BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

Cybargs wrote:

Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing

Bam. Here's a goddamn supreme court decision saying US gov't can't be sued unless it waive's its rights.

Last edited by Jay (2016-05-06 18:26:42)

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

I'm pretty sure me studying law would know a lot more about how the law works than you bud. but go on with libertarian fantasies on how government's don't have sovereign immunity.

The supreme court has clearly allowed sovereign immunity.

go on, back it up with some case law then. show me a case where the supreme court has said sovereign immunity does not exist.

exactly what cause of action would be brought against the govt?

The takings clause. We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights which limits the power of our government. It's got nothing to do with Libertarian fantasies and everything to do with American law, which you know jack shit about. There are thousands of cases a year which bring suit against the government for myriad reasons. A dozen or so eventually filter up to the Supreme Court where constitutional interpretations are made and the suit is either successful, and the law is overturned, or it fails, and the law is upheld. We have a system of judicial review where all legislation is subject to challenge on constitutional grounds. The only requirement is that the parties bringing the suit must have standing i.e. they must demonstrate injury. One of the current challenges was brought on behalf of The Little Sisters of the Poor who have brought suit against the government for the Obamacare requirement that all health plans must cover birth control, even though they are nuns and it is against their religious beliefs. This is normal. It happens all the time here.

We don't have government hospitals besides the VA system. We have private hospitals and a private healthcare system. In order to create a NHS you would have to nationalize the hospitals and the doctors would then become government employees rather than employees of the private healthcare system. The alternative would be for the government to start building its own hospitals that it would have no way to staff because if it's worried about keeping costs down, paying $300,000 a year to a doctor would be untenable. Doctors in the UK are government employees and make about $100,000 a year. Doctors in the US make double, triple or quadruple that. Do you think they would willingly take a massive pay cut? Do you think they would allow the government to destroy their private practices without putting up a fight? No, it would be an instant challenge and it would race through the judicial system at warp speed and end up at the Supreme Court within a year, just like the ACA challenges.

Now stop trying to tell me how my country operates. I don't care about how it works in Australia. I don't care about how it works in the UK. We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. You have a dopey queen.

Lol. That is not how NHS works. They don't take up every single doctor in the public service. Private practice STILL EXISTS since public healthcare doesn't cover everything. You think private health insurance doesn't exist in NHS countries? Lol.

You think other countries don't have constitutions either? Top kek m8. If conscription wasn't held unconstitutional, how would an NHS be?

Judicial review has nothing to do with sovereign immunity. They are two separate issues. Judicial review is about overturning legislation that is considered unconstitutional, not that insurance companies will get a payout if the fed govt pass' legislation nationalizing NHS.

Even in that instance, i would highly doubt NHS will be considered unconstitutional.

FEOS wrote:

Except Cybargs is wrong on this one. Except in cases where it is explicitly excluded beforehand (i.e., military members), the US government absolutely can -- and has -- been sued. Either for damages or on constitutional grounds.

The only time sovereign immunity really comes into play is when dealing with citizens of another country trying to sue. That and the fact that we don't have a sovereign...

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Except Cybargs is wrong on this one. Except in cases where it is explicitly excluded beforehand (i.e., military members), the US government absolutely can -- and has -- been sued. Either for damages or on constitutional grounds.

The only time sovereign immunity really comes into play is when dealing with citizens of another country trying to sue. That and the fact that we don't have a sovereign...

Governments waive their right to immunity all the time. There are certain things that can't be waived eg contracts with the govt and they're all passed by statute (not constitutional grounds).

Jay keeps harping on about the common law, yet forgets it is the legal maxim 'rex non potest peccare' eg 'the king can do no wrong'.

Judicial review is a completely different thing from sovereign immunity.

When Jay specifically says an NHS won't pass the 'constitutional test', I highly doubt it would. Strict constitutionalism is pretty much gone. I would highly doubt constitutional article nor amendments that would restrict an NHS. If people wanted it enough, could pass an amendment.

uziq wrote:

it's painful to read jay sometimes.

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Sanders plan is to expand Medicare. Basically a government funded insurance plan. There is no need to nationalize or build hospitals. There are plenty that take Medicare and private insurance is still a thing.

http://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/do … ut-in-2015

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

So what is your argument? America can't have an NHS because constitution?

Jay wrote:

turning millions of people into government employees against the will
In order to create a NHS you would have to nationalize the hospitals

What the fuck are you on about?

Are not hospitals publicly owned? Did I not just read about a strike by junior doctors over pay and hours?

The two options for a NHS in the US would be publicly funded hospitals, which would require a few trillion dollars to build new hospitals to compete against existing, or nationalization of the existing hospital systems. The former is, aside from the cost, plausible, as we do have some state hospitals, university hospitals and the like. The latter is completely unconstitutional.

People who push for a NHS in the US don't understand how much things cost. Hospitals are very, very expensive to build (about $1.5M per bed). They're also massively expensive to staff and maintain. The whole point is lowering costs, right? So even if you do manage to build the hospital systems, you need to keep costs down, so you either operate at a massive loss (most state hospitals do), or you force the staff to work for peanuts like they do in the UK and you end up with second and third rate doctors staffing the public option. So we're talking about a massive tax increase to build a second rate hospital network that can't compete with the existing system without massive public subsidies.

Seems like a totally rad idea. We should do it immediately.

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

So what is your argument? America can't have an NHS because constitution?

What the fuck are you on about?

Are not hospitals publicly owned? Did I not just read about a strike by junior doctors over pay and hours?

The two options for a NHS in the US would be publicly funded hospitals, which would require a few trillion dollars to build new hospitals to compete against existing, or nationalization of the existing hospital systems. The former is, aside from the cost, plausible, as we do have some state hospitals, university hospitals and the like. The latter is completely unconstitutional.

People who push for a NHS in the US don't understand how much things cost. Hospitals are very, very expensive to build (about $1.5M per bed). They're also massively expensive to staff and maintain. The whole point is lowering costs, right? So even if you do manage to build the hospital systems, you need to keep costs down, so you either operate at a massive loss (most state hospitals do), or you force the staff to work for peanuts like they do in the UK and you end up with second and third rate doctors staffing the public option. So we're talking about a massive tax increase to build a second rate hospital network that can't compete with the existing system without massive public subsidies.

Seems like a totally rad idea. We should do it immediately.

Ughhh public hospitals aren't supposed to run at a profit? Coz you know they're public? You read about one strike and it's all doom and gloom innit. Yeah like doctors in private hospital never go on strike right.

No one said anything about nationalization of hospitals or put doctors on .gov payrolls. You did. not to mention private healthcare coexists with public health care.

If the rest of the world with a federal government can sort their shit out, so can murica.

55-80k pounds PA is not exactly chump change now is it. Hardly ANYONE who studies medicine does it for the money. Have you thought about the fact that maybe you guys have a very very expensive medical training regime that runs upwards of 300k is driving up the costs?

DrunkFace wrote:

But it is cheaper.