More Obamacare fuckups

[Latrinsorm]

The point here is the "slippery slope" that I know you think doesn't exist...

I'll break it down real simple-like...

It doesn't matter what the current government allows, or wants, or approves of. The point is control. If you give the government the power to control, you're setting yourself up to follow that to its indeterminable end. When the government you want is in place, that's a good thing for you...when the next government comes along, it's not going to be good for you.

Only by standing closely to our Constitutional Rights...and nothing more, or less...are we able to avoid both extremes. I know we started this whole project hundreds of years before any of us were born, and it's really hard for someone born this late in the project to grasp the global scenario going on when all this took off, or a lot of the reasons why we have the things we have...but it is all there if you actually care enough to spend a little time researching.

It is really hard. Let's ask the author of the Constitution what his explicit thoughts on implied powers are. "It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the tatter. ... The whole turn of the [necessary and proper clause] indicates, that it was the intent of the Convention, by that clause, to give a liberal latitude to the exercise of the specified powers."

But Mr. Hamilton, it's a slippery slope!! Oh, you explicitly addressed that too? "To be implied in the nature of the federal government, says he, would beget a doctrine so indefinite as to grasp every power. ... To this objection an answer has been already given. ... The affirming that, as incident to sovereign power, Congress may erect a corporation in relation to the collection of their taxes, is no more to affirm that they may do whatever else they please, than the saying that they have a power to regulate trade, would be to affirm that they have a power to regulate religion."

The point I think Tg was trying to make is, the huge Women's Lib/anti-abortion movement wants government out of their lives when telling them they can't have abortions...but wants them IN their lives to tell employers they have to pay for such. On the face that seems like a conflict of interest, and it is. It goes back to what I said before...either you give them control or you don't. Instead of lobbying for new laws that give whatever government more power, start lobbying for limiting power back to the 1800's.

We have only ever enjoyed rights when they are protected by the government. The movement you describe wants their rights protected by the government and wants their rights protected by the government, thus there is no conflict. The active ingredient is not government involvement, but external interference. When that takes the form of laws, they say "keep your laws off my body". When that takes the form of employer discrimination, they say "vive l'Obamacare". The only way there would be a conflict of interest is if the pro-abortion movement demanded that the government forced people to have abortions.

Government isn't a computer. It's not a ground-breaking laser treatment for cancer. At its core, it's based in logic, and nothing more...logic that is timeless. It is one of the few things where new isn't always better. Quit trying to change it and focus more on using it the way it was intended.

The phrase is not "we have discovered these truths via syllogism", the phrase is "we hold these truths to be self-evident". The words therefore and thus never occur in the Constitution. You keep using the word logic, but I do not think it means what you think it means. Our government is explicitly based on premises, not conclusions, which is why it is explicitly based on discarding those premises when we deem them inferior.

Correct. The former should only be necessary in the most dire of circumstances, and the latter should only be necessary never.

This is another difference between you and the framers: they were realists when it comes to government power. This is not because they were any smarter than you, it's merely because they happened to live through a limited federal government and the catastrophic failure that immediately resulted.

[Jarvan]

I'll refer you to what I told Thondalar. When you're performing a logical fallacy why are you so unwilling to believe that you might be the one who has the wrong take? Why do you believe that any of your made up or real provisions are going to effect people not on the ACA?

"Because Obama is the Great Satan!" isn't valid reasoning for your answer.

Sorry.. got you here. I worked for an Insurance company, Aetna. Know how they determine if a product or service is ok, or considered experimental? If the Government covers it for medicaid or medicare, if the AMA considers it normal to do, and if it is approved by the FDA.

So yes.. the Government saying that "Yearly" physicals are not needed yearly... will be updated in medicaid, and medicare. Once that is done, eventually insurance companies will start changing the plans to reflect this.. that is if HHS doesn't outright CHANGE the requirements of the plans themselves. Remember... ~NO~ plan can be sold that does not meet their requirement. Granted, a plan can offer MORE. But what low budget plan is going to offer MORE then what they have to? And what is the plan most of the people that can't afford healthcare any other way get? The Budget plans.

Thank you. Try again.

And you must have a HUGE Oxygen tank... to have kept your head up there so long.

[Thondalar]

I have a degree in economics, and I look at budget stuff regularly. (federal infrastructure spending drives part of my company's revenue, so I pay attention to it) It's been pretty clear that the thing driving the federal budget deficit up on a long term basis is health care spending, since it's inflation rate is much higher than normal inflation. Bending its cost curve down to more manageable levels will bring the deficit under control on a long term basis.

What you're saying is true, what you're not realizing you're saying is that the only way these things will work with each other, from an economic standpoint, is death panels. Go ahead and joke about it, but it's 3) in your original post. WTF do you think it means by "most cost-effective"? It means guess what, buddy...you've paid in to this Federally-mandated Insurance program only to find out that now that you have terminal cancer you're a drain on the program and we're not going to fund your potentially life-saving treatment because you're probably going to die anyway and we're not going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a 15% chance. Crb is dead-on with his post...what this created is the insurance form of crony capitalism.

[Thondalar]

I'd just like us to spend less money on healthcare. The rest is your projections. It's fine.

I'd like to spend less money on food. Hell, I'd like to spend less money on everything.

If you're worried about how much we spend on healthcare, why not look at the available models being used in other countries that have cheaper and better healthcare?

Oh, because they don't fit your preconceived notions of what the system should be.

[Warriorbird]

I'd like to spend less money on food. Hell, I'd like to spend less money on everything.

If you're worried about how much we spend on healthcare, why not look at the available models being used in other countries that have cheaper and better healthcare?

Oh, because they don't fit your preconceived notions of what the system should be.

I have. I'd love to use them. Why don't you, your party, and your actual party look at them? Oh right. This is Mitt Romney's plan that he carefully edited out of his book.

[Thondalar]

It is really hard. Let's ask the author of the Constitution what his explicit thoughts on implied powers are. "It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the tatter. ... The whole turn of the [necessary and proper clause] indicates, that it was the intent of the Convention, by that clause, to give a liberal latitude to the exercise of the specified powers."

But Mr. Hamilton, it's a slippery slope!! Oh, you explicitly addressed that too? "To be implied in the nature of the federal government, says he, would beget a doctrine so indefinite as to grasp every power. ... To this objection an answer has been already given. ... The affirming that, as incident to sovereign power, Congress may erect a corporation in relation to the collection of their taxes, is no more to affirm that they may do whatever else they please, than the saying that they have a power to regulate trade, would be to affirm that they have a power to regulate religion."

Is this even...real? Latrin, sorry for asking, but...are you drunk? Typos and misquotes and random interjections aren't your normal bag, I'm a bit concerned, as a friend.

We have only ever enjoyed rights when they are protected by the government.

Source?

The movement you describe wants their rights protected by the government and wants their rights protected by the government, thus there is no conflict.

Here's the issue with your total lack of comprehension. What rights are those, exactly? The right to kill people because they don't fit your definition of what a person is? Look...I'm all for abortion. I get tags every year to hunt deer, because deer aren't smart enough to monitor their own population, and breed indiscriminately. I would like to think that humans are smart enough to do what deer don't, but apparently we aren't. I support abortion from a scientific standpoint, because I'm ultimately a psychopath and don't attach any moral or religious stigma to the taking of a life in and of itself. I also recognize the scientific fact that, if not for outside intervention, a fertilized seed will eventually become a human, barring the relatively slim chances of various natural medical impedance.

The active ingredient is not government involvement, but external interference. When that takes the form of laws, they say "keep your laws off my body". When that takes the form of employer discrimination, they say "vive l'Obamacare".

Except that it's not "keep your laws off my body", it's "make laws about my body that others have to follow because I benefit more from it". I'm sure you're intelligent enough to see the distinction, and follow it to it's logical conclusion.

The only way there would be a conflict of interest is if the pro-abortion movement demanded that the government forced people to have abortions.

Really? You don't think forcing me to pay for someone else's abortion is a conflict of interest?

The phrase is not "we have discovered these truths via syllogism", the phrase is "we hold these truths to be self-evident". The words therefore and thus never occur in the Constitution. You keep using the word logic, but I do not think it means what you think it means. Our government is explicitly based on premises, not conclusions, which is why it is explicitly based on discarding those premises when we deem them inferior.

Indeed...and what truths did they hold to be self-evident?

This is another difference between you and the framers: they were realists when it comes to government power. This is not because they were any smarter than you, it's merely because they happened to live through a limited federal government and the catastrophic failure that immediately resulted.

Wait wait...the English Crown was a limited federal government? Wow, man. I...I must say, Latrin, for the first time ever you've struck me speechless.

[Warriorbird]

Wait wait...the English Crown was a limited federal government? Wow, man. I...I must say, Latrin, for the first time ever you've struck me speechless.

Articles. The Libertarian dreamland that wasn't.

[Thondalar]

I have. I'd love to use them. Why don't you, your party, and your actual party look at them? Oh right. This is Mitt Romney's plan that he carefully edited out of his book.

Lol...what? That didn't even make sense, man. Come on.

[Thondalar]

Articles. The Libertarian dreamland that wasn't.

Keep ignoring positive discourse by clinging to past ignorance. I'm rooting for you.

[Warriorbird]

Keep ignoring positive discourse by clinging to past ignorance. I'm rooting for you.

I'm not ignoring anything. The Articles were awful. We've been through this. You just didn't want to hear it.

Lol...what? That didn't even make sense, man. Come on.

I would love to have any one of a number of alternate plans. ACA could've been much better but Obama gave away most of its value in a year of fruitless negotiations with Republicans. He shouldn't have been so naive. American conservatives don't want successful reform.

Now wacky reactionary nonsense will be proposed, Obama will veto it, Democrats will actually undeservedly look good, and it'll eventually work to give Congress back.