# Healthcare reform passed in the USA



## bstone (Mar 22, 2010)

> At roughly 10:45 pm EST, the House approved a Senate bill in a 219 to 212 vote that overhauls the nation's health system and extends insurance coverage to millions more Americans. Less than an hour later, the House amended that measure in a 220 to 211 vote to incorporate key changes sought by its own leadership as well as President Barack Obama.  Source: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718914?sssdmh=dm1.605369&src=ddd&uac=118841CY



In short order there will no longer be such thing as an uninsured patient. Soon all ambulance rides will result in payment. This is a Good Thing.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 22, 2010)

...because Medicare actually pays for what things cost. Also, if the Massachusetts system tells you anything, it's that just because someone has insurance doesn't mean that they will automatically have no barriers to access.


----------



## ExpatMedic0 (Mar 22, 2010)

Here is a question, does the healthcare bill cover any of the current medical debts owed by  non-insured patients prior to the bill passing?


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 22, 2010)

*My congressman's auto email asked for my comment. Quote:*

"Man up and pass it. Time to quit dancing with Big Medicine and people refusing to separate Church and State". 
Well, I didn't exactly write "man-up", but I mumbled it.

Now we will watch who starts whittling it to slivers.
And by the way, when will TRICARE follow October's presidential order to offer coverage to retired reservists under 60??


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 22, 2010)

bstone said:


> In short order there will no longer be such thing as an uninsured patient. Soon all ambulance rides will result in payment. This is a Good Thing.



Actually there's still about 18 million people that this wont cover, according to Democrats own numbers.



Oh well... this will be fought in atleast 38 states, and it will be overturned by the US Supreme Court if the court follows its own precedent.  You can't force someone unwillingly into a contract, then fine them if they refuse.



Sorry, but last I checked the legislative body was to do the majority's wishes... and the majority of the country did not want this bill in this form.


----------



## Aidey (Mar 22, 2010)

It's going to be a long day at work tomorrow....

In fact, I may just hide in my ambulance the whole shift, and avoid the main station entirely. It's going to be like the WWF in there. *shudder*


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 22, 2010)

Aidey said:


> In fact, I may just hide in my ambulance the whole shift, and avoid the main station entirely. It's going to be like the WWF in there. *shudder*



See... tomorrow would be interesting at school with the discussion of this, except for the fact that we just started spring break.


----------



## Aidey (Mar 22, 2010)

We have several employees, including the supervisor who will be at work when I get there, that are incapable to debating things civilly. The supervisor is one of the worst...he's a smug condescending jerk when he thinks he is right, and it's impossible for him to be wrong. *eyeroll*


----------



## MS Medic (Mar 22, 2010)

bstone said:


> In short order there will no longer be such thing as an uninsured patient. Soon all ambulance rides will result in payment. This is a Good Thing.



Seeing how people from Canada who have socialized medicine drive here to get health care, at what point in time does the concept become a good idea? Will it still be a good idea when health care rationing starts?


----------



## Hal9000 (Mar 22, 2010)

It does not address the foundational lack of correct valuation of healthcare.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 22, 2010)

Here's the problem with health care. People want to treat it like the only thing that matters is getting the high score on life expectancy. A large number of things that health care does has absolutely nothing to do with life expectancy but quality of life. Heck, short of suicidal ideation treatment and addiction treatment, the entire field of psychiatry could be disbanded because it's primarily focused on treating quality of life issues and not increasing life expectancy. The issue of perspective (quality of life vs quantity of life) is an issue throughout all of medicine (including EMS) and unless we seriously start considering rationing non-life saving care (sorry, mommy or granny is going to have to use that walker or power chair for the rest of he life because we don't want to pay for her knee or hip replacement), then government running the show isn't going to work. Heck, unless we start planning on rationing care, the entire issue of cost vs life expectancy isn't the metrics that we need to be looking at.


----------



## MS Medic (Mar 22, 2010)

After my initial snap here are my other 2 cents. 
First off who has read any of this 1000 plus page monster that was shoved down everyone's throat in congress? 

Does it stop the practice of defensive medicine, which is probably the single most cost inducing aspect of the field? 

Why should someone in their early twenties (I'm in my mid 30's) be forced to have full coverage medical insurance? While they are statistically most likely to suffer from major trauma, they are statistically very unlikely to become sick to the point that they need anything other than hospitalization insurance.

What happens when all the mom and pop businesses that make up the backbone of the American economy can't afford to provide the government mandated insurance and lay off large numbers of employees?

What happens to people who do not want to pay large insurance premiums and self insure instead? Since insurance providers want to generate a profit just like all businesses, it is actually cheaper to bank roll what would be the costs of your insurance premiums and pay for your own medical coverage out of pocket.

Lastly, does the U.S. Congress have to come off their honey pot deal and get this same coverage as John Q. Public? If you don't know what their benefits package is, you need to look that up. It will make you sick to your stomach.

In my personal opinion, if the government had really wanted to cut health care costs, tort reform to cut the costs of defensive medicine would have been enacted and then everyone would have had MSAs set up for a tax free withholding.


----------



## Melclin (Mar 22, 2010)

*sits back with a bag of popcorn to watch the real time satellite feed of the north american continent visibly change colour from all the friction between friends, coworkers, and family that will inevitably occur tomorrow*


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 22, 2010)

*Let the games begin!*

So people will be required to purchase insurance. Maybe it's just me, but if people could purchase insurance they would. 

If the average single person plan is between 10-12K /year with a family plan up to 15K per year, keeping my tax return isn't going to purchase insurance for my family. 

as much as I advocate that since medicine benefits society, society should bear the burdon if it, today with this plan passed, I am happy that I have an out. (residency in a country other than the United States of spiraling into the gutter with a gov. handout to already the most profitable industry in the place)

best of luck to you all


----------



## bstone (Mar 22, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> ...because Medicare actually pays for what things cost. Also, if the Massachusetts system tells you anything, it's that just because someone has insurance doesn't mean that they will automatically have no barriers to access.



I live in MA and was on Commonwealth Care until recently. It was an HMO run by Network Health. I got sick last month and called my doctor at 10am. I was in his office and being examined at 2:15. I think the MA system is a damn good one.


----------



## bstone (Mar 22, 2010)

Linuss said:


> Actually there's still about 18 million people that this wont cover, according to Democrats own numbers.




Source?


----------



## bstone (Mar 22, 2010)

MS Medic said:


> Seeing how people from Canada who have socialized medicine drive here to get health care, at what point in time does the concept become a good idea? Will it still be a good idea when health care rationing starts?



And Sarah Palin used Canadian health care all the time.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/palin-crossed-border-for_n_490080.html

The reform bill is absolutely nothing like the Canadian system. You do know that, right?


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 22, 2010)

bstone said:


> I live in MA and was on Commonwealth Care until recently. It was an HMO run by Network Health. I got sick last month and called my doctor at 10am. I was in his office and being examined at 2:15. I think the MA system is a damn good one.



Your situation seems atypical then. According to an USA Today article in June 2009, the average wait time in Boston is 50 days. 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-03-waittimes_N.htm

Similarly (I can't find the article now), Massachusetts last year was trying to force through a bill requiring physicians to accept the new small business health insurance plan as a condition of licensure. That would be like saying EMTs working on Medicare patients only gets paid half of what they're normal hourly wage is.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 22, 2010)

bstone said:


> Source?



Search for the news stories yourself.  Democrats initially stated that there are 50mil people without insurance. They then stated that this gives coverage to 32mil. 50-32=18. So 18mil people still aren't covered.


What's your view on the minority clearly doing the opposite if what the majority wants?  Our viewpoints don't matter?  I dont like some person in Washongton saying my viewpoint doesn't matter and that they know better even though they are in the minority.


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 22, 2010)

*I for one don't have a sore throat.*

SOme other measures "rammed down our throats":
1. A standing army.
2. Social Security.
3. Creation of NHTSA (fought  by Big Five automakers of the time), which begat, you guessed it...
4. Organized EMS pertaining to prehospital care (AMA wanted care to be firtst aid level before being seen by a doctor).
5. Voting rights (heck, ANy legal rights) for women, racial minorities, and people between 18 and 21 (draft age).

As a RN and former medical case manager, former EMT, and old guy needing  more tuneups, let me tell you there is NO actual "EMS" or "Medical Care" * system* in the U.S. as people refer to it. It is a loose conglomeration of entities who for the most part are interested in money and the continuation of their personal and corporate power (see the history of Blue Shield/Blue Cross for how this comes about).This bill is a start, it can and will be refined and honed and earmarked etc as any other, but it is finally a start.

Follow the money; if you can't follow it, why do you think it can't? Name names, cross link them. And look at the media campaigns, incuding "viral internet", trying to tell us what we want.


----------



## triemal04 (Mar 22, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> So people will be required to purchase insurance. Maybe it's just me, but if people could purchase insurance they would.
> 
> If the average single person plan is between 10-12K /year with a family plan up to 15K per year, keeping my tax return isn't going to purchase insurance for my family.
> 
> ...


Nix on that.  This does do a bit to help with people being unable to afford health insurance.  Off the top of my head I believe it's something like, the most you can be required to pay in premiums is 9% of your salary (don't remember if that's for everyone or just people making up to 400% of the poverty level).  People making 133% of the poverty level will be eligible for medicare (ha!) and people making more will be able to buy insurance from gov't subsidized insurance groups.  It also mandates that insurance companies spend 85% of what they collect in premiums on medical care; in theory this would potentially cut down on what was charged, but I don't know if it'll work out that way.

Doesn't in anyway solve the problem of health insurance of course, or the much broader problems that face healthcare.


----------



## Melclin (Mar 22, 2010)

Well said Mycrofft, mate.


So I spent about 40 mins on various wikis and government web pages trying to wrap my head around this obama care and I can't for the life of me understand it. 

I don't know what the best thing is for your system, but I sure as hell am glad that I can ring the doctor when I'm feeling crook, get an appointment quickly, get blood tests, x-rays etc all of them quick and easy, get admitted, get transported, operated on, ICU'd - without worrying about a cent. And all _without_ paying, on average, more tax than the average US citizen.

I don't know why tax bothers you all so much. I'm proud to pay it. I see schools, healthcare, disability and elderly support, roads, trains, entertainment, welfare - predominantly a happy and healthy community - and I'm proud to help pay for it. When I start earning my 60-70k with the _state_ ambulance service something in the order of 1-2k is my contribution to healthcare. When a standard set of blood tests and appointments can cost upwards of 1000 bucks, that seems like a pretty damn good deal to me.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 22, 2010)

Melcin, what you and other people don't understand is this:


It's not the taxes.  It's not the health care.  It's the federal government overstepping its bounds, requiring something unconstitutional, fining those who don't agree with it, and saying "Screw you" to the majority.


How ANYONE can argue that that is right and ok, is beyond me.


----------



## bstone (Mar 22, 2010)

Linuss said:


> Search for the news stories yourself.



And your opinion is summarily rejected due to lack of evidence.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 22, 2010)

*Sigh* I love the debate with no merit.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50288
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/010583.html

Each one states between 40-46million uninsured, with 36million being US citizens.

No matter which number you choose, between 4million and 13million unsinsured from the democrats own numbers of "32 million" getting insured.


----------



## bstone (Mar 23, 2010)

Linuss said:


> *Sigh* I love the debate with no merit.
> 
> http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50288
> http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/010583.html
> ...



As far as I know, the reform will not extend to those who are in the US illegally or not as permanent residents. The bill is only designed for US citizens and those here legally. Sounds like all the US citizens will be insured and the remainder will be those not allowed to be here.


----------



## ert_medic (Mar 23, 2010)

*Healthcare reform bill isn't what you think.*

Funny how the politicians don't ever explain anything.  If you thought EMT's were being paid chump change before, just wait till after the laws come into effect.  If all the ambulance companies were required to pay for your health insurance, who do you think they would charge it to?  It would be taken out of your check.  Also, if they have to pay for health coverage for all employees, imagine how many employees they will have to start doing away with to make up for that added expense.  Also, the bill will dramatically cut medicare and medical spending across the boards, which will in turn reflect back into lower reimbursement rates per trip.  That again, cuts into employers who will then cut into employees.  The funds for the whole process has to come from some where and that means EMT's again get the shaft for being on the bottom of the food chain.  :sad:  Take it from someone who knows, I was the original Operations Manager for 2 L.A. County and L.A. City providers.  I started both companies from 1 ambulance each and turned them into lean cash making machines sporting over a dozen rigs with 24/7 ops per company.


----------



## looker (Mar 23, 2010)

I got some bad news for all of you, this law is terrible. I know, most of you think wtf is this person smoking: D This law takes away precondition, among other things but let us focus on precondition and also mandatory health care in 2014. 

Once pre-condition goes away in 6 month, there is no longer be reason for healthy adults to have health insurance. If/when the get sick, they can just call up and get your self-insurance the same day. So that means, only those that are at high risk will keep insurance. 

Some of you will say, but what about the penalty if you do not buy the insurance in 2014, well in reality it means nothing. Let say i have PPO insurance, 750 deductible and paying 320 a month. The penalty for not having it is 750, so that means it would take me 2 1/2 month without having insurance to come out even and after that save money. 

Another problem is IRS can't force you to pay up. The only thing they can do is keep your refund if you don't have health insurance that year. 

So that person you transferring to the hospital after getting 911 call for dispatch, may or may not have health insurance


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 23, 2010)

*a...m...e...n...d...m...e...n...t*

I'm done. Carry on.


----------



## Melclin (Mar 23, 2010)

Linuss said:


> Melcin, what you and other people don't understand is this:
> 
> 
> It's not the taxes.  It's not the health care.  It's the federal government overstepping its bounds, requiring something unconstitutional, fining those who don't agree with it, and saying "Screw you" to the majority.
> ...



Who said the constitution was right? Maybe the bounds of the federal government want changing. So even if obama care is awesome (am I'm not saying that it is, I can't figure it out), the idea is that its still rubbish because its arguably not in line with an ideology laid down in the constitution...so change the constitution...just because its old and you learned that the founding fathers were perfect in school doesn't mean its perfect. I know its heresy to suggest, but they were only human and if the document they created doesn't allow for a good idea, then it probably needs a little updating. You blokes have an arse load of other good amendments saying lots of top notch stuff, why not add another? 

I have just now realised that this is a longer version of mycrofft said, so I'll leave it there.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Mar 23, 2010)

Linuss said:


> Melcin, what you and other people don't understand is this:
> 
> 
> It's not the taxes. It's not the health care. It's the federal government overstepping its bounds, requiring something unconstitutional, fining those who don't agree with it, and saying "Screw you" to the majority.
> ...


 



Linuss said:


> Melcin, what you and other people don't understand is this:





Linuss said:


> It's not the taxes. It's not the health care. It's the federal government overstepping its bounds, requiring something unconstitutional, fining those who don't agree with it, and saying "Screw you" to the majority.
> 
> 
> How ANYONE can argue that that is right and ok, is beyond me.




Agree 110% Linuss. This bill is just another step in the wrong direction.

It is NOT the government's job to see to it that people are insured. Heck, like 75% of domestic issues the government deals with are not their business anyhow. Our government has strayed so far from what it was designed to be, the founding fathers would not even recognize it. 

Do I see anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights or any other amendments that a person has a right to healthcare?

And what I really want to know is this, why are the dems so dang determined to pass this bill when over 56% of polled Americans disapprove? Last time I checked, 56%-44% is a really good margin. Check the Rasmussen Reports, less than 25% agree with the Obamacare plan. When 56% completely disagree, 19% disagree with some to most of the bill and only 25% agree with most of it, why is the message not getting thru to Washington? Why are we having this thing we, as a VAST majority disapprove of literally force fed to us?

We are going socialist here. Can no one see it? If you do see it, for God's sake, do something to help stop it. A drop of water can't do much, but a tsunami is nothing more than lots of drops all in the same spot with the same drive.

While it is wrong, the healthcare bill is not the main issue I see here. The main issue I see is what Linuss seems to be calling the "Screw You" attitude taken on by our very own government.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Mar 23, 2010)

^
Ok. Wow. I have no idea what happend to the quotes in my post. I was trying to quote linuss


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 23, 2010)

Melcin, there are 27 amendments to the constitution that says that the final draft wasn't perfect. In fact, the first 10 were passed concurrently with the constitution. However, if the consitution needs changing, then we need to change it first, then pass federal run healthcare, not pass federal run health care and then change the consitution.


----------



## Melclin (Mar 23, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Melcin, there are 27 amendments to the constitution that says that the final draft wasn't perfect. In fact, the first 10 were passed concurrently with the constitution. However, if the consitution needs changing, then we need to change it first, then pass federal run healthcare, not pass federal run health care and then change the consitution.



That's perfectly reasonable if it is indeed true that obamacare is unconstitutional  Not being an expert on either your constitution or obama-care, this is where I bow out. I just wanted to make my point about laws and constitutions and founding fathers not necessarily being perfect from the get go, and that one shouldn't be afraid of change simply because an old document says that change it a bad thing. It is not a reason not to have this plan or that plan, its simply an obstacle to it that needs addressing. 

I must say, this idea of forced insurance bothers me. Sure doesn't sound like the socialised medicine I'm familiar with.

Hey lightsandsirens, you got watch them commies, they sneak around when you're busy being patriotic getting up to all kinds of no good...putting up Che Guevara posters...burning down Reichstags  haha take it easy mate, the cold war is over.


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 23, 2010)

Melclin said:


> Who said the constitution was right? Maybe the bounds of the federal government want changing. So even if obama care is awesome (am I'm not saying that it is, I can't figure it out), the idea is that its still rubbish because its arguably not in line with an ideology laid down in the constitution...so change the constitution...just because its old and you learned that the founding fathers were perfect in school doesn't mean its perfect. I know its heresy to suggest, but they were only human and if the document they created doesn't allow for a good idea, then it probably needs a little updating. You blokes have an arse load of other good amendments saying lots of top notch stuff, why not add another?
> 
> I have just now realised that this is a longer version of mycrofft said, so I'll leave it there.



The constitution was also written more than 200 years ago. It may have escaped notice but things have changed a little since then.


----------



## Melclin (Mar 23, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> The constitution was also written more than 200 years ago. It may have escaped notice but things have changed a little since then.



Another unpopular idea it would seem. Still, I have nothing to judge that on but TV...not the best of sources.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 23, 2010)

lightsandsirens5 said:


> ^
> Ok. Wow. I have no idea what happend to the quotes in my post. I was trying to quote linuss



You were just emphasizing how smart I am ^_^




bstone said:


> As far as I know, the reform will not extend to those who are in the US illegally or not as permanent residents. The bill is only designed for US citizens and those here legally. Sounds like all the US citizens will be insured and the remainder will be those not allowed to be here.



I gave you the exact numbers already and you still failed to do the math.

Again, depending if you count illegals or not, between 3-13million will not be covered.  



Melclin said:


> Who said the constitution was right?


The Constitution.  It's the top law... so right or wrong, it HAS to be followed until it's changed. 

No one says it's perfect, but the fact that it IS to be followed, and that it can still be changed, is one of the reasons why the US is the longest lasting single form of government in modern history, and why most of the worlds constitutions are based off of ours. 

It obviously did something right to last over 240 years and be copied


----------



## bstone (Mar 23, 2010)

This LAW is the greatest thing to come to America in 40 years. I applaud it. America has finally joined other first-world nations.


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 23, 2010)

*We're all bozos in this sandbox (to some degree). (Metacommunicational note)*

I personally have a cognitive and emotional deficit: when someone says they don't understand how someone else can say something, or flat out says "wrong", or wants to know what they were thinking when they posted something, all I hear is my parents trying to get me to pick up my room and do my homework. And I get kinda parasympathetic. 

Just like all these "news articles" we see here, we have no idea how this is going to spin out and nearly every bit of "information" we get has been spun and paid for. Can we do a Rodney King and get along while the truth spins out?


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 23, 2010)

bstone said:


> This LAW is the greatest thing to come to America in 40 years. I applaud it. America has finally joined other first-world nations.



Constitution be darned, right?


----------



## bstone (Mar 23, 2010)

Linuss said:


> Constitution be darned, right?



If necessary, yes. Remember, this is the document that one declared black people were not fully human and women not allowed to vote. Very courageous people recognized that as wrong.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 23, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> The constitution was also written more than 200 years ago. It may have escaped notice but things have changed a little since then.



As I said earlier, then use the mechanism in place to update the constitution (amendments). Just because a clause might be considered 'antiquated' by some because of changing times doesn't mean that we just get to ignore it.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 23, 2010)

bstone said:


> This LAW is the greatest thing to come to America in 40 years. I applaud it. America has finally joined other first-world nations.



...because healthcare is perfect and the government leaders in those countries fart rainbows and butterflies?


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 23, 2010)

bstone said:


> If necessary, yes. Remember, this is the document that one declared black people were not fully human and women not allowed to vote. Very courageous people recognized that as wrong.


So what other laws do we get to ignore because we disagree with them?


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 23, 2010)

JPINFV, the desires of an individual obviously outweigh the rights of a country.

How could we be so dense?


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 23, 2010)

*Law to ignore...*

How about the one signed last October directing TRICARE to offer enrollment to retired reservists/Guardspeople between  service retirement and age 60? TRICARE sez "No, thanks, not right now Mister Presiden' ". THAT was healthcare reform and it was ignored by the federal program directed by the president to do it, designed tofulfill
 promises made then broken to tens of thousands of service members.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 23, 2010)

I agree that it's wrong for a government agency to ignore the law. However just because one person ignores the law doesn't grant everyone else the right to ignore the law. Should I get to commit murder because OJ Simpson wasn't convicted?


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 23, 2010)

*We could pass a hat....*

You guys go ahead without me, I'm gonna go make a Geritol shake.


----------



## Jon (Mar 23, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Melcin, there are 27 amendments to the constitution that says that the final draft wasn't perfect. In fact, the first 10 were passed concurrently with the constitution. However, if the consitution needs changing, then we need to change it first, then pass federal run healthcare, not pass federal run health care and then change the consitution.


Amen.


----------



## MTEMTB (Mar 23, 2010)

When the bill was first posted it was around 1600 pages. I made it to around 800. Til I got a massive migraine.

Instead of trying to do massive plan to try and correct the problems with insurance and health care they should have taken it one problem at a time.


----------



## bstone (Mar 24, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> So what other laws do we get to ignore because we disagree with them?



I get out of my car on the drivers side when parked along the street. I bet you do, also.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 24, 2010)

Please cite the part of the California Vehicle Code (since you are accusing me here) where that is illegal. Now if you went with speed limit, sure, but I'd like something more substantial than vehicle code violations.


----------



## bstone (Mar 24, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Please cite the part of the California Vehicle Code (since you are accusing me here) where that is illegal. Now if you went with speed limit, sure, but I'd like something more substantial than vehicle code violations.



Can help ya with Cali, but in IL it's 





> (625 ILCS 5/) Illinois Vehicle Code.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 24, 2010)

Since I don't live in Illinois, I guess I'm not breaking the law then by exiting on the driver's side of the car. Also, do you have a better citation than just the entire Illinois Vehicle Code, like a sub chapter?


----------



## bstone (Mar 24, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Since I don't live in Illinois, I guess I'm not breaking the law then by exiting on the driver's side of the car. Also, do you have a better citation than just the entire Illinois Vehicle Code, like a sub chapter?



California Vehicle Code, CHAPTER 9. STOPPING, STANDING, AND PARKING , Section 22517


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 24, 2010)

> 22517.  No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic* unless it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of such traffic*, nor shall any person leave a door open upon the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.



Emphasis added.


----------



## bstone (Mar 24, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Emphasis added.



Right. Unless you can safely do it, just like ensuring scene safety, you don't. It's against the law.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 24, 2010)

It's not against the law if it is safe to do so and it doens't interfer with the flow of traffic. That is the definition of "unless."

Edit: The constitution does not state "The following is the limits of Congress unless it really really really wants to do something."


----------



## bstone (Mar 24, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> It's not against the law if it is safe to do so and it doens't interfer with the flow of traffic. That is the definition of "unless."



Against the law, with a singular exception. That's the correct way to understand it. Anyhow, you asked for a source and I provided it.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 24, 2010)

...but your argument fails to prove that people can ignore the law when it is personally expediate without sanction. The day in/day out activity of getting in and out of a car on the driver's side is not illegal because day in/day out people aren't doing it in an unsafe manner.


----------



## bstone (Mar 24, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> ...but your argument fails to prove that people can ignore the law when it is personally expediate without sanction. The day in/day out activity of getting in and out of a car on the driver's side is not illegal because day in/day out people aren't doing it in an unsafe manner.



Source!


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 24, 2010)

Source for what? That getting into and out of a vehicle on the driver's side is not illegal provided that it is done in a safe manner or source that your argument that the Congress doens't have to follow the constitution because the law in some instances isn't enforced and the argument that you've made hinges on it being always illegal to get into and out of your car on the side of the curb?


----------



## Hal9000 (Mar 24, 2010)

bstone said:


> Source!




The source is the material he added emphasis to.  This is simply a logical proof.


----------



## bstone (Mar 24, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Source for what? That getting into and out of a vehicle on the driver's side is not illegal provided that it is done in a safe manner or source that your argument that the Congress doens't have to follow the constitution because the law in some instances isn't enforced and the argument that you've made hinges on it being always illegal to get into and out of your car on the side of the curb?



You said



> The day in/day out activity of getting in and out of a car on the driver's side is not illegal because day in/day out people aren't doing it in an unsafe manner.



You are making a claim that requires observation, assessment, data collection, data analysis and computation. Not to mention error correction and analysis. Thus, I ask for a source for this.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 24, 2010)

Are you admitting to routinely opening your car door in an unsafe manner as to imped traffic? While there is no doubt in my mind that it does happen (hence people getting their door rammed off), there is a very strong a priori argument that the vast vast vast majority of drivers and passengers do not open their doors in an unsafe manner (and thus in compliance of the law) because they don't want to pay to replace their car door. Where is your evidence or argument that it is wide spread practice to violate this law since the act of opening a door of the side of traffic is not, on its own, a violation of the law.


----------



## bstone (Mar 24, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Are you admitting to routinely opening your car door in an unsafe manner as to imped traffic? While there is no doubt in my mind that it does happen (hence people getting their door rammed off), there is a very strong a priori argument that the vast vast vast majority of drivers and passengers do not open their doors in an unsafe manner (and thus in compliance of the law) because they don't want to pay to replace their car door. Where is your evidence or argument that it is wide spread practice to violate this law since the act of opening a door of the side of traffic is not, on its own, a violation of the law.



Back to the point at hand, you asked for a source for a claim I made, I provided it. This isn't the right forum for debating traffic and parking laws.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 24, 2010)

No... but when the law is used as evidence in an argument to a seperate point, that argument and the associated evidence does come under the purview of the thread.


----------



## bstone (Mar 24, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> No... but when the law is used as evidence in an argument to a seperate point, that argument and the associated evidence does come under the purview of the thread.



Sir, you asked for a source. I provided it. I only did exactly as you asked.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 24, 2010)

Your source is not supporting your argument as it clearly states that it is not agaisnt the law to open the door on the traffic side of the car.

Edit to bring this back on topic:

Since opening up car doors on the traffic side of the vehicle is not illegal. What other laws are we allowed to ignore because we don't like them?


----------



## bstone (Mar 24, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Your source is not supporting your argument as it clearly states that it is not agaisnt the law to open the door on the traffic side of the car.



Except for the part that it does.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 24, 2010)

...except for that part that dictates that it is only illegal if done in an unsafe manner. Hence the opening of a car door on the traffic side of a vehicle is not illegal when done in a safe manner, and thus is not people ignoring the law. Please cite a law that is not enforced because people don't like it.


----------



## bstone (Mar 24, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> ...except for that part that dictates that it is only illegal if done in an unsafe manner. Hence the opening of a car door on the traffic side of a vehicle is not illegal when done in a safe manner, and thus is not people ignoring the law. Please cite a law that is not enforced because people don't like it.



Says it's illegal with one exceptions. That is the plain reading of it. But I guess you're a lawyer?


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 24, 2010)

Err... that's a pretty big exception. How often do you open your door in an unsafe manner or in such a manner as to imped traffic?


----------



## Akulahawk (Mar 24, 2010)

Nowhere in CVC 22517 do I see any provision that allows one to simply ignore the law because you don't feel like following that law. Ignoring the law has nothing to do with whether the activity is legal or illegal. I'll quote it again for your reading pleasure:



			
				CVC 22517 said:
			
		

> 22517.  No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side
> available to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to do so and
> can be done without interfering with the movement of such traffic,
> nor shall any person leave a door open on the side of a vehicle
> ...


In any event, it is illegal to force a person into a contract and fine them if they don't. It's an offense to Liberty to do so... 

Furthermore, if this law is designed to only provide healthcare to citizens and lawful permanent aliens, I wonder how that part of the law can survive a 14th amendment challenge by illegal aliens working in the US?

While the Healthcare system does need fixing, it is not for Congress to overstep it's Constitutional Authority to "fix it". If "We The People" need a "fix" for this so badly that Congress must go to that extreme position, then "We The People" need to put into place a Constitutional Amendment to allow that to happen.

Securing the Blessings of Liberty also means allowing for failure. 

I guess you feel like being required to buy a Cadillac Escalade... and you can only afford a used Ford Pinto... and you will be penalized for not buying that Escalade every year that you don't buy it.

Oh, and don't try to compare this to auto insurance. If a person doesn't drive a car, NO STATE requires that person to carry auto insurance.


----------



## LondonMedic (Mar 24, 2010)

Akulahawk said:


> Oh, and don't try to compare this to auto insurance. If a person doesn't drive a car, NO STATE requires that person to carry auto insurance.


Indeed, and if you don't have health you won't need health insurance.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 24, 2010)

LondonMedic said:


> Indeed, and if you don't have health you won't need health insurance.



*sigh*  I'll say it again since people NOT from the US (and apparently democrats FROM the US) don't get it:


A STATE government can require auto insurance.  The FEDERAL government can NOT.


And at that, not all states require liability insurance.


----------



## LondonMedic (Mar 24, 2010)

Linuss said:


> A STATE government can require auto insurance.  The FEDERAL government can NOT.


So why don't the states? I can understand that some of the southern states still believe in eugenics but there are some enlightened ones.

(On that subject, why isn't Medicare/Medicaid a state responsibility?)


----------



## alphatrauma (Mar 24, 2010)

Linuss said:


> Constitution be darned, right?



There have been worse affronts to the Constitution...  and that's assuming that the healthcare reform would even qualify as such.


----------



## bstone (Mar 24, 2010)

Linuss said:


> *sigh*  I'll say it again since people NOT from the US (and apparently democrats FROM the US) don't get it:
> 
> 
> A STATE government can require auto insurance.  The FEDERAL government can NOT.
> ...



Except for the part that they just did and every constitutional scholar says it's legal.

So you think that the Federal government offering flood insurance is also illegal? I bet the people who live in flood planes and who have no options would disagree.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Mar 24, 2010)

Since this has degraded into a debate out traffic laws, this thread is closed.


----------

