Deal or no deal? Repeal or no repeal?

[daveman]

Btw, like your rightwing brethren on here, you seem to be incapable of explaining just how we're giving away our freedoms with the legislation recently passed.

It's really quite simple: You no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to have health insurance. If you don't purchase it, you get fined.

Get it now? If you want to give your freedom away, fine. More fool you. But don't think for a minute you have the authority to give mine away as well.

That's weak.

Weak to you, perhaps. But not everyone needs the government to change their nappy and powder their bottom. People can make their own decisions. It's the height of hubris to claim they can't, and that you're better qualified than they are to run their lives.

In other worlds, who the **** do you think you are?

 

[Greenbeard]

It's really quite simple: You no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to have health insurance. If you don't purchase it, you get fined.

A few months back the following suggestion was offered:

But Congress could address this problem more directly. The law could give people a right to opt out of the mandate if they signed a form agreeing that they could not opt in for the following five years. In other words, instead of paying a fine, they would forgo a potential benefit. For five years they would become ineligible for federal subsidies for health insurance and, if they did buy coverage, no insurer would have to cover a pre-existing condition of theirs.

The idea for this opt-out comes from an analogous provision in Germany, which has a small sector of private insurance in addition to a much larger state insurance system. Only some Germans are eligible to opt for private insurance, but if they make that choice, the law prevents them from getting back at will into the public system. That deters opportunistic switches in and out of the public funds, and it helps to prevent the private insurers from cherry-picking healthy people and driving up insurance costs in the public sector.​

This avoids the problem the mandate is designed to address: people being able to game the insurance system by opting out until they need insurance, at which point they enter an insurance pool but face no discrimination for the pre-existing condition they've developed. Would such a model be acceptable to you? You get your choice back but don't have the option of passing your costs onto the rest of us in the process.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's really quite simple: You no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to have health insurance. If you don't purchase it, you get fined.

Get it now? If you want to give your freedom away, fine. More fool you. But don't think for a minute you have the authority to give mine away as well.

That's weak.

Weak to you, perhaps. But not everyone needs the government to change their nappy and powder their bottom. People can make their own decisions. It's the height of hubris to claim they can't, and that you're better qualified than they are to run their lives.

In other worlds, who the **** do you think you are?

The majority acting within in the framework of a Constitutional Republic, the laws of which in this matter do not infringe on your inalienable rights. In other words, daveman, you are not an island alone.

 

[EriktheRed]

It's really quite simple: You no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to have health insurance. If you don't purchase it, you get fined.

Get it now? If you want to give your freedom away, fine. More fool you. But don't think for a minute you have the authority to give mine away as well.

That's weak.

Weak to you, perhaps. But not everyone needs the government to change their nappy and powder their bottom. People can make their own decisions. It's the height of hubris to claim they can't, and that you're better qualified than they are to run their lives.

In other worlds, who the **** do you think you are?

I think I'm a citizen who wants to see a certain policy go a certain way because I think it's in the country's long-term interest and I voted for people to implement.


And as far as your other answer goes, again I say it's weak and it's not the first time I've read it on here. You guys can't seem to come up with anything better. Many years ago laws were passed to mandate drivers buying auto insurance because it was deemed in the public's best interest for every driver to be insured. Despite that added mandatory cost to drive, we didn't become some Soviet-style gulag state. Nor have other countries that have adopted health systems more public than what just passed.


A lot of opponents to the bill - like this guy Marc Rubio in Florida - say they support the provision to end pre-existing conditions, but still are against the mandatory part, which is just plain stupid. The economics of having a reg against pre-existing conditions doesn't work unless you have a large pool to work from and you need to make the insurance mandatory for that to happen.

And as for this part...

Weak to you, perhaps. But not everyone needs the government to change their nappy and powder their bottom. People can make their own decisions. It's the height of hubris to claim they can't, and that you're better qualified than they are to run their lives

...you can characterise it how you want, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Got a feeling your view is gonna be the minority, if it isn't already.

 

[daveman]

It's really quite simple: You no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to have health insurance. If you don't purchase it, you get fined.

A few months back the following suggestion was offered:

But Congress could address this problem more directly. The law could give people a right to opt out of the mandate if they signed a form agreeing that they could not opt in for the following five years. In other words, instead of paying a fine, they would forgo a potential benefit. For five years they would become ineligible for federal subsidies for health insurance and, if they did buy coverage, no insurer would have to cover a pre-existing condition of theirs.

The idea for this opt-out comes from an analogous provision in Germany, which has a small sector of private insurance in addition to a much larger state insurance system. Only some Germans are eligible to opt for private insurance, but if they make that choice, the law prevents them from getting back at will into the public system. That deters opportunistic switches in and out of the public funds, and it helps to prevent the private insurers from cherry-picking healthy people and driving up insurance costs in the public sector.​

This avoids the problem the mandate is designed to address: people being able to game the insurance system by opting out until they need insurance, at which point they enter an insurance pool but face no discrimination for the pre-existing condition they've developed. Would such a model be acceptable to you? You get your choice back but don't have the option of passing your costs onto the rest of us in the process.

No, that's not acceptable to me, because the government has no business in health care to begin with.

 

[daveman]

That's weak.

Weak to you, perhaps. But not everyone needs the government to change their nappy and powder their bottom. People can make their own decisions. It's the height of hubris to claim they can't, and that you're better qualified than they are to run their lives.

In other worlds, who the **** do you think you are?

The majority acting within in the framework of a Constitutional Republic, the laws of which in this matter do not infringe on your inalienable rights. In other words, daveman, you are not an island alone.

Ahhh, but that does infringe on my rights. I have to purchase something I may not want to...or face a penalty from the government. I would call that "unreasonable search and seizure".

As for the majority, obviously you haven't seen the polls lately. More Americans want this POS law repealed than want to keep it. Are you ready to accede to their wishes?

 

[Greenbeard]

No, that's not acceptable to me, because the government has no business in health care to begin with.

I assume you mean the federal government. Which presumably means they should tax health insurance benefits as income, end tax-privileged HSAs, end financial assistance to states to cover children and the poor, repeal EMTALA so that no facility is obligated to give emergency treatment without first checking ability to pay (I suppose they can try and resuscitate you long enough to get your credit card information, although I suppose you'll need a family member present to attest to your income and assets level), etc.

 

[daveman]

I think I'm a citizen who wants to see a certain policy go a certain way because I think it's in the country's long-term interest and I voted for people to implement.

Thanks for ******* up my country.

And as far as your other answer goes, again I say it's weak and it's not the first time I've read it on here. You guys can't seem to come up with anything better. Many years ago laws were passed to mandate drivers buying auto insurance because it was deemed in the public's best interest for every driver to be insured. Despite that added mandatory cost to drive, we didn't become some Soviet-style gulag state. Nor have other countries that have adopted health systems more public than what just passed.

It's not at all surprising that the Constitution means so little to you.

A lot of opponents to the bill - like this guy Marc Rubio in Florida - say they support the provision to end pre-existing conditions, but still are against the mandatory part, which is just plain stupid. The economics of having a reg against pre-existing conditions doesn't work unless you have a large pool to work from and you need to make the insurance mandatory for that to happen.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

You want that, move to any of the socialist shitholes. You know why they're shitholes? because they're socialist.

Meanwhile, quit being generous with other people's money and freedom.

And as for this part...

...you can characterise it how you want, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Got a feeling your view is gonna be the minority, if it isn't already.

We'll see, won't we? I expect the law will be found unconstitutional...the Republican majority coming up won't even have to try to repeal it.

 

[Greenbeard]

We'll see, won't we? I expect the law will be found unconstitutional...the Republican majority coming up won't even have to try to repeal it.

I was under the impression you think the individual mandate is unconstitutional. You actually think every piece of the law is unconstitutional and that the entire thing will be struck down instead of just that provision?

 

[EriktheRed]

As for the majority, obviously you haven't seen the polls lately. More Americans want this POS law repealed than want to keep it. Are you ready to accede to their wishes?

That's debatable. There's been some evidence lately that the public is starting to accept the legislation.

AP-GfK poll: Public thumbs up for Obama health law - Yahoo! News

Verdict on Healthcare Reform Bill Still Divided

 

[daveman]

No, that's not acceptable to me, because the government has no business in health care to begin with.

I assume you mean the federal government. Which presumably means they should tax health insurance benefits as income, end tax-privileged HSAs, end financial assistance to states to cover children and the poor, repeal EMTALA so that no facility is obligated to give emergency treatment without first checking ability to pay (I suppose they can try and resuscitate you long enough to get your credit card information, although I suppose you'll need a family member present to attest to your income and assets level), etc.

You're right. Unfortunately, the government has grown far past what it was intended to be.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been about 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

Thanks to you and people like you, we are squarely in the middle of the dependence phase.

 

[daveman]

We'll see, won't we? I expect the law will be found unconstitutional...the Republican majority coming up won't even have to try to repeal it.

I was under the impression you think the individual mandate is unconstitutional. You actually think every piece of the law is unconstitutional and that the entire thing will be struck down instead of just that provision?

It's entirely possible. The law also gives sweeping powers to the IRS.

That's always a bad thing.

 

[daveman]

As for the majority, obviously you haven't seen the polls lately. More Americans want this POS law repealed than want to keep it. Are you ready to accede to their wishes?

That's debatable. There's been some evidence lately that the public is starting to accept the legislation.

AP-GfK poll: Public thumbs up for Obama health law - Yahoo! News

Verdict on Healthcare Reform Bill Still Divided

The poll that matters most, of course, is in November.

 

[Greenbeard]

We'll see, won't we? I expect the law will be found unconstitutional...the Republican majority coming up won't even have to try to repeal it.

I was under the impression you think the individual mandate is unconstitutional. You actually think every piece of the law is unconstitutional and that the entire thing will be struck down instead of just that provision?

It's entirely possible. The law also gives sweeping powers to the IRS.

That's always a bad thing.

I'm sensing an inability here to distinguish between "undesirable policy outcome" and "unconstitutional."

 

[AmericanFirst]

This is too funny...


You actually think they have the votes to repeal the Healthcare Bill?

You guys tried that one before and got your heads handed to you. Better question.....are Republicans willing to run in 2010 on repealing healthcare?

Better think about that one

I think that would be a good platform since most Americans think the healthcare bill was the wrong thing to do anyway, oh yeah, and nothing but another big dimwit lie!!!

 

[EriktheRed]

I think I'm a citizen who wants to see a certain policy go a certain way because I think it's in the country's long-term interest and I voted for people to implement.

Thanks for ******* up my country.

Sorry, it's mine, too. I even served in the Armed Forces for it.

And as far as your other answer goes, again I say it's weak and it's not the first time I've read it on here. You guys can't seem to come up with anything better. Many years ago laws were passed to mandate drivers buying auto insurance because it was deemed in the public's best interest for every driver to be insured. Despite that added mandatory cost to drive, we didn't become some Soviet-style gulag state. Nor have other countries that have adopted health systems more public than what just passed.

It's not at all surprising that the Constitution means so little to you.

It means plenty. It also doesn't prohibit this kind of legislation just because guys like you don't like it.

A lot of opponents to the bill - like this guy Marc Rubio in Florida - say they support the provision to end pre-existing conditions, but still are against the mandatory part, which is just plain stupid. The economics of having a reg against pre-existing conditions doesn't work unless you have a large pool to work from and you need to make the insurance mandatory for that to happen.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Blah, blah, blah...call me comrade while you're at it. I really don't give a shit.

You want that, move to any of the socialist shitholes. You know why they're shitholes? because they're socialist.

Meanwhile, quit being generous with other people's money and freedom.

Last I looked the US government is run by people who are more in line with my views, at least at the moment. IOW, why don't you find some shithole of your own to go to. I'm gonna stay right here, thank you.

And as for this part...

...you can characterise it how you want, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Got a feeling your view is gonna be the minority, if it isn't already.

We'll see, won't we? I expect the law will be found unconstitutional...the Republican majority coming up won't even have to try to repeal it.

Kinda doubt that, but as you said, we'll see.

 

[daveman]

I was under the impression you think the individual mandate is unconstitutional. You actually think every piece of the law is unconstitutional and that the entire thing will be struck down instead of just that provision?

It's entirely possible. The law also gives sweeping powers to the IRS.

That's always a bad thing.

I'm sensing an inability here to distinguish between "undesirable policy outcome" and "unconstitutional."

You sense wrong. But then, given your views, that's understandable.

 

[daveman]

Sorry, it's mine, too. I even served in the Armed Forces for it.

Sincerely -- thank you for your service.

It means plenty. It also doesn't prohibit this kind of legislation just because guys like you don't like it.

No, it prohibits this kind of legislation because it doesn't allow it.

Blah, blah, blah...call me comrade while you're at it. I really don't give a shit.

I expect you're used to it.

Last I looked the US government is run by people who are more in line with my views, at least at the moment.

That illustrates the difference between us: You want to be a subject of the government. I think the government is supposed to work for us.

IOW, why don't you find some shithole of your own to go to. I'm gonna stay right here, thank you.

As I said elsewhere, it's funny watching people who loathed government under the GOP display this slavish adoration for it now.

Kinda doubt that, but as you said, we'll see.

We will indeed. Will you be worshiping government this way when your team is no longer in charge?

Somehow -- I doubt it.

 

[Greenbeard]

No, it prohibits this kind of legislation because it doesn't allow it.

To repeat: commerce-taxation-necessary and proper.

As I said elsewhere, it's funny watching people who loathed government under the GOP display this slavish adoration for it now.

You may not be aware of this, but most of this program is going to be run at the state level (just as our health care system is primarily under state jurisdiction right now). States will continue to run their Medicaid programs and they will run the new health insurance exchanges. Many states are governed by Republicans. I've spoken with Republican appointees running Medicaid programs in Republican states and found them to be perfectly nice, generally competent people. As long as competent public servants are selected to administer programs, party affiliation isn't all that important. Plenty of Republican states are doing great things with health care right now. And they should be proud of that.

 

[Polk]

2. Even if we had been at war, that still doesn't invalidate the legal argument.

I'm not sure why, but daveman seems to be arguing for a circumstantial interpretation of the Constitution--if conditions justify X, then we can let it slide. Which is a bit odd because I'm not sure how that squares with "If you can find justification to support your agenda in there, somewhere, no matter how convoluted or outright fabricated, there's simply no way to argue against that."

That's always the argument the right uses (under the misleading/dishonest name of "original intent").