Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[shikaki]

Fixed? Listening to the sycophants on this board, you'd think it was the best **** Tax ever instituted.

Not sucking up, just cautiously optimistic. It hasn't had to time to be proven the worst one yet.

 

[PMZ]

Everybody's rights are protected by the Bill of Rights. Specific limits to federal government that have always been maintained. For everyone.

The Bill of Rights has been largely neutralized, especially via disregard for the ninth and tenth amendments.

The only way to define the will of the people is democratically. Majority decision making.

Agreed.

In today's world, minorities are represented as special interests. Most of us think that their interests are over represented in today's government.

Sad but very true. Corporatism turns the foundations of liberal democracy inside out, replacing universal, individual rights with group rights and special interest politics. Rule of law is subverted and the regulatory regime ensures that everybody gets a different deal, depending on how much political influence they can bring to bear. That's clearly the direction of "today's world" and I think it's a dreadful mistake.

Anyway, I'd like to return to your claim that my views represent tyranny. I'm not sure what you base this on. I'm not an anarchist, nor am I opposed to majority rule. You seem to be equating principles of limited government with tyranny, which seems almost Orwellian to me.

My opinion is that while democracy, rule by majority, is not flawless, it's the best government possible. Because if you empower fewer people than democracy, a minority, it has to be determined which minority to empower. In the extreme case a minority could be one person. A dictator.

The basis of democracy is that mischief starts small and grows. If the power to hire and fire representatives is based on a majority, that is the greatest protection possible to prevent a nefarious movement from gathering power in government.

I personally don't think that there is any better example of this principle than the recent rise and fall of conservatism. It's fundamentally a propaganda based cult product of 24/7/365 Republican propaganda. As powerful a force as we've encountered.

Yet it has been defeated by majority rule.

 

[dblack]

Everybody's rights are protected by the Bill of Rights. Specific limits to federal government that have always been maintained. For everyone.

The Bill of Rights has been largely neutralized, especially via disregard for the ninth and tenth amendments.



Agreed.

In today's world, minorities are represented as special interests. Most of us think that their interests are over represented in today's government.

Sad but very true. Corporatism turns the foundations of liberal democracy inside out, replacing universal, individual rights with group rights and special interest politics. Rule of law is subverted and the regulatory regime ensures that everybody gets a different deal, depending on how much political influence they can bring to bear. That's clearly the direction of "today's world" and I think it's a dreadful mistake.

Anyway, I'd like to return to your claim that my views represent tyranny. I'm not sure what you base this on. I'm not an anarchist, nor am I opposed to majority rule. You seem to be equating principles of limited government with tyranny, which seems almost Orwellian to me.

My opinion is that while democracy, rule by majority, is not flawless, it's the best government possible. Because if you empower fewer people than democracy, a minority, it has to be determined which minority to empower. In the extreme case a minority could be one person. A dictator.

The basis of democracy is that mischief starts small and grows. If the power to hire and fire representatives is based on a majority, that is the greatest protection possible to prevent a nefarious movement from gathering power in government.

I personally don't think that there is any better example of this principle than the recent rise and fall of conservatism. It's fundamentally a propaganda based cult product of 24/7/365 Republican propaganda. As powerful a force as we've encountered.

Yet it has been defeated by majority rule.

Ok, but that doesn't really explain why you're accusing me of supporting 'tyranny'. I'm not disputing that majority rule is better than minority rule. I'm simply saying that government power, regardless of how decisions are made, should be constrained to specific means and purposes.

 

[Bern80]

Everybody's rights are protected by the Bill of Rights. Specific limits to federal government that have always been maintained. For everyone.

The Bill of Rights has been largely neutralized, especially via disregard for the ninth and tenth amendments.



Agreed.

In today's world, minorities are represented as special interests. Most of us think that their interests are over represented in today's government.

Sad but very true. Corporatism turns the foundations of liberal democracy inside out, replacing universal, individual rights with group rights and special interest politics. Rule of law is subverted and the regulatory regime ensures that everybody gets a different deal, depending on how much political influence they can bring to bear. That's clearly the direction of "today's world" and I think it's a dreadful mistake.

Anyway, I'd like to return to your claim that my views represent tyranny. I'm not sure what you base this on. I'm not an anarchist, nor am I opposed to majority rule. You seem to be equating principles of limited government with tyranny, which seems almost Orwellian to me.

My opinion is that while democracy, rule by majority, is not flawless, it's the best government possible. Because if you empower fewer people than democracy, a minority, it has to be determined which minority to empower. In the extreme case a minority could be one person. A dictator.

The basis of democracy is that mischief starts small and grows. If the power to hire and fire representatives is based on a majority, that is the greatest protection possible to prevent a nefarious movement from gathering power in government.

I personally don't think that there is any better example of this principle than the recent rise and fall of conservatism. It's fundamentally a propaganda based cult product of 24/7/365 Republican propaganda. As powerful a force as we've encountered.

Yet it has been defeated by majority rule.

That's really just a matter of one's perspective and bias. One could just as easily state that the propaganda of liberalism has won the day by majority rule. It's not hard to see why liberalism is more appealing to people. It's the government version of the easy button. Most liberal policies absolve people of personal responsibilites. This is certainly reflected in Obamacare. Who wouldn't want that?

 

[PMZ]

The Bill of Rights has been largely neutralized, especially via disregard for the ninth and tenth amendments.



Agreed.



Sad but very true. Corporatism turns the foundations of liberal democracy inside out, replacing universal, individual rights with group rights and special interest politics. Rule of law is subverted and the regulatory regime ensures that everybody gets a different deal, depending on how much political influence they can bring to bear. That's clearly the direction of "today's world" and I think it's a dreadful mistake.

Anyway, I'd like to return to your claim that my views represent tyranny. I'm not sure what you base this on. I'm not an anarchist, nor am I opposed to majority rule. You seem to be equating principles of limited government with tyranny, which seems almost Orwellian to me.

My opinion is that while democracy, rule by majority, is not flawless, it's the best government possible. Because if you empower fewer people than democracy, a minority, it has to be determined which minority to empower. In the extreme case a minority could be one person. A dictator.

The basis of democracy is that mischief starts small and grows. If the power to hire and fire representatives is based on a majority, that is the greatest protection possible to prevent a nefarious movement from gathering power in government.

I personally don't think that there is any better example of this principle than the recent rise and fall of conservatism. It's fundamentally a propaganda based cult product of 24/7/365 Republican propaganda. As powerful a force as we've encountered.

Yet it has been defeated by majority rule.

Ok, but that doesn't really explain why you're accusing me of supporting 'tyranny'. I'm not disputing that majority rule is better than minority rule. I'm simply saying that government power, regardless of how decisions are made, should be constrained to specific means and purposes.

It is. The Constitution.

 

[Hoffstra]

16 peeps say it can be fixed.

8 say it cant.

 

[dblack]

My opinion is that while democracy, rule by majority, is not flawless, it's the best government possible. Because if you empower fewer people than democracy, a minority, it has to be determined which minority to empower. In the extreme case a minority could be one person. A dictator.

The basis of democracy is that mischief starts small and grows. If the power to hire and fire representatives is based on a majority, that is the greatest protection possible to prevent a nefarious movement from gathering power in government.

I personally don't think that there is any better example of this principle than the recent rise and fall of conservatism. It's fundamentally a propaganda based cult product of 24/7/365 Republican propaganda. As powerful a force as we've encountered.

Yet it has been defeated by majority rule.

Ok, but that doesn't really explain why you're accusing me of supporting 'tyranny'. I'm not disputing that majority rule is better than minority rule. I'm simply saying that government power, regardless of how decisions are made, should be constrained to specific means and purposes.

It is. The Constitution.

Alright. You seem to be giving up on the 'tyranny' claim.

 

[PMZ]

The Bill of Rights has been largely neutralized, especially via disregard for the ninth and tenth amendments.



Agreed.



Sad but very true. Corporatism turns the foundations of liberal democracy inside out, replacing universal, individual rights with group rights and special interest politics. Rule of law is subverted and the regulatory regime ensures that everybody gets a different deal, depending on how much political influence they can bring to bear. That's clearly the direction of "today's world" and I think it's a dreadful mistake.

Anyway, I'd like to return to your claim that my views represent tyranny. I'm not sure what you base this on. I'm not an anarchist, nor am I opposed to majority rule. You seem to be equating principles of limited government with tyranny, which seems almost Orwellian to me.

My opinion is that while democracy, rule by majority, is not flawless, it's the best government possible. Because if you empower fewer people than democracy, a minority, it has to be determined which minority to empower. In the extreme case a minority could be one person. A dictator.

The basis of democracy is that mischief starts small and grows. If the power to hire and fire representatives is based on a majority, that is the greatest protection possible to prevent a nefarious movement from gathering power in government.

I personally don't think that there is any better example of this principle than the recent rise and fall of conservatism. It's fundamentally a propaganda based cult product of 24/7/365 Republican propaganda. As powerful a force as we've encountered.

Yet it has been defeated by majority rule.

That's really just a matter of one's perspective and bias. One could just as easily state that the propaganda of liberalism has won the day by majority rule. It's not hard to see why liberalism is more appealing to people. It's the government version of the easy button. Most liberal policies absolve people of personal responsibilites. This is certainly reflected in Obamacare. Who wouldn't want that?

Liberalism has displaced conservatism primarily because conservatism in practice failed miserably. Look at the trajectory of the country under Bush policies. Look at the country under Obama's. Of course, in order to do that one has to turn off Fox and turn on news.

Conservatism failed because it's a completely self serving religion. It has no consideration for national issues. And national issues are what we have government for.

While it's just plain fun messing with conservative minds here, most of what's said is simple truth.

Fox is Republican 24/7/365 propaganda.

Government and business are complementary to each other.

We do have wealth inequality here that is extreme to the point of dysfunction.

We do have a mediocre health care non-system here that is a huge economic anchor and ACA is an effective first step in addressing it.

AGW is real and costly and the IPCC is the body of science that will empower politics to find the least expensive path by it.

The transition to fuel and waste free energy is necessary, and a very long and expensive project, and we've run out of time to waste.

These are all simple but inconvenient truths. The Fox propaganda obscures them. That's why it has and will fail. And why conservative politicians are nationally unelectable.

They earned the disrespect that they are shown daily by the American people.

 

[itfitzme]

But as you've so aptly pointed out, the above is not reality. A company that doesn't make a profit can't do business. Hips are actually sold for a few grand. And 2.3% on a few grand per hip a hospital purchases is not chump change. My brother only does hips. He travels to the same doctor 2-3 times per week for replacement procedures. You do the math. Why are we burdening hospitals with more unneccessary bearuacratic red tape and expenses when they already have enough overhead?

"A company that doesn't make a profit can't do business."

This is simply not factual. Most businesses do not make a profit. They pay salaries, they cover costs. They make no profit. Profit is not a requirement for a business. It is nice, it isn't required.

This doesn't even begin to approach the fact that the term "profit" means everything from $1 to $1,000,000,000,000,000.00 and beyond. It is pretty meaningless without quantification.

The whole idea of patent laws is to give an inventor time to see a profit, a return on his initial investment of time and money, before competition comes in and drives market profits to zero.

True. There are of course not for profit organizations. It is also true that most businesses are not profitable. What you left out of that is this typically results in the business failing. Your expenses can't exceed your revenue or you're simply not going to make it.

You seem to have some mistaken understanding of business finances and the meaning of terms. I have noy left out anything and if you studied the definitions I presented the it would be clear to you. Profit is in excess of all expences, the remaimder after expences have been met. So while your point of a business needing to meet expences is true, it is a complete nonsequiter given what we have been discussing. Sure expences cannot exceed revenue but this has nothing to do with taxes and profits.

There is some very poor understanding of business, micro, and macro economics floating about. I can see why our government is so poorly run whej so much of the voting public holds nonsense concepts.

The two most glaring is the simultaneous rules of business competition drives prices down to costs and companies must make a profit to survive. Not only are these two ideas fundamentally incorrect, they cannot even exist simultaneously. The issue that I see is a failure to think things through. Each "rule" gets evoked as a response at different times but are neber examined together.

 

[itfitzme]

Right, and 'giving a shit about others' is an utterly rational assessment. Obviously, anyone who doesn't endorse the coercive state doesn't 'give a shit about others'.



Good to know. I'll keep that in mind when considering your 'social context'.

There is no "coercive state". There is a democratic-republic, a cooperative state.

Nah... most all modern governments are coercive in nature. Ours certainly is.

Actually, giving a shit about others is a rational assessment. You will find that sociopath is the clinical term for an illness. It is also higher before the age of adulthood as the prefrontal cortex has not fully developed.

It is a rational behavior to have empathy for the people around us. Human beings are the ultimate pack animal and cooperation is the single greatest achievement in economic efficiency.

I have plenty of empathy for others. That's why I'm opposed to forcing my will (or yours) on them via government. Community and altruism flourish as voluntary acts, not as mandates.

Oh, bs... I am sure you "feel" like you have empathy. But when it comes down to actual action your "empathy" doesn't go any further than that you're perceiving others as like you and as long as there are no real costs.

You are mistaking narcissistic projection as empathy.

 

[PMZ]

Ok, but that doesn't really explain why you're accusing me of supporting 'tyranny'. I'm not disputing that majority rule is better than minority rule. I'm simply saying that government power, regardless of how decisions are made, should be constrained to specific means and purposes.

It is. The Constitution.

Alright. You seem to be giving up on the 'tyranny' claim.

I stated pretty clearly that minority rule is tyrannical. Do you disagree?

 

[dblack]

It is. The Constitution.

Alright. You seem to be giving up on the 'tyranny' claim.

I stated pretty clearly that minority rule is tyrannical. Do you disagree?

Not at all. You're dodging. I've never advocated for 'minority rule'. Put up or shut up.

 

[PMZ]

Alright. You seem to be giving up on the 'tyranny' claim.

I stated pretty clearly that minority rule is tyrannical. Do you disagree?

Not at all. You're dodging. I've never advocated for 'minority rule'. Put up or shut up.

Direct quote.

A government without laws and the ability to enforce them is called an anarchy.

A government with laws and the ability to enforce them that's directed by a majority of the people is called a democracy.

A government with laws and the ability to enforce them that's directed by a minority of the people is called a tyranny.

 

[itfitzme]

That’s the beauty of democracy. Government of, by, and for we, the people. What you're talking about is called tyranny.

Ummm how is a government not forcing people to do things considered tyranny?

That's what I'm wondering. Seems kinda inside out.

When you are a self centered sociopath, all laws seem tyranical. Very few adults find traffic laws tyranical though I have met a few that do.

The reality is that the economy and society doesn't function optimally unless everyone follows certain rules. As soon as someone cheats, the system collapses to some lesser equilibrium. It is why oil cartels consistently failed. As soon as one broke from the cartel and lowered prices, the rest are forced to. The concept is so basic and obvious that most of us cannot grasp why it is so mysterious to sociopaths. People in law enforcement deal with them all day long, people that feel like the government is oppressing them, forcing then to follow these tyranical laws. Most people have no problem with them, taxes, traffic laws, etc.

Most people see it as a democratic-republic where we are fine following the rukes like everyone else because it is more efficient. Sociopaths see it as a tryanny. Every discussion leaves the details behind and everything gets abstracted to this idea of a tyranny. It's a friggin mental problem.

 

[dblack]

There is no "coercive state". There is a democratic-republic, a cooperative state.

Nah... most all modern governments are coercive in nature. Ours certainly is.

Actually, giving a shit about others is a rational assessment. You will find that sociopath is the clinical term for an illness. It is also higher before the age of adulthood as the prefrontal cortex has not fully developed.

It is a rational behavior to have empathy for the people around us. Human beings are the ultimate pack animal and cooperation is the single greatest achievement in economic efficiency.

I have plenty of empathy for others. That's why I'm opposed to forcing my will (or yours) on them via government. Community and altruism flourish as voluntary acts, not as mandates.

That’s the beauty of democracy. Government of, by, and for we, the people. What you're talking about is called tyranny.

No, what I'm talking about is the opposite of tyranny.

 

[itfitzme]

Nah... most all modern governments are coercive in nature. Ours certainly is.



I have plenty of empathy for others. That's why I'm opposed to forcing my will (or yours) on them via government. Community and altruism flourish as voluntary acts, not as mandates.

That’s the beauty of democracy. Government of, by, and for we, the people. What you're talking about is called tyranny.

No, what I'm talking about is the opposite of tyranny.

You don't even have the level of intellectual objectivity to know what tyranny or it's opposite is. All you have managed to demonstrate is narcissistic projection.

 

[itfitzme]

It should be obvious that if one wants to discuss "Can Obamacare be Fixed?", the very least would be to

a) Go to https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/

b) Read the table of contents of http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...fdsys/pkg/BILLS.../pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf or https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text

The current Congressional hearings struck me as a bit stupid given that anyone can go to the website and find out directly. The other absurdity occurred to me when I thought about how much easier meetings at work always were by comparison to Congressional hearings. In one hour, we listed the problems, people took tasks, due dates were assigned, and we were done. My spouse nearly fell off the chair laughing at the comparison. The Congressional hearings are simply a joke.

As far as the healthcare market place is concerned, the first question is "what state are you in?" If you pick California, you are given the link to the California market place. If you pick Kansas, you are not sent to an official state marketplace because Kansas didn't create one.

So, whatever the issues might be with healthcare.gov, it is pretty meaningless as if you are complaining then your state governor and legislator had every opportunity to make one and didn't bother. If you are not willing to do the work, given the opportunity, then you really have no right to complain.

So here are some samples of the states that have their own site

Alabama No
Alaska No
Arizona No
Arkansas No
California Yes
Colorado Yes
Connecticut Yes
Delaware No
DC Yes
Florida No
Georgia No
Hawaii Yes
Idaho No
Illinois No
Indiana No
Iowa No
Kansas No
Kentucky Yes
Louisiana No
Maine No
Maryland Yes
Massachusetts Yes
Michigan No
Minnesota Yes
Mississippi Yes
Missouri No

So if you live in any of these states,

California,Colorado,Connecticut,DC,Hawaii,Kentucky,Maryland,Massachusetts,Minnesota,Mississippi

it simply isn't a problem because your state made the effort. And the odd thing, for all the conservative ranting about state rights and responsibilities, if they really meant it they would a) have made their own state site or b) not complained because they didn't want it anyways.

 

[PMZ]

There is no "coercive state". There is a democratic-republic, a cooperative state.

Nah... most all modern governments are coercive in nature. Ours certainly is.

Actually, giving a shit about others is a rational assessment. You will find that sociopath is the clinical term for an illness. It is also higher before the age of adulthood as the prefrontal cortex has not fully developed.

It is a rational behavior to have empathy for the people around us. Human beings are the ultimate pack animal and cooperation is the single greatest achievement in economic efficiency.

I have plenty of empathy for others. That's why I'm opposed to forcing my will (or yours) on them via government. Community and altruism flourish as voluntary acts, not as mandates.

Oh, bs... I am sure you "feel" like you have empathy. But when it comes down to actual action your "empathy" doesn't go any further than that you're perceiving others as like you and as long as there are no real costs.

You are mistaking narcissistic projection as empathy.

Basic to conservatives is the dream of being alone in the world and free of responsibility. They view other people as obstacles to overcome.

I think that it's a shame that it's not possible to give them their dream.

 

[itfitzme]

The most prolific misunderstanding by the economic narcissists is in the following incorrect rules.

a) All companies must make a profit
b) Competition drives prices down to costs.

Not only are the two completely wrong, they are incompatible with each other. Selling at cost is to realize no profits.

The reality is that where there are profits, it isn't a true free market system. The free market model says that where profits exists, competition is attracted until companies sell at cost. If to much competition is in the market, one or more fails until the remaining companies are able to meet costs. This is the most basic functionality of the free market system.

 

[dblack]

I have no idea what you two are going on about, but it has nothing to do with my views. And you've yet to show how limited government equates to tyranny. It is quite an elaborate strawman though. Please continue.