The truth is not what you think it is. Swiss banks do in fact give up information on the accounts of US citizens to the US government. Its simply a matter of the Swiss banks wanting to continue to do business in the US.

The other poster is correct. Your presence in another country is in fact subject to that country's judicial decrees. If you wish to not comply then you need to remove your presence from the country. This does not nullify the original judicial decree, it merely renders it unenforcible unless your country wishes for it to be enforced.

In practice they actually do so. If the company fails to comply with country A then they are at risk from being barred from doing business in A. This is how the US government got the Swiss banks to give up info on US citizen's accounts.

You seem to misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that votes are the true currency of politics. That money is secondary, it is merely a tool to persuade the indifferent. Expensive media campaigns do little to change the opinion of informed and motivated voters. The Virginia primary is an example, the winner spent $100,000. The loser spent $5,000,000 and the loser was an incumbent and a powerful party leader.

In other words if one wants to change politics then inform and motivate voters. If you want to maintain the status quo by focusing on the wrong thing then focus on money.

Because the post I responded to said "And, physicians and regulators are already looking at ways to integrate that information into a broader plan of care." :-)

That is not how the trial lawyers work. They are not defacto regulators in most cases. The are far more often just parasites and are very much like the patent trolls, just using the legal system to extort money. They will sue doctors who did receive correct data from a device and who made a medically well informed decision. They will use the fact that the device is not FDA certified to sow FUD and confuse and mislead a jury who is clueless about medicine and devices. Every once in a while they will find a gullible jury and get a payday, and insurance companies/doctors will just give them money to go away even when their suits are baseless.

The first consumer at-home glucose monitoring device (hardware and software) that I found on walmart's website is an FDA approved device according the the FDA's website.

I honestly doubt physicians will base medical decisions on data from non-FDA approved devices. That is an enormous opening for the trial lawyers and their malpractice lawsuits.

Similarly I doubt Apple will be promoting its consumer oriented devices for use in patient care, well in the medical data acquisition and telemetry sense, as opposed to doctors accessing data/records via iPads. Apple will probably "prohibit" such use in its licensing agreement. Apple's pockets are way too deep and they would just make themselves a perfect target for trial lawyers if consumer grade devices were used in medical data acquisition.

Ultimately there will be mobile medical data acquisition and telemetry devices from traditional medical equipment vendors and it will be FDA approved.

Of course, maybe Apple will come out with an FDA approved model eventually, a non-consumer grade device ?

I agree, pharma distribution is nationwide so federal oversight seems reasonable.

The point you address is one that is often misunderstood. When most people say the federal government should not be involved in activity X they often mean that a more local level of government should be involved. I other words a level that is (1) more knowledgable of the local environment that activity X is taking place in and (2) is more accountable to local voters.

With respect to (1) in particular, many problems have a local component. A good solution in one part of the country may be a poor solution in another. That is why many people are highly skeptical of one-size-fits-all solutions from Washington DC.

For EU readers, consider an EU based organization usurping control over some activity from your national government. That's sort of the situation with the US federal government. The US is too large and too diverse for many on-size-fits-all solutions.

I expect these new mobile devices/apps coming onto the scene will be considered some sort of novelty devices by the FDA not medical devices. Like ancient digital watches.

The info they provide will be considered more trivia or a novelty than medical info. Much like ancient digital watches that could show a pulse, novelty info, not to be used for medical purposes. Or ancient digital watches that could show pressure, novelty info, not to be used for aircraft altitude or depth when scuba diving. I actually used one for scuba diving but it was secondary to my actual depth gauge made for scuba diving. It was surprisingly close. And when driving up to the mountains it will surprisingly close to the altitude markers along the highway, assuming I calibrated. I knew my altitude at home. And when diving, I was at sea level on the beach/boat. As reasonably accurate as it was, it was still a novelty device, or a last resorts back if my actual device failed.

My understanding is that the Court requires the corp to be closely held, that once you have a certain number of owners a shared belief is far less plausible. Also the belief has to be part of some sort of established and recognized religion, you can't just declare yourself a jedi and say jedi's don't believe in abortion.

So large corps or non-religious beliefs, the decision does not apply.

Well, religion does have special rights according to the Constitution. Government is thereby required to give religious beliefs some weight. Its a balance, religious business owners vs a gov't mandate on healthcare. They seem to have said that for small corps where a shared religious belief is more plausible things tip towards the corp, for larger corps where a shared religious belief is less plausible things tip towards the government.

I've seen a small suggestion of breaking the employer-provided healthcare trap in recent employment contracts. Some are saying you get this salary plus we will cover the unsubsidized portion of your ACA compliant health plan. Not an ACA fan myself, we need health care reform and the ACA is a pretty flawed attempt, yet such employment contracts are a step in the right direction.

No, decision does not apply to corporations in general. It applies only the closely held corporation (5 or fewer owners) where the owners have a common religious belief. In such a limited case the corporation can be considered to hold such a belief. This being relevant since the Religious Freedom Act was written in a manner that it applied to both people and corporations. Not that corps are people, rather that this particular law applies to people and corps, like a law saying don't toss toxic stuff in the river.

Plus, no one is denied certain healthcare. The company can not prevent an employee from having a procedure, they can only decline to pay for it.

No. You cite one scenario where an asset is being used as collateral. The fact remains that it is common for the owners of small corporations to take on some personal liability for corporate debt. It happen all the time. Contrary to what the GP said many corporate owners do in fact have skin in the game.

Nope. You are wrong. The false claim that I responded to said that corporate owners have no skin in the game. I offered an example where corporate owners in fact have skin in the game. In particular the small closely held corporations that have 5 or fewer owners that this decision is limited to. They are commonly personally on the hook for something corporate.

By how much money did Cantor spend? That is the key point in this discussion.

That is something unrelated to my comment. My comment simply points out that despite healthcare being earned the type of healthcare available was always under company control. That the company in fact had power over an employee with respect to healthcare.