Q Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I'm not sure that it's in there, either, but, from what I've been hearing, it is why they've been so secretive about this bill's contents. If it's true, then this bill has little or nothing to do with providing affordable health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 From what I've heard, requiring health insurance isn't the part that is unconstitutional. What I've heard about is a specific clause that would make it impossible to repeal this bill once it's passed into law. HAHAHAHA What part of fantasyland did the Republicans come up with that notation? The same one that created the term “Death Panels”? They really need to start reading something other than Sarah Palin’s hand. It would be difficult to repeal, just as any law is, but that alone does not make it unconstitutional. Don’t these people even read enough history to know a Constitutional Amendment has been repealed? Or was that taken out of their textbooks? I suggest they look up the Eighteenth and Twenty-first Amendments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I hope you're right. If you aren't, then we're one step closer to the oligarchy that both parties crave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I'm not sure that it's in there, either, but, from what I've been hearing, it is why they've been so secretive about this bill's contents. There's absolutely nothing secretive about this bill since it's public record. All 1,017 pages of it. The link even has a search function so you can find (or not find, depending) what you're looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 If you say so. Are you sure it's not buried in 1,017 pages of legalese? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 So far all the arguments I’ve seen saying that it is unconstitutional have precedence and have been upheld in prior decisions. The forced purchase of auto insurance has been going on at the state level since the 1970’s. The argument, as I've heard it is that the federal govt doesn't have that power. States are another issue entirely. Also: It would be difficult to repeal, just as any law is, but that alone does not make it unconstitutional. Don’t these people even read enough history to know a Constitutional Amendment has been repealed? True enough. Anything legal can always be overturned by the proper party at a later date (SC decisions, executive orders and laws/amendments....possibly even the first 10 if a Constitutional Convention were convened). @TA--see above. @Liver-- If the claims that it includes a clause forbidding its repeal are true, I will be pretty pissed off, but I'll hold all bile and rage in check until I find out for certain if that's true. If true, that'd no doubt be rejected as currently unconstitutional. @Jae--states require car operators/drivers to carry insurance. No car? No insurance. Should be interesting to see exactly what the minimum level of insurance coverage mandated by the feds will become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 There's absolutely nothing secretive about this bill since it's public record. All 1,017 pages of it. The link even has a search function so you can find (or not find, depending) what you're looking for. Why should anyone one read it when it is so much more fun to say it is secret and make up what is in it? Plus it is a little too big to fit that on Palin's hand and there are multi-syllable words in it. @Jae--states require car operators/drivers to carry insurance. No car? No insurance.Same goes for this. If you are dead the insurance is not required. No health? No health insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Well, again, if the state wants to do that...... But seriously, spare the drivel about how this legislation is about helping "poor" people. It's nothing more than the govt wanting to increase it's power over everyone, veiled by claims of altruism and faux populism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Why should anyone one read it when it is so much more fun to say it is secret and make up what is in it? Plus it is a little too big to fit that on Palin's hand and there are multi-syllable words in it. Hey, I'm just repeating what I heard. No need to get all defensive and insulting while dropping Sarah Palin's name every other sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I don't really think I changed my mind. Did I? The impression I got was you were more for globalizing. Your attitude in general pointed more towards that we had to keep business going and this was the way to do that. I don't think isolationist and business going strong are mutually exclusive or whatever. Ok. Good, because they're not. Least so far as I know. We outsource all our jobs... which leads to bad business and a lacking economy. Isolationist would be more, we make our own stuff but don't sell or buy from anything outside our borders. Least that is how I define them *shrugs* If that to you is isolationist, then I never advocated that. Never once advocated we stop buying from other countries, just that (back in '08) as a strategic way we could roll out of the crash and get back up and running more quickly, we start making the jobs available in our country. The fundamentals of our economy is our people but they can't function if they don't have work to do. .....But I've derailed this thread enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Well, again, if the state wants to do that...... But seriously, spare the drivel about how this legislation is about helping "poor" people. It's nothing more than the govt wanting to increase it's power over everyone, veiled by claims of altruism and faux populism. Precisely, which makes it just as much of a lame excuse as national security was for the Republicans. This time it's conscience that's being exploited instead of fear. Disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 No need to get all defensive and insulting while dropping Sarah Palin's name every other sentence. I’m fighting fire with the same fire that is being dished out. I know that Palin isn’t relevant to the mainstream Republican party any more than Gore is relevant to the Democratic party, but that does not stop people from bringing him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Apparently, the only way to convince particular individuals that this bill is for the advancement of humanity and common social justice is to have Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Guru Nanak, Krishna, and Bahaullah to publicly endorse this bill. Otherwise, it's still a massive to enslave the American citizenry... by providing free, basic medical care? Truly, if this the reasoning of some, then this would place Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Columbia as more industrialized and modern than the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Apparently, the only way to convince particular individuals that this bill is for the advancement of humanity and common social justice is to have Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Guru Nanak, Krishna, and Bahaullah to publicly endorse this bill. Otherwise, it's still a massive to enslave the American citizenry... by providing free, basic medical care? Truly, if this the reasoning of some, then this would place Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Columbia as more industrialized and modern than the U.S. Providing "free" (it ain't free when financed by people's taxes) hc has nothing to do w/being either modern or industrialized. If providing "free" hc makes one beknighted and virtuous, then people like Castro are veritable saints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 If you say so. Are you sure it's not buried in 1,017 pages of legalese?There's a search function in the pdf if you want to go look for it. @Totenkopf--it's pretty sad when you get affordable health care in Cuba but not in the US, yes. We all pay for health care one way or another. We either pay for it through our taxes, or we pay through higher fees for insurance and higher costs at doctors and hospitals because they have to cover the costs of those who can't or won't pay. We also pay for the outrageous, ridiculous insurance company CEO's salaries while they cut people like my sister off so that their shareholders don't have a decrease in their revenues. At least with the costs spread out to everyone (since we all will likely utilize the health care system at some point), it makes it easier for everyone to get access to at least basic care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Providing "free" (it ain't free when financed by people's taxes) hc has nothing to do w/being either modern or industrialized.Sorry, but when nearly* every nation that resides on the HDI's list of "developed" states has a universal health care system, that's obviously an indicator that they're doing something right. Even when nations stacked at the very bottom, such as Pakistan, have UHC, that's obviously indicative of modernity where there is little. Guess who doesn't? If providing "free" hc makes one beknighted and virtuous, then people like Castro are veritable saints. So, by that logic, every individual who has championed humanity is to be compared with Stalin? Assuredly, alms-giving is nothing but a socialist rattrap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Guess who doesn't? guess who does, Iraq and Afghanistan paid for by U.S. tax payers. Guess it is something the Republicans would only wish on their enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I can't help but be suspicious. Regardless of who was in power, when was the last time that Congress did anything in the interests of the people? Be honest. Why is this time any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Sorry, but when nearly* every nation that resides on the HDI's list of "developed" states has a universal health care system, that's obviously an indicator that they're doing something right. Even when nations stacked at the very bottom, such as Pakistan, have UHC, that's obviously indicative of modernity where there is little. First, modern has nothing to do with whether a govt provides a "free" hc plan or not. It certainly has nothing to do with industrialization. You're correct to put "developed" in parenthesis, as that is little more than a judgement call, not empirical fact. Nice try, I guess.... Guess who doesn't? So, by that logic, every individual who has championed humanity is to be compared with Stalin? Assuredly, alms-giving is nothing but a socialist rattrap. Not remotely the point. State forced "alms-giving" (your term), though, is nothing but a socialist rattrap. Problem with the bill is that it was much more tortured and bloated than it needed to be, and if the goal was merely insurance reform, not a new govt entitlement program, all Big Govt had to do was write a reasonably simple bill that allowed insurance companies to compete (like auto insurance) across state lines and then to tell the insurance companies that they couldn't drop/exclude people b/c of preexisting conditions, etc.. As it is, we now have what is shaping up to be another byzantine fiscal nightmare. Nevermind the unwieldy bureaucracies and new IRS powers it will unfold and unleash. Or the fact that we are effectively broke. Guess it is something the Republicans would only wish on their enemy. Better them than us (though it should be on their dime and not ours). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 <brevity> Otherwise, it's still a massive to enslave the American citizenry... by providing free, basic medical care? Maybe not quite slavery, but a certain loathing of uncertainty while being beholden for what service/etc. is offered--sort of like writing a blank check. Truly, if this the reasoning of some, then this would place Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Columbia as more industrialized and modern than the U.S. Considering so many of our jobs have gone overseas and we are hurting for it...I suppose you could say that, in a certain manner of speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 @Jae--Well, basic may be about all the system will be able to afford, and even w/o insurance I can get that pretty cheaply as it is. Part of the reason health insurance is so damn expensive in some places is b/c of state allowed virtual monopolies. If NY and Jersey effectively had more than the 2-3 carriers or CA more than the 5-6, I'm guessing people wouldn't pay such ridiculous rates. Why people think govt sanctioned monopolies are acceptable, but not private ones, is mind boggling. Afterall, govt can regulate both and with the second it doesn't have a conflict of interest b/c it doesn't effectively own that system, it merely regulates it. Single payer, which is what many progressives and dems have openly admitted they're heading toward, will be govt run if (hopefully not when) we get it here. That said, I understand the sentiment that drives it in part b/c many/most people either have a friend/relative or know someone that has been in that situation. I just think it's misplaced faith in a bankrupt system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 First, modern has nothing to do with whether a govt provides a "free" hc plan or not. It certainly has nothing to do with industrialization.No, it does. The top 38 nations on the HDI are brimming with industrial output and contribute heavily to the global economy, while still providing their citizenry with more than adequate services and luxuries... hence the term "developed". Since ~97% of those developed nations provide UHC, then UHC would be deemed an attribute of a developed nation. Simple Boolean.You're correct to put "developed" in parenthesis, as that is little more than a judgement call, not empirical fact.It is subjective to extent, yes, but please look over the list and tell me that the top 38 nations aren't considered "developed" in any sense. <snip>This is nowhere close to being the perfect solution; far from it. There are still problems to be solved and discrepancies to be addressed. It will take years to get it "right", whatever "right" truly is, but for now, this bill is a step forward, albeit a shaky one. As far as larger government is concerned... tough. The government's power has waned and waxed over time, and will grow increasingly larger and smaller when the situation arises. So far, the U.S. hasn't deduced to an Orwellian autocracy, despite the ever-present fear and suspicion of some. I haven't worried yet, and I'm not going to worry in the future, franklyOr the fact that we are effectively broke.Yes, well, the US public has been in-debt since... well, forever, and I've never lost a pinch of sleep over it, so inherently, I don't really see the ginormous, eye-bulging problem at-hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 No it doesn't, b/c there are more than 38 nations in the world and apparently many nonindustrialized and poorer countries offer "free" hc. You're merely conflating the terms. Besides, your argument was "modern and industrialized", not "developed". Shifting goalposts? Developed is a subjective term that doesn't require a system to have govt run healthcare to meet the requirement. Of course, neither does "modern and industrialized" either, frankly. Frankly US debt was always manageable in the past b/c of its relative size to the economy. Just pray that foreiners feel we're to big to fail. As to govt size, if it shrinks and you don't get your percieved goodies in the end.....tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 As to govt size, if it shrinks... I don't think in the entire history of the US, the government has ever "shrunk", regardless of who's in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Not shrunk in the ways we would need it to, or want for that matter. Doesn't mean we stop trying to do it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.