't believe it does, but if the Court believes it does, I believe that power should be constrained. The Congress should not have unlimited regulatory power.
I will admit to being very worried at this point, about the court's possible decision.
Oh, no I plan to keep working out to maintain. I'm just saying I'd like to see something by the end of the semester while I have free gym access.
You have very little faith in your own democracy, it seems.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
I was there from '01 - '05, the height of the Celtic Tiger. It was shit healthcare. Doesn't' the system in the Netherlands also have the same private insurance system with minimum care and low-cost plan requirements?