|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Lunelle/contraception coverageFrom: Robert J Woolley (wooll005@tc.umn.edu)Tue Jan 30 15:04:03 2001
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, art fougner, md wrote:
> Bob - It's not a hard concept. Congress cannot legislate on anything it wants to. Why do you suppose that they passed a constitutional amendment to permit a national income tax? Or to enable Congress to enact Prohibition? Because Congressional power to do those things was not in the Constitution. The Constitution had to be amended to say that now Congress may levy an income tax, and may ban alcoholic products. If, as you seem to be asserting, Congress can legislate anything it wants to, why did they bother going to all the trouble of getting constitutional amendments?
Bob,
> the number of uninsureds needs to be addressed. so i ask you how YOU It is not a governmental problem. In fact, I'd argue that a large part of the problem is the government getting in the way. Medicare has enormously distorted market forces, as has Medicaid. So have all the mandates in state law, as I mentioned earlier. The solution is to have private companies offering a wide range of choices, from bare-bones to gold-card coverage, and let people (and/or their employers) choose. They can also choose not to have insurance, and pay the bills themselves, or forego health care. If we want people to have some minimum level of income, then the thing to do is give them more money, and let them choose how to spend it. If they choose to buy something other than health care, then they are doing so because they think something else is of more value than the health insurance policy. And who are we to decide that their judgment is wrong? I'm not in favor of governmental welfare programs, but one which simply gave people money to spend as they choose would be far preferable to the menagerie of programs to provide housing, food, health care, transportation, etc. It's pretty obvious that those are set up in place of giving people money, because the people in control don't think that the recipients would spend money "right," so they remove the power to choose. Give 'em food stamps so they don't spend the money on clothes. Give 'em housing vouchers, so they don't spend *that* money on food. Give 'em discounted telephone service instead of more money wo they don't spend *that* money on lottery tickets. We have created about the most degrading, freedom-destroying, controlling, condescending welfare system I can imagine. And you seem to think we should do more of it.
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 04:47:08 2009 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.