or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 52

post #2041 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

That's an interesting argument. It's clear that the federal government has very broad power to tax and create programs (e.g., social security, medicare, etc.). That's a longstanding power of the federal govt, and no constitutional amendments are necessary. But now conservatives are arguing that the federal govt does not have the power to regulate a market. So we have this:

Big govt tax-and-spend programs: Long-standing precedents.
Typical market-based conservative alternatives: Unconstitutional.

For example the conservative alternative to social security - requiring people to purchase private investment accounts - would be unconstitutional.

Of course conservatives are not thinking these things through, they're just stamping their feet and yelling "Obamacare is ILLEEEEGAL."

First, I think it is reasonable argument that the purchase mandate goes beyond simply "regulating a market" in any sense of the way this has been done previously because it effectively regulates inaction rather than action. This difference is subtle but quite important.

Second, while some people who call themselves or are considered conservatives (and/or Republican) are likely being quite inconsistent and hypocritical in all of this, let's not lose site of the fact that there is (at least) one more option here:

a) Government mandates the purchase of X.
b) Government directly provides X.
c) Government does neither.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2042 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

First, I think it is reasonable argument that the purchase mandate goes beyond simply "regulating a market" in any sense of the way this has been done previously because it effectively regulates inaction rather than action. This difference is subtle but quite important.

Yeah I edited my post to clarify that by the time you responded.

I don't really get the action vs. inaction argument; the simple point is that it requires people to purchase something in a private market, which is exactly the conservative counter-proposal to social security. (And we don't need to again bring up that Obamacare was the conservative counter-proposal to liberal health care plans in the past.)
post #2043 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

Yeah I edited my post to clarify that by the time you responded.

I don't really get the action vs. inaction argument; the simple point is that it requires people to purchase something in a private market, which is exactly the conservative counter-proposal to social security. (And we don't need to again bring up that Obamacare was the conservative counter-proposal to liberal health care plans in the past.)

Your latter two points are political distractions. They are red herrings. Which way one group argued or advocated at this time or that are irrelevant to the constitutional argument.

The action vs. inaction argument is based on the idea that the commerce clause was intended to allow the feds to regulate people ongoing action and behavior in some ways.

(BTW this clause as been stretched and abused terribly.)

What's being proposed in the mandate is that the feds now have the power to regulate someone from not doing something to doing something. Worse, it is mandating the purchase of some product where one might not have been purchased before.

If this is allowed to stand then by what logic can the SCOTUS ever say that the feds don't have the power to regulate, let's say, making people exercise* when they weren't previously?


*There are any number of examples that can be used here.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2044 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Oh, and I hope the Supreme Court rejects the individual mandate. It will put more pressure on the institution of a single payer public option if they do, even if to do so we need a constitutional amendment.

I disagree. It will be death knell for both the President (politically speaking, of course) and Democrats on Capital Hill. The GOP is already poised to retake the Senate by a comfortable margin. Remember, they barely passed Obamacare after pulling out all the stops (parliamentary tricks, virtual bribery of reps) in a Democratically controlled House and Senate. A "public option" couldn't pass NOW much less after November.

Face it dude. If the SC rules the mandate unconstitutional, it's the end of this Presidency, Senate Dems and any universal-type coverage plans.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2045 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Your latter two points are political distractions. They are red herrings. Which way one group argued or advocated at this time or that are irrelevant to the constitutional argument.

They're not irrelevant to my point, which was that this constitutional argument is more harmful to conservative policy positions than liberal ones.

Quote:
The action vs. inaction argument is based on the idea that the commerce clause was intended to allow the feds to regulate people ongoing action and behavior in some ways.

(BTW this clause as been stretched and abused terribly.)

What's being proposed in the mandate is that the feds now have the power to regulate someone from not doing something to doing something. Worse, it is mandating the purchase of some product where one might not have been purchased before.

If this is allowed to stand then by what logic can the SCOTUS ever say that the feds don't have the power to regulate, let's say, making people exercise* when they weren't previously?


*There are any number of examples that can be used here.

I still don't get the action vs. inaction thing; I do agree that the mandate involves requiring people to purchase private insurance. That I do get.

Exercise isn't commerce, but yeah, in theory it should be perfectly constitutional for the feds to require people to, for example, buy broccoli. It would be really stupid, but just because something is stupid doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

The other argument is that everyone already participates in the health care market, whether we like it or not. You literally cannot opt out of health care, because medical ethical obligations as well as laws require that medical care be provided to people in need. So all people are already in the health care market, health care is clearly interstate commerce, and this is a regulation of that existing market.
post #2046 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

I still don't get the action vs. inaction thing;

Because the law is compelling someone to perform an action where they previously would not. This would be pretty much unprecedented, not to mention a tad totalitarian.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

Exercise isn't commerce

But what's been happening here and over the years is they've been broadening the argument to be able to regulate anything that even affects interstate commerce. The argument can be made that almost anything you do or don't do falls into this category.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

, but yeah, in theory it should be perfectly constitutional for the feds to require people to, for example, buy broccoli.

Are you saying you think it should be constitutional, or that it logically would be if this mandate is found to be constitutional?


Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

The other argument is that everyone already participates in the health care market, whether we like it or not. You literally cannot opt out of health care, because medical ethical obligations as well as laws require that medical care be provided to people in need. So all people are already in the health care market, health care is clearly interstate commerce, and this is a regulation of that existing market.

Yes, I suppose...and this is where we get onto the slippery slope. And something that will make it even more slippery is when, at some point, the government is paying for everyone's healthcare there's no logical reason for them to be prevented from regulating almost any and every aspect of everyone's life since almost any and every thing we do (e.g., how much TV we watch, how much and what we drive, whether and when and how much we exercise, what we eat, how many children we have, etc.) has some affect on our health and its cost.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2047 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Because the law is compelling someone to perform an action where they previously would not. This would be pretty much unprecedented, not to mention a tad totalitarian.

Like being drafted into the military? Or paying taxes?




Quote:
But what's been happening here and over the years is they've been broadening the argument to be able to regulate anything that even affects interstate commerce. The argument can be made that almost anything you do or don't do falls into this category.

Yes, I think you're right. It's not what the founders envisioned. In the 1700s they we're in separated communities that didn't interact in the complex ways we do today. I think it's just adapting to the modern world, but it's definitely different.


Quote:
Are you saying you think it should be constitutional, or that it logically would be if this mandate is found to be constitutional?

I don't know, I was being facetious - it would be really hard to show a compelling govt interest In something so stupid.



Quote:
Yes, I suppose...and this is where we get onto the slippery slope. And something that will make it even more slippery is when, at some point, the government is paying for everyone's healthcare there's no logical reason for them to be prevented from regulating almost any and every aspect of everyone's life since almost any and every thing we do (e.g., how much TV we watch, how much and what we drive, whether and when and how much we exercise, what we eat, how many children we have, etc.) has some affect on our health and its cost.

Yeah, but that's where democratic accountability rather than constitutional arguments come in. If its too intrusive, we should vote against the laws and the politicians who support them.
post #2048 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

Like being drafted into the military? Or paying taxes?

Yes actually.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

Yes, I think you're right. It's not what the founders envisioned. In the 1700s they we're in separated communities that didn't interact in the complex ways we do today. I think it's just adapting to the modern world, but it's definitely different.

Sounds like you're getting close to making that old, unsupported argument that somehow the principles and philosophies and wisdom that underlie the constitution are obsolete (or nearly so) and antiquated and don't really apply in the modern era. I've heard this argument before but never actually anyone logically and rationally support it. It's not like the constitution is like a style of clothing or some technology like horse and buggies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

I don't know, I was being facetious - it would be really hard to show a compelling govt interest In something so stupid.

I imagine you could say the very same thing about half the shit that has actually been approved!



Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

Yeah, but that's where democratic accountability rather than constitutional arguments come in. If its too intrusive, we should vote against the laws and the politicians who support them.

Hmmm. Wake me when that works. Shoot this whole Obamacare thing was rammed through against democratic accountability and opposition.

But more importantly, shouldn't start with adhering to the constitutional and making people who want to do things not called for in it or that look like that breach the intention of it to make their case first rather than the other way around?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2049 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

That's an interesting argument. It's clear that the federal government has very broad power to tax and create programs (e.g., social security, medicare, etc.). That's a longstanding power of the federal govt, and no constitutional amendments are necessary. But now conservatives are arguing that the federal govt does not have the power to require people to participate in private alternatives. So we have this:

Big govt tax-and-spend programs: Long-standing precedents.
Typical market-based conservative alternatives: Unconstitutional.

For example the conservative alternative to social security - requiring people to purchase private investment accounts - would be unconstitutional.

Of course conservatives are not thinking these things through, they're just stamping their feet and yelling "Obamacare is ILLEEEEGAL."

A few points, first why a new account?

Social Security, Medicare, etc are all welfare programs. People don't want to admit that but they are welfare programs. The second point is that you are not compelled to use them. It is completely possibly not to receive Social Security. It has requirements for participation and if you don't participate, you don't get it.

How you become eligible for Social Security

As you work and pay taxes, you earn Social Security credits. In 2012, you earn one credit for each $1,130 in earningsup to a maximum of four credits per year. (The amount of money needed to earn one credit usually goes up every year.)

Most people need 40 credits (10 years of work) to qualify for benefits. Younger people need fewer credits to be eligible for disability benefits or for family members to be eligible for survivors benefits when the worker dies.


As for the conservative options and have you label them, the key point is COMPEL. If Obamacare were Social Security the federal government would mandate you pay enough money into a 401k each year to earn your credits, whether you are working or not and if you didn't, you would be fined and the fine would be via a tax that would fund Social Security. That is very different from the current model as you should be able to see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

Yeah I edited my post to clarify that by the time you responded.

I don't really get the action vs. inaction argument; the simple point is that it requires people to purchase something in a private market, which is exactly the conservative counter-proposal to social security. (And we don't need to again bring up that Obamacare was the conservative counter-proposal to liberal health care plans in the past.)

The conservative alternatives never require someone to purchase something. Never. They forgo taxing an activity when a person takes action for themselves. That is very different. In fact it is the opposite of Obamacare. Conservatives are also willing to let people live with their choices and outside of the one size fits all government solution which actually doesn't add up and isn't sustainable in any form of fashion to boot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

They're not irrelevant to my point, which was that this constitutional argument is more harmful to conservative policy positions than liberal ones.

I still don't get the action vs. inaction thing; I do agree that the mandate involves requiring people to purchase private insurance. That I do get.

Exercise isn't commerce, but yeah, in theory it should be perfectly constitutional for the feds to require people to, for example, buy broccoli. It would be really stupid, but just because something is stupid doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

The other argument is that everyone already participates in the health care market, whether we like it or not. You literally cannot opt out of health care, because medical ethical obligations as well as laws require that medical care be provided to people in need. So all people are already in the health care market, health care is clearly interstate commerce, and this is a regulation of that existing market.

Well you see the key point of getting to the flip side of the welfare and income tranfer arguments which is when the numbers don't add up, the government must become authoritarian to make them add up.

First most people do need medical care, but if not for the convoluted system of private/public that is leading to all sorts of problem, most would not need health insurance or could easily purchase it in an affordable way for catastrophic events. Your car insurance doesn't cover oil changes, paint touch ups, waxing, washing, and checking the tire pressure. Likewise if you have a gap in your auto insurance or forgo full insurance and end up without a vehicle, the government doesn't feel the need to pick up the slack for you.

The Supreme Court arguments make it quite clear this is about income transfers from young to old. Young people forgo expensive health insurance plans or health insurance completely because they seldom have need for it. A plan that covers catastrophic events isn't expensive. However the government doesn't want them to purchase a plan that covers the the obscure chance a 22 year old gets cancer. They want them to purchase health PLANS and then transfer the monies to the elderly to help pay for Medicare which is going bankrupt very quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Please. All you know is that I am a libertarian and a Mormon. Just about everything else you "know" about me is based on assumptions.

You also teach music in San Diego or something. Oh wait, that was what he thought he knew about me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

Like being drafted into the military? Or paying taxes?

Yes, I think you're right. It's not what the founders envisioned. In the 1700s they we're in separated communities that didn't interact in the complex ways we do today. I think it's just adapting to the modern world, but it's definitely different.

I don't know, I was being facetious - it would be really hard to show a compelling govt interest In something so stupid.

Yeah, but that's where democratic accountability rather than constitutional arguments come in. If its too intrusive, we should vote against the laws and the politicians who support them.

First no one is arguing that the states do not have the enumerated powers to address health concerns or health insurance. The federal government is given the power to tax and clearly the power to use military force within the Constitution. The states are suing because the federal government is usurping their role. Now the federal government does this in many areas but they basically purchase compliance with monies. So in giving grants or matching funds, etc, they get most states to buy into federal programs but they cannot mandate participation or mandate individuals take certain actions to fulfill some aspect of making the federal program work.

Do school often offer free lunch and breakfast programs? Yes. Did most of the impetus for this come from the federal government? Yes, they were upset about how thin and undernourished their draftees were coming into training camp. Does the federal government MANDATE the states offer free and reduced lunch? NO. The states often take it because it's a good intention, and their cost is reduced by partnering with the federal government. However they can forgo participation and the monies associated with participation.

If the free lunch program were Obamacare the argument would look like this.

At some point, the federal government will need to defend the country. As part of defending the country it will need troops. Because it will need troops we need to make sure those troops are healthy. Because those troops must be healthy, we must mandate all children eat a healthy breakfast and lunch and if they cannot present proof of a healthy breakfast and lunch then they will be provided one and fined for not complying.

As you can see that is much more than what the present programs do. They literally would be mandating you buy certain veggies. Your participation would be mandatory.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2050 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yes actually.

Sounds like you're getting close to making that old, unsupported argument that somehow the principles and philosophies and wisdom that underlie the constitution are obsolete (or nearly so) and antiquated and don't really apply in the modern era. I've heard this argument before but never actually anyone logically and rationally support it. It's not like the constitution is like a style of clothing or some technology like horse and buggies.

Tell that to the slaves.

Quote:
I imagine you could say the very same thing about half the shit that has actually been approved!

Hmmm. Wake me when that works. Shoot this whole Obamacare thing was rammed through against democratic accountability and opposition.

But more importantly, shouldn't start with adhering to the constitutional and making people who want to do things not called for in it or that look like that breach the intention of it to make their case first rather than the other way around?

Obamacare had the president, the majority of the House, and a supermajority of the Senate. Wake you when Democracy works? Wow.

Sure, a law has to be constitutional. The problem is the position that everything one disagrees with on policy grounds must therefore be unconstitutional.
post #2051 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

A few points, first why a new account?

I couldn't get into the old one. I may not have the email I used for it any longer.

Quote:
Social Security, Medicare, etc are all welfare programs. People don't want to admit that but they are welfare programs. The second point is that you are not compelled to use them. It is completely possibly not to receive Social Security. It has requirements for participation and if you don't participate, you don't get it.

How you become eligible for Social Security

As you work and pay taxes, you earn Social Security “credits.” In 2012, you earn one credit for each $1,130 in earnings—up to a maximum of four credits per year. (The amount of money needed to earn one credit usually goes up every year.)

Most people need 40 credits (10 years of work) to qualify for benefits. Younger people need fewer credits to be eligible for disability benefits or for family members to be eligible for survivors benefits when the worker dies.


As for the conservative options and have you label them, the key point is COMPEL. If Obamacare were Social Security the federal government would mandate you pay enough money into a 401k each year to earn your credits, whether you are working or not and if you didn't, you would be fined and the fine would be via a tax that would fund Social Security. That is very different from the current model as you should be able to see.

There are exemptions to opt out of Obamacare as well, and they're based on the groups that traditionally have opted out of Social Security (i.e., religious groups). As I see it, if the government can require you to pay taxes, it can certainly give you the option of paying taxes if you'd rather not buy health insurance, which is exactly what Obamacare does.

Quote:
The conservative alternatives never require someone to purchase something. Never. They forgo taxing an activity when a person takes action for themselves. That is very different. In fact it is the opposite of Obamacare. Conservatives are also willing to let people live with their choices and outside of the one size fits all government solution which actually doesn't add up and isn't sustainable in any form of fashion to boot.

That's easily demonstrable as false just by referring to the fact that conservatives proposed Obamacare in the 1990s, and supported it up until, well, until Obama supported it (e.g., the classic example is the Heritage Foundation's health care proposal). Hell, Ryan is essentially proposing to replace Medicare with Obamacare. And of course the Republican presidential near-nominee required Massachusetts residents to buy health insurance. Furthermore, the conservative proposals to privatize Social Security want to mandate people to buy investments. As far as I know, none of them allow people to just keep that money and spend it on strippers: They have to use it to buy retirement investments.

Quote:
Well you see the key point of getting to the flip side of the welfare and income tranfer arguments which is when the numbers don't add up, the government must become authoritarian to make them add up.

First most people do need medical care, but if not for the convoluted system of private/public that is leading to all sorts of problem, most would not need health insurance or could easily purchase it in an affordable way for catastrophic events. Your car insurance doesn't cover oil changes, paint touch ups, waxing, washing, and checking the tire pressure. Likewise if you have a gap in your auto insurance or forgo full insurance and end up without a vehicle, the government doesn't feel the need to pick up the slack for you.

The Supreme Court arguments make it quite clear this is about income transfers from young to old. Young people forgo expensive health insurance plans or health insurance completely because they seldom have need for it. A plan that covers catastrophic events isn't expensive. However the government doesn't want them to purchase a plan that covers the the obscure chance a 22 year old gets cancer. They want them to purchase health PLANS and then transfer the monies to the elderly to help pay for Medicare which is going bankrupt very quickly.

Yes, that's the economic principle behind insurance.


Quote:
First no one is arguing that the states do not have the enumerated powers to address health concerns or health insurance. The federal government is given the power to tax and clearly the power to use military force within the Constitution. The states are suing because the federal government is usurping their role. Now the federal government does this in many areas but they basically purchase compliance with monies. So in giving grants or matching funds, etc, they get most states to buy into federal programs but they cannot mandate participation or mandate individuals take certain actions to fulfill some aspect of making the federal program work.

Do school often offer free lunch and breakfast programs? Yes. Did most of the impetus for this come from the federal government? Yes, they were upset about how thin and undernourished their draftees were coming into training camp. Does the federal government MANDATE the states offer free and reduced lunch? NO. The states often take it because it's a good intention, and their cost is reduced by partnering with the federal government. However they can forgo participation and the monies associated with participation.

If the free lunch program were Obamacare the argument would look like this.

At some point, the federal government will need to defend the country. As part of defending the country it will need troops. Because it will need troops we need to make sure those troops are healthy. Because those troops must be healthy, we must mandate all children eat a healthy breakfast and lunch and if they cannot present proof of a healthy breakfast and lunch then they will be provided one and fined for not complying.

As you can see that is much more than what the present programs do. They literally would be mandating you buy certain veggies. Your participation would be mandatory.

No the argument for Obamacare looks like this: Everyone gets health care, so everyone should be required to pay for insurance.
post #2052 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK. So on two issues. Most of the crap you advocate for though do not fit under the specific and enumerated powers of the federal government and are certainly unconstitutional.

If that were true, then the Supreme court would have no problem in voiding any related laws on those issues.

Most of the crap you spew off about things being unconstitutional is disagreed with by the majority of the Supreme Court. You know, the nine people whose JOB it is to decide what's constitutional or not?
post #2053 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If that were true, then the Supreme court would have no problem in voiding any related laws on those issues.

Most of the crap you spew off about things being unconstitutional is disagreed with by the majority of the Supreme Court. You know, the nine people whose JOB it is to decide what's constitutional or not?

Maybe. But they've been wrong before.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2054 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

a) Government mandates the purchase of X. [poor people run into trouble with this and choices are reduced for rich people]
b) Government directly provides X. [taxes go up]
c) Government does neither. [people die]

But they're poor people, so who cares if they die? It will improve per capita income if some of the poor people died.

Or... Voluntary charity will come to the rescue!
post #2055 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Maybe. But they've been wrong before.

And they've corrected themselves. The system works. Have faith in the American system of government. The triumvirate, the constitution, and the representative system, in particular.
post #2056 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I disagree. It will be death knell for both the President (politically speaking, of course) and Democrats on Capital Hill. The GOP is already poised to retake the Senate by a comfortable margin. Remember, they barely passed Obamacare after pulling out all the stops (parliamentary tricks, virtual bribery of reps) in a Democratically controlled House and Senate. A "public option" couldn't pass NOW much less after November.

Face it dude. If the SC rules the mandate unconstitutional, it's the end of this Presidency, Senate Dems and any universal-type coverage plans.

And now we see the true motivation for the Republicans to oppose Obama's health care plan. Well done.
post #2057 of 2360
Yup, rooting for millions to lose their current insurance plans and thousands more to die without treatment. How moral. How upright. How conservative.

Maybe they should try to conserve some life in this country.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2058 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But they're poor people, so who cares if they die? It will improve per capita income if some of the poor people died.

Or... Voluntary charity will come to the rescue!

I see you added some non sequiturs to my post. Surprise, surprise.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2059 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And they've corrected themselves. The system works. Have faith in the American system of government. The triumvirate, the constitution, and the representative system, in particular.

I have had this faith in the past. Then I grew up.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2060 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I have had this faith in the past. Then I grew up.

There are several examples where your advocated system has been tried throughout history. None have succeeded in the slightest, much less done better than the system that made America so great (until recently).

Why do you hate America?
post #2061 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And now we see the true motivation for the Republicans to oppose Obama's health care plan. Well done.

And what's sad is that it wouldn't surprise me if the conservative justices are motivated by exactly the same thing.

Apparently Justice Scalia today in arguments made reference to the "Cornhusker Kickback," an obscure part of Obamacare that did not even make it into the final law, that only people who frequent right-wing internet fever swamps have even heard about. And of course the wife of another one of the conservative justices makes her money by trolling the country in "Defeat Obamacare!" busses.
post #2062 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

Tell that to the slaves.

Obamacare had the president, the majority of the House, and a supermajority of the Senate. Wake you when Democracy works? Wow.

Sure, a law has to be constitutional. The problem is the position that everything one disagrees with on policy grounds must therefore be unconstitutional.

We don't have to tell it to the slaves. Super-majorities amended the Constitution. It wasn't a living, breathing document. It was amended outright.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

I couldn't get into the old one. I may not have the email I used for it any longer.

Ghost of Brussell would have been better.

Quote:
There are exemptions to opt out of Obamacare as well, and they're based on the groups that traditionally have opted out of Social Security (i.e., religious groups). As I see it, if the government can require you to pay taxes, it can certainly give you the option of paying taxes if you'd rather not buy health insurance, which is exactly what Obamacare does.

There's a key point here is that the exceptions. The exceptions for these groups allow them to forgo government services and thus not contribute to them. However they weren't compelled to take the services. They say, we don't want Social Security, we will handle our own old age issues as a community and the government lets them.

This is different again. The government here is declaring you will have a need for modern health care and thus most be compelled to fund it at the federal level in the manner they dictate. There is no choice about entering the marketplace.

Quote:
That's easily demonstrable as false just by referring to the fact that conservatives proposed Obamacare in the 1990s, and supported it up until, well, until Obama supported it (e.g., the classic example is the Heritage Foundation's health care proposal). Hell, Ryan is essentially proposing to replace Medicare with Obamacare. And of course the Republican presidential near-nominee required Massachusetts residents to buy health insurance. Furthermore, the conservative proposals to privatize Social Security want to mandate people to buy investments. As far as I know, none of them allow people to just keep that money and spend it on strippers: They have to use it to buy retirement investments.

The exception never proves the rule. We aren't talking about something put forward by a think tank or a congressional rep. We are talking about the law of the land and if something is Constitutional.

Quote:
Yes, that's the economic principle behind insurance.

Waxing your car isn't mitigating risk. There is a very large difference between health insurance and health plans.

Quote:
No the argument for Obamacare looks like this: Everyone gets health care, so everyone should be required to pay for insurance.

Insurance is not the same thing as a health plan. You can get health care without insurance. You can get catastrophic insurance at minimal cost and decide to manage your health rather than paying whatever rate or tax/fine the government dictates you must. This is what the court is reviewing because much like they are running out of people to tax for spending, they are running out of health to transfer as well. The federal government cannot fund Medicare if young people opt for plans that merely cover their risk of early catastrophic health conditions. They need to demand they purchase health plans that cover all the goodies they want to offer to seniors and then hope they are too busy living life, and running around to use the services. It's a pretty desperate last ditch attempt and that is why the court is so easily tearing into it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2063 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There are several examples where your advocated system has been tried throughout history. None have succeeded in the slightest, much less done better than the system that made America so great (until recently).

Examples? Links?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Why do you hate America?

I don't. I hate what America has become and is becoming under the corrupted US government.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2064 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

We don't have to tell it to the slaves. Super-majorities amended the Constitution. It wasn't a living, breathing document. It was amended outright.

Not only that but we don't use a single specific example of something that was wrong and then jump to the conclusion that all of the other aspects, wisdom and principles (e.g., limited powers to the central government, federalism, states rights, etc.) embedded in the document are suddenly invalid.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2065 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Yup, rooting for millions to lose their current insurance plans and thousands more to die without treatment. How moral. How upright. How conservative.

Maybe they should try to conserve some life in this country.

We it's more moral, upright and better than waiting to die from a bullet at the hands of the collectivists who need to break a few more eggs to make their promised utopia work. The idea is never the problem. It's just those non-believers who root against everything so end them and then you've ended the problem. They clearly are evil, not that you believe in such a concept, to be rooting against millions so the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and you just kill a few to help those millions. Completely scientific and thus moral to you. It's just culling the herd and we all know how concerned you are about the herd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There are several examples where your advocated system has been tried throughout history. None have succeeded in the slightest, much less done better than the system that made America so great (until recently).

Why do you hate America?

You mean that nice era in the 50's when Jim Crow existed and women knew their place? Is that the system that made America great until recently?

Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

And what's sad is that it wouldn't surprise me if the conservative justices are motivated by exactly the same thing.

Apparently Justice Scalia today in arguments made reference to the "Cornhusker Kickback," an obscure part of Obamacare that did not even make it into the final law, that only people who frequent right-wing internet fever swamps have even heard about. And of course the wife of another one of the conservative justices makes her money by trolling the country in "Defeat Obamacare!" busses.

Really you are attempting to talk about a conflict of interest and not even mentioning Kagan? Serioiusly I expected better of you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But they're poor people, so who cares if they die? It will improve per capita income if some of the poor people died.

Or... Voluntary charity will come to the rescue!

But they're conservatives or white males, or non-imaginary sons and daughters of Obama so who cares if they die? You've got to break a few eggs to make a utopian omelet! There's more crony capitalism to dole out and more people and positions to buy and bribe if we are going to arrive at our workers paradise.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2066 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

We don't have to tell it to the slaves. Super-majorities amended the Constitution. It wasn't a living, breathing document. It was amended outright.

Sure, but the fact that it was in the constitution proves that neither the constitution nor the founders were some perfect fountain of wisdom and truth, which is what MJ seems to be saying. In some things, they were dead wrong.

Quote:
Ghost of Brussell would have been better.

Probably.

Quote:
There's a key point here is that the exceptions. The exceptions for these groups allow them to forgo government services and thus not contribute to them. However they weren't compelled to take the services. They say, we don't want Social Security, we will handle our own old age issues as a community and the government lets them.

This is different again. The government here is declaring you will have a need for modern health care and thus most be compelled to fund it at the federal level in the manner they dictate. There is no choice about entering the marketplace.

As far as I know, the exemptions in Obamacare work the same way as the exemptions in Social Security. You can completely opt out in certain conditions.

Quote:
The exception never proves the rule. We aren't talking about something put forward by a think tank or a congressional rep. We are talking about the law of the land and if something is Constitutional.

These aren't exceptions. These are the primary conservative proposals to the most important domestic policies in the country. The individual mandate to purchase private benefits is quintessential conservative policy, in contrast to liberal government-provided benefits.

Quote:
Waxing your car isn't mitigating risk. There is a very large difference between health insurance and health plans.

Insurance is not the same thing as a health plan. You can get health care without insurance. You can get catastrophic insurance at minimal cost and decide to manage your health rather than paying whatever rate or tax/fine the government dictates you must. This is what the court is reviewing because much like they are running out of people to tax for spending, they are running out of health to transfer as well. The federal government cannot fund Medicare if young people opt for plans that merely cover their risk of early catastrophic health conditions. They need to demand they purchase health plans that cover all the goodies they want to offer to seniors and then hope they are too busy living life, and running around to use the services. It's a pretty desperate last ditch attempt and that is why the court is so easily tearing into it.

First of all most people would not be effected by this mandate, because most people have employer-based insurance or medicaid or medicare or veteran's. Second, I don't think the mandate has any relation to funding Medicare. The requirement to buy insurance is a requirement to give money to insurance companies, not to the government.
post #2067 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

Sure, but the fact that it was in the constitution proves that neither the constitution nor the founders were some perfect fountain of wisdom and truth, which is what MJ seems to be saying. In some things, they were dead wrong.

Actually I wasn't saying or even implying perfection. But, as I said, despite some specific errors, there are also some great principles and wisdom within it.

If what we want is not limited government, for example, then let's just re-write or amend the constitution to do that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2068 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Actually I wasn't saying or even implying perfection. But, as I said, despite some specific errors, there are also some great principles and wisdom within it.

If what we want is not limited government, for example, then let's just re-write or amend the constitution to do that.

There's a broader issue here that I want to address. Slavery is not just a one-off example. It was no small part of the reason that the original states demanded such strong autonomy. And it is definitely the primary reason that the federal govt changed from the weak one that was originally envisioned to the strong one we have today: It was the fact that we realized after the Civil War that the states couldn't be trusted to protect the rights of its people, and that federal law had to be strong enough to do so when the states did not. So we passed laws and constitutional amendments that changed the relationship between the states and the federal govt, and that changed the country from the mythical one that conservatives and libertarians talk about to the one that we actually have today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Really you are attempting to talk about a conflict of interest and not even mentioning Kagan? Serioiusly I expected better of you.

Not conflict of interest, just politicization.
post #2069 of 2360
That's a pretty astute observation there, artist formerly known as brussell. Glad to see you posting again.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2070 of 2360
It would be an astute observation if the war of northern aggression was really about ending slavery.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2071 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It would be an astute observation if the war of northern aggression was really about ending slavery.

Wow. He called it the war of northern aggression. Wow. That puts some things into perspective. Combine that with the "evolution is a hoax" rhetoric and we have a living, breathing stereotype.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2072 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Wow. He called it the war of northern aggression. Wow. That puts some things into perspective. Combine that with the "evolution is a hoax" rhetoric and we have a living, breathing stereotype.

Well that's perfect for you since you so like dealing in stereotypes and caricatures...specifically of me.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2073 of 2360
If you don't want to be treated like a caricature, don't be a caricature.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2074 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

If you don't want to be treated like a caricature, don't be a caricature.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2075 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

That's a pretty astute observation there, artist formerly known as brussell. Glad to see you posting again.

Thanks BR, good to see you too. I trust you've been keeping the fundies in line?
post #2076 of 2360
While a Democrat is in office? It's like herding cats. Been fighting the good fight, though.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2077 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It's like herding cats.

It's telling that you would use herding as a metaphor for what you want to do with those who disagree with you.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2078 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It's telling that you would use herding as a metaphor for what you want to do with those who disagree with you.

That's retarded.

But really, who needs metaphors? Why don't we just say it straightforward?
post #2079 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And now we see the true motivation for the Republicans to oppose Obama's health care plan. Well done.

I'm sure it's part of the establishment's motivation (elected officials, etc.) For me, it's more of a pleasant byproduct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Yup, rooting for millions to lose their current insurance plans and thousands more to die without treatment. How moral. How upright. How conservative.

Maybe they should try to conserve some life in this country.

Millions would lose their current insurance plans if the law was upheld. This is what you simply don't understand: Obamacare would end private insurance. The way the preexisting condition language is written means that people can pay a small fine instead of buying insurance...until they need it. Someone can pay a few hundred dollars a year for 20 years, get seriously ill, then buy insurance. Insurance companies will not stay in business long once this happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post

There's a broader issue here that I want to address. Slavery is not just a one-off example. It was no small part of the reason that the original states demanded such strong autonomy. And it is definitely the primary reason that the federal govt changed from the weak one that was originally envisioned to the strong one we have today: It was the fact that we realized after the Civil War that the states couldn't be trusted to protect the rights of its people, and that federal law had to be strong enough to do so when the states did not. So we passed laws and constitutional amendments that changed the relationship between the states and the federal govt, and that changed the country from the mythical one that conservatives and libertarians talk about to the one that we actually have today.

Not conflict of interest, just politicization.

That's quite the imagination you have. Care to explain which amendments you're referencing?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2080 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's quite the imagination you have. Care to explain which amendments you're referencing?

Hmm, this is basic American history, not imagination. I think you're a teacher, so let me turn the tables on you and give you a test:

1. When the Constitution was written, did the Bill of Rights apply to the states? For example, did the First Amendment prevent states from abridging the freedom of speech, or just the federal government?

2. Under what legal doctrine was the Bill of Rights eventually applied to the states, and upon which Amendment is that doctrine based?

2a. Bonus question! What was the latest of the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states?

3. In what era and under what conditions was that Amendment passed?


Answer 1. It applied only to the states. For example, the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law" Therefore, states could make a state religion or abridge the freedom of speech. Only the federal govt was prevented from such actions.

Answer 2. It's called the Doctrine of Incorporation, and it's based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Answer 2a. The Second Amendment, just a year ago. Despite years of gun rights people claiming that the Constitution protects their right to bear arms, it was only a year ago that was really true.

Answer 3. The 14th Amendment was one of the Reconstruction Amendments, passed after the Civil War. That was the turning point in the relationship between the states and the federal govt in American history. After so many years of the states refusing to protect people's rights, we gave teeth to the federal govt to enforce people's rights.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality