Refering to the people as customers is just so sad. What a huge misconcept of what a government is. But that aside, what the administration clearly wants, is to make America a great place for companies and business. That in itself is a positive motivation. And I'm glad the list contains people of dignity and with their heart in the right place, with clearly a much better understanding of people and the community than who is currently running the USA company.
I hope he accepts. You don't influence those you disagree with by calling them names. You influence them by getting to know them and speaking with them. You don't agree with everything someone says when you agree to sit down and talk with them.
You're making the mistake of thinking that Trump and his people are normal human beings that can be reasoned with. Trump, at the very least, is clearly some kind of antisocial personality (narcissist, sociopath). They have no interest in "being influenced" and nothing is ever their fault.
To be fair, the media and their savage partisan behavior have created a condition where Trump is not allowed to be normal, or wrong...ever. Or suffer unrelenting and undue wrath. Regardless of what you think of Trump, this is undeniable.
Some critics have argued that executives opposed to Trump should refuse to collaborate.
Well that is just fucking stupid, isn't it? Yeah that is how progress is made - act like petulant fucking child and not participate because you don't agree on everything.
That is a huge problem with the extreme left. They would rather riot than let somebody with different viewpoints express those opinions. Beyond that you have a president right now trying to change things and actually engage business in making the right changes for America. A petulant child will end up having zero influence when the changes are made.
I suppose it wouldn't be this bad if the disagreements were on boring percentage points, interest rates, dollar amounts...you know...actual politics. But no, the extreme left has turned politics into a miasma of disgraceful social positions that threaten all moral sanity of the world.
Many good comments here. If the government was a business it would be bankrupt. The whole point to compare it to a business is that it needs to meet the customers needs and also needs to be efficient enough to balance a budget. Yes you can go to extremes and say Monopolies don't need to take care of customers. But most good businesses out there absolutely need to treat the customer like royalty.
Many good comments here. If the government was a business it would be bankrupt. The whole point to compare it to a business is that it needs to meet the customers needs and also needs to be efficient enough to balance a budget. Yes you can go to extremes and say Monopolies don't need to take care of customers. But most good businesses out there absolutely need to treat the customer like royalty.
Correct. People seeing this as a bad thing are simply trying to find something wrong with it.
I hope you're being facetious. The ACA is very successful. It's not perfect. No complex legislation ever is. It would be working better if Republicans hadn't refused to fund the other $3.4 billion intended for the exchanges. Then health insurance companies wouldn't have dropped out.
The thing that no one ever wants to discuss is that the insurance companies are pulling out because so many people who are legally required to purchase a policy are opting to take their chances and pay a tax penalty instead - not that the millennials pay any taxes anyway, but that is another topic. The way they figure is that if they show up at an emergency room, they will get treatment even without having insurance. If everyone, especially the younger healthy individuals, would purchase insurance as they are supposed to, the policy costs would be less for everyone. But the entitled generation doesn't want to pay for anything. That is the sole reason ACA is not working as planned. I think Bernie has the right idea. Single payer. Free unlimited health care for all. Many other advanced countries have accomplished it, but it costs money and stingy people don't want to pay.
They're pulling out for a very simple reason. $6 billion was promised for the exchanges. $2.4 billion was allocated early on. But once the republicans came into control of Congress, they decided to not fund the rest of the $3.6 billion. Without the compensation promised, insurance companies began to pull out of the exchanges. That's the reality. Republicans damage the act, and then claim it's not working. Typical.
the fact is that over 22 million people signed up. Yes, it's true that it's hard to convince young people to sign up for insurance. That's why the penalties for not signing up. Millennial pay more taxes that the very wealthy, as a percentage of their income
bernie's plan would cost far more. The republicans would have never voted for that. The republican "plan" if that's what it can be called, takes insurance away for tens of millions of people. That's the worst plan I've ever seen
Any chance Tim will advise him that the ACA is a massive tangle of garbage and it should be immediately killed like a Santeria chicken?
I hope you're being facetious. The ACA is very successful. It's not perfect. No complex legislation ever is. It would be working better if Republicans hadn't refused to fund the other $3.4 billion intended for the exchanges. Then health insurance companies wouldn't have dropped out. But then, republicans have never wanted universal health care. They regard that as a privelage, not a right, as it should be.
we can look at the crap they just tried to foist on us. That bill had no support at all. Not from doctors, who rail against socialized medicine because they're afraid their overpriced services will be cut back. Not the nurses groups. Not AARP. Not the drug companies. Not hospitals. Not health care providers, etc.
the only reason for that bills existence was to give huge tax cuts to those earning over $1 million a year, which was written into the bill. To pay for those cuts, 24 million Americans would lose their health care, premiums would go up 15-20% the first year alone. Minimum payments would increase. Drugs would cost more. Essential services such as maternal care, yearly wellness visits, and pre-existing conditions would be stripped away. The so called "Freedom Caucus", which I think of as the "Rich White Man's Steal Money Back From The Middle Class and Poor People's Caucus", didn't agree to vote for it because it didn't steal enough from most people.
OK, enough of your BS Mel. Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege. Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens? You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????
Well, what's your solution for what every civilized society believes is a right? Health problems of every type is one of the major holdbacks to productivity. That alone costs vast sums of money, and sucks it out of our GDP. So even if you do t care about people, that alone makes it a need.
in the Constitution? That's not needed. It just needs to be written into a bill.
Any chance Tim will advise him that the ACA is a massive tangle of garbage and it should be immediately killed like a Santeria chicken?
I hope you're being facetious. The ACA is very successful. It's not perfect. No complex legislation ever is. It would be working better if Republicans hadn't refused to fund the other $3.4 billion intended for the exchanges. Then health insurance companies wouldn't have dropped out. But then, republicans have never wanted universal health care. They regard that as a privelage, not a right, as it should be.
we can look at the crap they just tried to foist on us. That bill had no support at all. Not from doctors, who rail against socialized medicine because they're afraid their overpriced services will be cut back. Not the nurses groups. Not AARP. Not the drug companies. Not hospitals. Not health care providers, etc.
the only reason for that bills existence was to give huge tax cuts to those earning over $1 million a year, which was written into the bill. To pay for those cuts, 24 million Americans would lose their health care, premiums would go up 15-20% the first year alone. Minimum payments would increase. Drugs would cost more. Essential services such as maternal care, yearly wellness visits, and pre-existing conditions would be stripped away. The so called "Freedom Caucus", which I think of as the "Rich White Man's Steal Money Back From The Middle Class and Poor People's Caucus", didn't agree to vote for it because it didn't steal enough from most people.
We agree on many things, but we are never going to see eye to eye on this one. Until the day the American people agree that the Federal government should be fundamentally involved in healthcare to the point that they demand a constitutional amendment, there is absolutely no justification for such an intrusion on markets and services and there is especially no legal justification whatsoever to force people to buy a product. That's clearly unconstitutional.
That's not true though. The government can do this. Even the conservative Supreme Court voted that it was constitutional. If that's not good enough for a conservative, then nothing is.
OK, enough of your BS Mel. Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege. Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens? You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????
It is sort of written into the Constitution. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." If you don't have health, there is no pursuit of happiness. That said, it shouldn't really apply to people with a three foot wide arse who can't stop shoving food down their pie hole.
The phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" does not appear in the Constitution, it appears in the Declaration of Independence.
The closest phrasing that appears in the Constitution is, probably, found in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
That said, the right to heath care likely is contemplated by some provisions of the U.S. Constitution (e.g., the Privileges and Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 1 of Section 2 of Article IV, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 2 of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and the 9th and 10th Amendments). U.S. citizens no doubt have a constitutional right to health care. But having a constitutional right to something is not the same as having a constitutional right to have it provided to you by the government. For the most part, the former means that the government can't prohibit you from having something or from doing something. It doesn't mean the government has to give you something or do something for you.
The constitutional right to freely exercise your religion doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bible or build a church for you. The right to keep arms doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with an arm. The right to speak freely doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bullhorn or a printing press. There are, at least as the Constitution has been interpreted, some exceptions based on particular circumstances. But I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that the rights guarantees in the Constitution contemplated a right to be provided, by the government, with health care.
Whether government should provide health care (or health care coverage) to everyone is a separate consideration, of course.
Well then, being denied health care because of its unaffordability could be considered to be "depriving" a citizen of life.
I'm kinda stunned ... how has this thread not been shut down?
Because it's anti Trump.
Because it mostly reflects the feelings of most members. It's also correct.
You just gave a perfect example of why journalism is dead. Sure, there are probably more liberals reading this forum, but there are others such as myself that don't share the same liberal views. When comments don't reflect the same opinions of the liberal moderators here, comments get shut down. That's why I think it's pretty funny all the anti Trump rhetoric seems ok, yet when someone has an opposing view, thread is closed.
What you're saying is totally untrue. I was a mod here for years. We try to keep as many comments in the discussion as possible. But if a comment is out of bounds, as some are, then they could get deleted. Out of bounds doesn't mean unpopular. It's means that it's stated in a way that that's insulting or disparaging in some way. Usually strongly so.
we have political discussions, and it's encouraged. But, there are threads where it's not suitable, and so, sometimes it may be deleted. It has nothing to do with political viewpoint.
Well, this just shows why business people should never hold the reigns of power. They have no idea what government is. Government is not a business. Efficiency is nice, but not required for a government. A government doesn't need to show a profit.
While businesses need to have a budget that breaks even, at worst, for a long time, and at best, show a profit, a government needs to do work for its people that can exceed the taxes taken in for a long time, something that would break most businesses. The difference is that while businesses can't create money, government can. That doesn't mean that governments should creat new money Willy nilly. But increasing the money supply is required for a growing economy. Sometimes increasing the money supply so that the currency loses value is helpful, such as for increasing exports. Business doesn't have any way of doing that.
perhaps government is more akin to a charity, or non profit.
at any rate, Kushner shows is incompetence here, as does his father in law. Neither seem to understand government. Trump declares that nobody knew that health care reform was so hard. Well, it seems that everyone but him knew that already.
Normally I agree with you but I think you are way off base here. You are right that government isn't a business but wrong on most other aspects of your post. First Efficiency is an absolute requirement in government, otherwise you end up. with thousands sucking up tax dollars with no drive at all to deliver a good service.
As a country one of the biggest problems we have right now is Government spending more money than it is taking in on taxes. Right now we are in hock to a massive amount to countries we shouldn't even be having relationships with. China is just one example. massive spending by government, especially with the attendant debt has caused many countries to fail. Those failures have lead to tragedy for the customers in those countries.
The ability of government to create money is limited. This is well known so I don't know why you think that is a positive. In any event the "money supply" is a bit different than creating more money.
Well the last thing I'd want to see is a government that thinks it is a charity. I'm very cautious with my charity dollars because frankly most of them are self serving scams. I'd rather see a government that sees us as customers and thus are afraid of loosing those customers. In many cases though the business / customer relationship is very obvious, the FCC is one example where you are basically paying the FCC for its spectrum management services (amongst other things the FCC does). The same thing can be said of the taxes you pay on tires and gasoline that are there (supposedly) to maintain the roads and bridges you drive upon. You are in effect a customer of the interstate system and locally the counties road maintenance services. As a customer you have a right to demand that those services correct problems related to the things they manage. If you aren't a customer then what are you? I ask in all seriousness because many seem to want to go back to the times of old when we where nothing but serfs to be governed, not free at all.
Actually health care isn't that hard, we just don't have the balls to dress it. Here is the simple solution:
Stop giving heath services to people that don't work! Seriously let them die. I've never understood the need some people have to help the lazy.
Regulate the cost of drugs. 500% over the cost of manufacture should be plenty.
Focus on the young, not people with one foot in the grave already. Yeah that sucks for old people but you had your chance to lead your life. Over my 55 years I've seen far too many young people die from disease, yet we spend m(B)illions on people too old to be useful anymore. This may sound cruel but everybody here will eventually die.
Stop all support in insurance programs for elective surgery. That means anything from a face lift to sex reassignment. These are a burden one the rest of us from the vain and mentally ill.
Speaking of mentally ill. Lock them up. This is another grief that liberalism has foisted upon us, there is no reason to let the dangerous roam the streets speaking to themselves. Insane asylums (cold, dark and scary) where one of the smartest ways to handle these people and frankly we need to go back to treating the mentally ill correctly. As such we need to also stop all production of drugs to treat the mentally ill as it is proven waste.
More importantly for the mentally ill that have murdered or otherwise created massive harm to society, we need a constitutional amendment supporting the execution of such people. There is no redemption for these people and frankly you can never trust them so why keep them around? Sounds excessive, consider how many extremely violent crimes have bene committed but the mentally ill lately. Just implementing this would reduce how medial and prison burdens substantially. Plus claiming "hey I was nuts" becomes counter productive for the average criminal
Health care is simple, but the problem is nobody wants to admit they are human and will eventually die no matter what.
Oh boy, and I thought Attila the Hun was too far to the right. You are one heartless dude. But I expect that from the right.
Well, this just shows why business people should never hold the reigns of power. They have no idea what government is. Government is not a business. Efficiency is nice, but not required for a government. A government doesn't need to show a profit.
While businesses need to have a budget that breaks even, at worst, for a long time, and at best, show a profit, a government needs to do work for its people that can exceed the taxes taken in for a long time, something that would break most businesses. The difference is that while businesses can't create money, government can. That doesn't mean that governments should creat new money Willy nilly. But increasing the money supply is required for a growing economy. Sometimes increasing the money supply so that the currency loses value is helpful, such as for increasing exports. Business doesn't have any way of doing that.
perhaps government is more akin to a charity, or non profit.
at any rate, Kushner shows is incompetence here, as does his father in law. Neither seem to understand government. Trump declares that nobody knew that health care reform was so hard. Well, it seems that everyone but him knew that already.
"Efficiency is not required of the government"? What planet did you come off. I guess you like the government paying $5,000 for a toilet seat for example? Of course government needs to be efficient. It's precisely what's wrong and why we are in so much debt. It's also what is wrong with our medical system. I also applaud Trump with what he is doing in reaching out.
Government is never efficient. That's not its mandate. I agree that vast deficits are bad. But right now, weare still stuck with those vast expenses the last conservative government of Bush left us with, and the huge expenses needed to get us out of the Great Recession he left us with.
Any chance Tim will advise him that the ACA is a massive tangle of garbage and it should be immediately killed like a Santeria chicken?
I hope you're being facetious. The ACA is very successful. It's not perfect. No complex legislation ever is. It would be working better if Republicans hadn't refused to fund the other $3.4 billion intended for the exchanges. Then health insurance companies wouldn't have dropped out. But then, republicans have never wanted universal health care. They regard that as a privelage, not a right, as it should be.
we can look at the crap they just tried to foist on us. That bill had no support at all. Not from doctors, who rail against socialized medicine because they're afraid their overpriced services will be cut back. Not the nurses groups. Not AARP. Not the drug companies. Not hospitals. Not health care providers, etc.
the only reason for that bills existence was to give huge tax cuts to those earning over $1 million a year, which was written into the bill. To pay for those cuts, 24 million Americans would lose their health care, premiums would go up 15-20% the first year alone. Minimum payments would increase. Drugs would cost more. Essential services such as maternal care, yearly wellness visits, and pre-existing conditions would be stripped away. The so called "Freedom Caucus", which I think of as the "Rich White Man's Steal Money Back From The Middle Class and Poor People's Caucus", didn't agree to vote for it because it didn't steal enough from most people.
OK, enough of your BS Mel. Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege. Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens? You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????
Well, what's your solution for what every civilized society believes is a right? Health problems of every type is one of the major holdbacks to productivity. That alone costs vast sums of money, and sucks it out of our GDP. So even if you do t care about people, that alone makes it a need.
in the Constitution? That's not needed. It just needs to be written into a bill.
what do you have against sick people?
Nice copout: try making your case instead of asking more questions. I stated: Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege.
My side of the argument is easy: the Constitution enumerates rights, and rights that are abstract. Products and services simply do not fall into that category. Another way to think of it is that strictly speaking, you can't put a price tag on a right.
Please don't stereotype me and other conservatives with having something against sick people (or poor people, minorities, etc.). What I want is a level playing field for every American citizen and that the government get out of the way as much as possible. Having the government involved in health care is a sure fire way to make it as inefficient as possible, and it's why our healthcare costs are bad now, and only getting worse. The regulations on healthcare are causing a horribly bloated bureaucracy, both within the government and within the insurance and care-giving companies (hospitals, clinics, etc.) that continues to make health care more expensive for everyone, and it needs to stop.
OK, enough of your BS Mel. Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege. Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens? You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????
It is sort of written into the Constitution. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." If you don't have health, there is no pursuit of happiness. That said, it shouldn't really apply to people with a three foot wide arse who can't stop shoving food down their pie hole.
The phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" does not appear in the Constitution, it appears in the Declaration of Independence.
The closest phrasing that appears in the Constitution is, probably, found in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
That said, the right to heath care likely is contemplated by some provisions of the U.S. Constitution (e.g., the Privileges and Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 1 of Section 2 of Article IV, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 2 of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and the 9th and 10th Amendments). U.S. citizens no doubt have a constitutional right to health care. But having a constitutional right to something is not the same as having a constitutional right to have it provided to you by the government. For the most part, the former means that the government can't prohibit you from having something or from doing something. It doesn't mean the government has to give you something or do something for you.
The constitutional right to freely exercise your religion doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bible or build a church for you. The right to keep arms doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with an arm. The right to speak freely doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bullhorn or a printing press. There are, at least as the Constitution has been interpreted, some exceptions based on particular circumstances. But I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that the rights guarantees in the Constitution contemplated a right to be provided, by the government, with health care.
Whether government should provide health care (or health care coverage) to everyone is a separate consideration, of course.
Well then, being denied health care because of its unaffordability could be considered to be "depriving" a citizen of life.
Not in the context of the due process clauses, it couldn't. Those clauses relate to what governments may not do. The government may not deprive you of life - e.g., it can't execute you - without due process of law. It also can't take your property or imprison you without due process, at least it isn't supposed to.
That's not the same as the government having an affirmative duty to make sure you don't die. The due process clauses don't create such a duty. Other provisions may, to some extent and in some limited contexts. We may also (and have) decide(d) that the government should, to the extent reasonably possible and in some contexts, try to prevent people from dying. But such efforts aren't what the due process clauses require. Indeed, to some extent those clauses compromise various governments' abilities to protect us from threats to our lives. That's a trade off we've made in order to have certain protections against undesired government actions.
Any chance Tim will advise him that the ACA is a massive tangle of garbage and it should be immediately killed like a Santeria chicken?
I hope you're being facetious. The ACA is very successful. It's not perfect. No complex legislation ever is. It would be working better if Republicans hadn't refused to fund the other $3.4 billion intended for the exchanges. Then health insurance companies wouldn't have dropped out. But then, republicans have never wanted universal health care. They regard that as a privelage, not a right, as it should be.
we can look at the crap they just tried to foist on us. That bill had no support at all. Not from doctors, who rail against socialized medicine because they're afraid their overpriced services will be cut back. Not the nurses groups. Not AARP. Not the drug companies. Not hospitals. Not health care providers, etc.
the only reason for that bills existence was to give huge tax cuts to those earning over $1 million a year, which was written into the bill. To pay for those cuts, 24 million Americans would lose their health care, premiums would go up 15-20% the first year alone. Minimum payments would increase. Drugs would cost more. Essential services such as maternal care, yearly wellness visits, and pre-existing conditions would be stripped away. The so called "Freedom Caucus", which I think of as the "Rich White Man's Steal Money Back From The Middle Class and Poor People's Caucus", didn't agree to vote for it because it didn't steal enough from most people.
OK, enough of your BS Mel. Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege. Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens? You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????
Well, what's your solution for what every civilized society believes is a right? Health problems of every type is one of the major holdbacks to productivity. That alone costs vast sums of money, and sucks it out of our GDP. So even if you do t care about people, that alone makes it a need.
in the Constitution? That's not needed. It just needs to be written into a bill.
what do you have against sick people?
Nice copout: try making your case instead of asking more questions. I stated: Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege.
My side of the argument is easy: the Constitution enumerates rights, and rights that are abstract. Products and services simply do not fall into that category. Another way to think of it is that strictly speaking, you can't put a price tag on a right.
Please don't stereotype me and other conservatives with having something against sick people (or poor people, minorities, etc.). What I want is a level playing field for every American citizen and that the government get out of the way as much as possible. Having the government involved in health care is a sure fire way to make it as inefficient as possible, and it's why our healthcare costs are bad now, and only getting worse. The regulations on healthcare are causing a horribly bloated bureaucracy, both within the government and within the insurance and care-giving companies (hospitals, clinics, etc.) that continues to make health care more expensive for everyone, and it needs to stop.
From everything I see, I don't agree that conservativse want a level playing field for everyone, just the opposite. They want to go to a Malthusian society where it's everyone for themselves.
i'm appalled when someone says: "Seriously let them die."
in that supposed health care bill republicans had, it gave a massive tax cut to those earning over $1 million a year. How is that a level playing field? Take health care away from dozens of millions of people, and give massive tax cuts to those who don't really need it.
its interesting that this bill wasn't supported by any groups, and that includes these who normally would be expected to do so.
the Constitution also has specific points. Not everything there is abstract. Even when it is, it can, and has been interpreted differently over the past 200+ years. What meant one thing 100 years ago means something different now, because the Constitution was particularly intended to work that way. If society, as a whole, agrees that universal health care is a right, then it will be interpreted that way, and indeed the conservative Supreme Court stated that it was Constitutional. And that's supposed to make it so, until, and unless society changes again. But a minority shouldn't force their rules and laws upon everyone, and the vast majority of the country feel that the ACA is proper.
Any chance Tim will advise him that the ACA is a massive tangle of garbage and it should be immediately killed like a Santeria chicken?
I hope you're being facetious. The ACA is very successful. It's not perfect. No complex legislation ever is. It would be working better if Republicans hadn't refused to fund the other $3.4 billion intended for the exchanges. Then health insurance companies wouldn't have dropped out. But then, republicans have never wanted universal health care. They regard that as a privelage, not a right, as it should be.
we can look at the crap they just tried to foist on us. That bill had no support at all. Not from doctors, who rail against socialized medicine because they're afraid their overpriced services will be cut back. Not the nurses groups. Not AARP. Not the drug companies. Not hospitals. Not health care providers, etc.
the only reason for that bills existence was to give huge tax cuts to those earning over $1 million a year, which was written into the bill. To pay for those cuts, 24 million Americans would lose their health care, premiums would go up 15-20% the first year alone. Minimum payments would increase. Drugs would cost more. Essential services such as maternal care, yearly wellness visits, and pre-existing conditions would be stripped away. The so called "Freedom Caucus", which I think of as the "Rich White Man's Steal Money Back From The Middle Class and Poor People's Caucus", didn't agree to vote for it because it didn't steal enough from most people.
We agree on many things, but we are never going to see eye to eye on this one. Until the day the American people agree that the Federal government should be fundamentally involved in healthcare to the point that they demand a constitutional amendment, there is absolutely no justification for such an intrusion on markets and services and there is especially no legal justification whatsoever to force people to buy a product. That's clearly unconstitutional.
That's not true though. The government can do this. Even the conservative Supreme Court voted that it was constitutional. If that's not good enough for a conservative, then nothing is.
Although I disagree with massive entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, those particular slices of the taxpayer money pie were added to the Social Security Act, for better or worse. The individual mandate in the ACA clearly was unconstitutional (forcing people to buy a product against their will is a violation of the Tenth Amendment). Now that the ObamaCare Tax has been essentially neutered/declawed, it can collapse under the weight of its own horrible design.
Any chance Tim will advise him that the ACA is a massive tangle of garbage and it should be immediately killed like a Santeria chicken?
I hope you're being facetious. The ACA is very successful. It's not perfect. No complex legislation ever is. It would be working better if Republicans hadn't refused to fund the other $3.4 billion intended for the exchanges. Then health insurance companies wouldn't have dropped out. But then, republicans have never wanted universal health care. They regard that as a privelage, not a right, as it should be.
we can look at the crap they just tried to foist on us. That bill had no support at all. Not from doctors, who rail against socialized medicine because they're afraid their overpriced services will be cut back. Not the nurses groups. Not AARP. Not the drug companies. Not hospitals. Not health care providers, etc.
the only reason for that bills existence was to give huge tax cuts to those earning over $1 million a year, which was written into the bill. To pay for those cuts, 24 million Americans would lose their health care, premiums would go up 15-20% the first year alone. Minimum payments would increase. Drugs would cost more. Essential services such as maternal care, yearly wellness visits, and pre-existing conditions would be stripped away. The so called "Freedom Caucus", which I think of as the "Rich White Man's Steal Money Back From The Middle Class and Poor People's Caucus", didn't agree to vote for it because it didn't steal enough from most people.
OK, enough of your BS Mel. Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege. Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens? You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????
Well, what's your solution for what every civilized society believes is a right? Health problems of every type is one of the major holdbacks to productivity. That alone costs vast sums of money, and sucks it out of our GDP. So even if you do t care about people, that alone makes it a need.
in the Constitution? That's not needed. It just needs to be written into a bill.
what do you have against sick people?
Nice copout: try making your case instead of asking more questions. I stated: Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege.
My side of the argument is easy: the Constitution enumerates rights, and rights that are abstract. Products and services simply do not fall into that category. Another way to think of it is that strictly speaking, you can't put a price tag on a right.
Please don't stereotype me and other conservatives with having something against sick people (or poor people, minorities, etc.). What I want is a level playing field for every American citizen and that the government get out of the way as much as possible. Having the government involved in health care is a sure fire way to make it as inefficient as possible, and it's why our healthcare costs are bad now, and only getting worse. The regulations on healthcare are causing a horribly bloated bureaucracy, both within the government and within the insurance and care-giving companies (hospitals, clinics, etc.) that continues to make health care more expensive for everyone, and it needs to stop.
From everything I see, I don't agree that conservativse want a level playing field for everyone, just the opposite. They want to go to a Malthusian society where it's everyone for themselves.
i'm appalled when someone says: "Seriously let them die."
in that supposed health care bill republicans had, it gave a massive tax cut to those earning over $1 million a year. How is that a level playing field? Take health care away from dozens of millions of people, and give massive tax cuts to those who don't really need it.
its interesting that this bill wasn't supported by any groups, and that includes these who normally would be expected to do so.
the Constitution also has specific points. Not everything there is abstract. Even when it is, it can, and has been interpreted differently over the past 200+ years. What meant one thing 100 years ago means something different now, because the Constitution was particularly intended to work that way. If society, as a whole, agrees that universal health care is a right, then it will be interpreted that way, and indeed the conservative Supreme Court stated that it was Constitutional. And that's supposed to make it so, until, and unless society changes again. But a minority shouldn't force their rules and laws upon everyone, and the vast majority of the country feel that the ACA is proper.
—I can't speak for anyone who claims they are a "conservative", then goes on to support the "popular" portions of the ACA. The President and the Speaker of the House were both just plain wrong to do that. The entire ACA needs to be repealed first and they are playing political games.
—The US needs to move to a flat tax or FairTax system and get rid of the IRS.
Tim: Please advise Trump to to resign his current government internship and go back to the hospitality industry that he came from.
What a terrible thing to say.
The response of Liberal Democrats - who lost one election after eight years - is an embarrassment to American history.
You've decided Trump's failure of a President as soon as the votes were in. Want' someone to blame? Your "Madam President" wannabe that failed you all. Miserably.
Mean, horrible, judging, exclusive bigots. The irony? All of the things you're supposedly against, and blame conservatives for.
Comments
Love the picture. From left to right - OM!
Peace be with you!
But that aside, what the administration clearly wants, is to make America a great place for companies and business. That in itself is a positive motivation. And I'm glad the list contains people of dignity and with their heart in the right place, with clearly a much better understanding of people and the community than who is currently running the USA company.
I suppose it wouldn't be this bad if the disagreements were on boring percentage points, interest rates, dollar amounts...you know...actual politics.
But no, the extreme left has turned politics into a miasma of disgraceful social positions that threaten all moral sanity of the world.
the fact is that over 22 million people signed up. Yes, it's true that it's hard to convince young people to sign up for insurance. That's why the penalties for not signing up. Millennial pay more taxes that the very wealthy, as a percentage of their income
bernie's plan would cost far more. The republicans would have never voted for that. The republican "plan" if that's what it can be called, takes insurance away for tens of millions of people. That's the worst plan I've ever seen
in the Constitution? That's not needed. It just needs to be written into a bill.
what do you have against sick people?
That's not true though. The government can do this. Even the conservative Supreme Court voted that it was constitutional. If that's not good enough for a conservative, then nothing is.
Well then, being denied health care because of its unaffordability could be considered to be "depriving" a citizen of life.
What you're saying is totally untrue. I was a mod here for years. We try to keep as many comments in the discussion as possible. But if a comment is out of bounds, as some are, then they could get deleted. Out of bounds doesn't mean unpopular. It's means that it's stated in a way that that's insulting or disparaging in some way. Usually strongly so.
we have political discussions, and it's encouraged. But, there are threads where it's not suitable, and so, sometimes it may be deleted. It has nothing to do with political viewpoint.
trump reaching out? Who is he reaching out to?
Nice copout: try making your case instead of asking more questions. I stated: Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege.
My side of the argument is easy: the Constitution enumerates rights, and rights that are abstract. Products and services simply do not fall into that category. Another way to think of it is that strictly speaking, you can't put a price tag on a right.
Please don't stereotype me and other conservatives with having something against sick people (or poor people, minorities, etc.). What I want is a level playing field for every American citizen and that the government get out of the way as much as possible. Having the government involved in health care is a sure fire way to make it as inefficient as possible, and it's why our healthcare costs are bad now, and only getting worse. The regulations on healthcare are causing a horribly bloated bureaucracy, both within the government and within the insurance and care-giving companies (hospitals, clinics, etc.) that continues to make health care more expensive for everyone, and it needs to stop.
That's not the same as the government having an affirmative duty to make sure you don't die. The due process clauses don't create such a duty. Other provisions may, to some extent and in some limited contexts. We may also (and have) decide(d) that the government should, to the extent reasonably possible and in some contexts, try to prevent people from dying. But such efforts aren't what the due process clauses require. Indeed, to some extent those clauses compromise various governments' abilities to protect us from threats to our lives. That's a trade off we've made in order to have certain protections against undesired government actions.
i'm appalled when someone says: "Seriously let them die."
in that supposed health care bill republicans had, it gave a massive tax cut to those earning over $1 million a year. How is that a level playing field? Take health care away from dozens of millions of people, and give massive tax cuts to those who don't really need it.
its interesting that this bill wasn't supported by any groups, and that includes these who normally would be expected to do so.
the Constitution also has specific points. Not everything there is abstract. Even when it is, it can, and has been interpreted differently over the past 200+ years. What meant one thing 100 years ago means something different now, because the Constitution was particularly intended to work that way. If society, as a whole, agrees that universal health care is a right, then it will be interpreted that way, and indeed the conservative Supreme Court stated that it was Constitutional. And that's supposed to make it so, until, and unless society changes again. But a minority shouldn't force their rules and laws upon everyone, and the vast majority of the country feel that the ACA is proper.
—I can't speak for anyone who claims they are a "conservative", then goes on to support the "popular" portions of the ACA. The President and the Speaker of the House were both just plain wrong to do that. The entire ACA needs to be repealed first and they are playing political games.
—The US needs to move to a flat tax or FairTax system and get rid of the IRS.
The response of Liberal Democrats - who lost one election after eight years - is an embarrassment to American history.
You've decided Trump's failure of a President as soon as the votes were in. Want' someone to blame? Your "Madam President" wannabe that failed you all. Miserably.
Mean, horrible, judging, exclusive bigots. The irony? All of the things you're supposedly against, and blame conservatives for.