U.S. Politics 2016: The Mayans Were Only Off By 1418 Days

[Larry of the Lawn]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Then, you should have said that in the first place.  A continuing agreement where once aid is provided the patient must pay for insurance whether they need further treatment or not?

By choosing to wake up tomorrow, to bear the slings and arrows, I'd argue there's a tacit acceptance that you will at some point need or seek medical care.  Much like choosing to drive, if you want to live, gotta pay up.  Or face a penalty.

[The Mance]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

A continuing agreement where once aid is provided the patient must pay for insurance whether they need further treatment or not?

Well, for now lets say they are billed for the cost of their immediate treatment, plus the total of their retro-premiums going back to the start of the ACA mandate.  And assuming their rates would be calculated and adjusted for salary and any subsidies or penalties they may be/may have been eligible for.

 

I guess they could be offered a chance to continue the coverage or not. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, LongRider said:

While this is true, one needs a officially issued birth certificate to exist.  Birth certificates, are guess what,  mandated.  And if you don't have one, or have one that officials don't like* then you have to figure out something else to meet that requirement.  Or no driver's license, state issued ID card or passport for you! 

edt; so if you don't like mandates Scott, you're being consistent and didn't get birth certificates for your children because the gov't unfairly mandated that you do so.    Right?

 

*won't give details, but know this firsthand

That was the State not the Federal Government.  State Government's have general plenary powers.  The Federal Government does not.  It has only those powers delegated to it in the US Constitution.

(Thought you had me there didn't you  )

[LongRider]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That was the State not the Federal Government.  State Government's have general plenary powers.  The Federal Government does not.  It has only those powers delegated to it in the US Constitution.

(Thought you had me there didn't you  )

Still mandated by a gov't agency, even if it is state gov.  So, those kids have their mandated bc's?  If you ever want/need to prove their citizenship to the feds*, they'll need them.

edt; *or even state to state

[OldGimletEye]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That was the State not the Federal Government.  State Government's have general plenary powers.  The Federal Government does not.  It has only those powers delegated to it in the US Constitution.

Well, you do know, that young men have been required to register for the selective service for a long time. And, probably soon, so will young women.

Seems like that is a quasi-license or something.

I personally, like you, am not fond of conscription. Yet, I can think of a few cases where the government may need to mobilize manpower quickly. Like say, the summer of 1940 where Hitler just got done over running France and war looks likely.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Still mandated by a gov't agency, even if it is state gov.  So, those kids have their mandated bc's?  If you ever want/need to prove their citizenship to the feds*, they'll need them.

edt; *or even state to state

I want Government to remain within its stated powers.  If we are going to increase the scope of that power we need an amendment or a Constitutional Convention for the making of amendments.

State's have the power to mandate licensure for people born within their jurisdiction.  The Federal Government lacks that power.  So, yes, my kids have birth certificates.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well, you do know, that young men have been required to register for the selective service for a long time. And, probably soon, so will young women.

Seems like that is a quasi-license or something.

I personally, like you, am not fond of conscription. Yet, I can think of a few cases where the government may need to mobilize manpower quickly. Like say, the summer of 1940 where Hitler just got done over running France and war looks likely.

How does the draft not violate the 13th Amendment?  If drafted I am subject to corporal even capital punishment if I refuse to obey a direct order.  

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How does the draft not violate the 13th Amendment?  If drafted I am subject to corporal even capital punishment if I refuse to obey a direct order.  

Because only you are making that interpretation of the 13 Amendment, it would seem.

[Kalbear]

54 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

OH MY FUCK THIS CONSTITUTIONAL WANK FEST SUCKS ASS

 

[LongRider]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How does the draft not violate the 13th Amendment?  If drafted I am subject to corporal even capital punishment if I refuse to obey a direct order.  

If one is drafted why wouldn't one be subject to the UCMJ?  Without a structure of laws the military can't function.  Alas, that means draftee's too.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

OH MY FUCK THIS CONSTITUTIONAL WANK FEST SUCKS ASS

QFT

[Yukle]

46 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How does the draft not violate the 13th Amendment?  If drafted I am subject to corporal even capital punishment if I refuse to obey a direct order.  

I wonder this too, due to the logical extension of the draft if you object to war. 

I'd also think that the 9th Amendment would imply protection to those opposed to the draft.

[Jace, Extat]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

OH MY FUCK THIS CONSTITUTIONAL WANK FEST SUCKS ASS

 

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

 

2 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

QFT

AAAAAHHHHHHHGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!! I AM TOO SOBER FOR THIS SHIT!!!!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

PQJ, Kalbear, Dr.P,

Is someone forcing you to read this discussion?

[karaddin]

On 02/12/2016 at 3:38 AM, The Great Unwashed said:

According to this article from Vox, this bill could potentially harm patient safety and appears to be a giveaway to pharmaceutical industry lobbyists.

 

On 02/12/2016 at 8:02 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

 

This is only for existing drugs wanting their therapeutic range extended to additional uses. Clinical trials have to do two things: prove efficacy and prove safety. Given the drug is already proven to be safe, and side effects, including drug interactions, should be known as part of the approval for the original use. There is some argument for not having to subject a drug to significant and expensive trials in order to move off-label use to on-label use. You have, for example, an erectile dysfunction drug that apparently also gives women a libido boost. While that effect is not something that should be made to legitimise it as a party drug, formally approving the drug as a therapy for diagnosed low libido in a female patient who wants to overcome this perceived psychological deficit should be facilitated by making the threshold for scientific evidence a bit lower. Though this may be not such a good example, since changing the indications for use from only mean, to both men and women would need some study on side effects and long term consequences on female physiology, since it's unlikely the original clinical work went to any lengths to examine the long term effects on women, and observational studies on an off-label use probably won't have statistically significant data on long term exposure. Use extensions for drugs that are only taken for brief periods should be easier to approve from observational studies.

Hopefully the legislation provides for FDA to establish some criteria for when informal data can be used and when clinical trials will still be necessary.

Yeah, AT is spot on here. To give an actual example I'm familiar with: the drug cyproterone is a very effective anti-androgen that is approved by the FDA for (iirc) prostate cancer and chemical castration of sex offenders (possibly others). It's also used in many countries for blocking testosterone in transgender women undergoing hormone therapy, however it is not approved in the US for this purpose. It is significantly more effective at blocking testosterone than the alternative, spironolactone, although there are some claims it has greater long term side effects but these are either unverified (common problem in this area) or mitigated by a proper treatment regime. The cost to conduct the necessary trials for FDA is too high for a use that will not be very large market that is also a stigmatised group. So it will remain unapproved. 

Given the source of the change scrutiny is more than warranted, but that topline alone isn't inherently negative. I think there are sections of the left that view everything big pharma does as inherently bad, which is just flat out wrong. Yes, they're amoral corporations that have pushed drugs unethically to serve their own profits at times, but I don't see them as any more evil as a group than corporations as a whole, and many of their drugs have a huge impact on quality of life for an awful lot of people. I wouldn't be who I am without them, and I'd have dreadful quality of life without them. I'd love more government investment in the R&D but big pharma as a boogeyman is not credible, and at times creeps awfully close to anti-vaxxer (not to mention the rather inflated claims of marijuana's magic properties by advocates).

[Altherion]

Stein has dropped the statewide recount case in Pennsylvania. The district-by-district attempts will continue, but they are much less likely to make a difference.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

38 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

PQJ, Kalbear, Dr.P,

Is someone forcing you to read this discussion?

Now that's unconstitutional.

[Jace, Extat]

37 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

PQJ, Kalbear, Dr.P,

Is someone forcing you to read this discussion?

Reading this thread is my right as a citizen of Westeros.org. If X-Ray were to give me warning points should I not participate in endless 'nuh-uh's!' and 'ya-huh's!' over legal trivialities in these last few pages you'd be hearing about it.

Yep, you'd be hearing about it.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

PQJ, Kalbear, Dr.P,

Is someone forcing you to read this discussion?

Did someone force you to read our annoyances?

[all swedes are racist]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

PQJ, Kalbear, Dr.P,

Is someone forcing you to read this discussion?

Wait, you mean I'm not being forced by a federal government mandate?! Fucking fake news!!!