No need to worry about Americans without health insurance

[BasicGreatGuy]

Gold,
You have agreed that healthcare is not a right. As such, that means that the feds have no business trying to do what they are doing with the proposed legislation correct? Hence, we need to be about rebuking the federal wannabe involvement, and allowing the respective states to take charge as they see fit.

You can't argue both sides, which is what you appear to be doing.

 

[KittenKoder]

Gold,
You have agreed that healthcare is not a right. As such, that means that the feds have no business trying to do what they are doing with the proposed legislation correct? Hence, we need to be about rebuking the federal wannabe involvement, and allowing the respective states to take charge as they see fit.

You can't argue both sides, which is what you appear to be doing.

Actually, a skilled debater can take any side of an argument.

 

[goldcatt]

Gold,
You have agreed that healthcare is not a right. As such, that means that the feds have no business trying to do what they are doing with the proposed legislation correct? Hence, we need to be about rebuking the federal wannabe involvement, and allowing the respective states to take charge as they see fit.

You can't argue both sides, which is what you appear to be doing.

How so?

I'm saying I'm a pragmatist, I'm not looking at this ideologically. I want to see results. I don't care which "side" they come from. I just don't see more than one solution being offered, and that is in itself a problem. The best ideas are formed from debate.
And you know where I stand on the constitutional argument. The Fed has the right to do it. That doesn't necessarily mean doing it is right, the devil is always in the details.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

O.K. here's the think we can treat the indigent at GREAT expense in E.R.s or we can TREAT them before they become FATALLY ILL at a FRCTION of the cost.

 

[goldcatt]

You can come back now, T! Just don't get him all riled up again.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Seems like a pretty simple equation.

 

[KittenKoder]

O.K. here's the think we can treat the indigent at GREAT expense in E.R.s or we can TREAT them before they become FATALLY ILL at a FRCTION of the cost.

Or they can stop being lazy and get Medicaid like anyone who can't afford medical coverage.

 

[goldcatt]

Seems like a pretty simple equation.

I agree with you there, Cold. This shouldn't be rocket science. Look at all the things we can do. Just the fact that we're here, talkign to each other right now is an amazing feat. But we can't figure out how to make health care less expensive? I don't buy it. I know there have to be people out there on both "sides" with all kinds of ideas. I want to see them. It's that simple.

 

[Diuretic]

Seems like a pretty simple equation.

I agree with you there, Cold. This shouldn't be rocket science. Look at all the things we can do. Just the fact that we're here, talkign to each other right now is an amazing feat. But we can't figure out how to make health care less expensive? I don't buy it. I know there have to be people out there on both "sides" with all kinds of ideas. I want to see them. It's that simple.

The problem is that vested interests have been able to marshal opposition to heath care reform by appealing to ideology. You want an effective propaganda campaign don't pursue a rational, cognitive-based approach, go for the belief system.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Gold,
You have agreed that healthcare is not a right. As such, that means that the feds have no business trying to do what they are doing with the proposed legislation correct? Hence, we need to be about rebuking the federal wannabe involvement, and allowing the respective states to take charge as they see fit.

You can't argue both sides, which is what you appear to be doing.

How so?

I'm saying I'm a pragmatist, I'm not looking at this ideologically. I want to see results. I don't care which "side" they come from. I just don't see more than one solution being offered, and that is in itself a problem. The best ideas are formed from debate.
And you know where I stand on the constitutional argument. The Fed has the right to do it. That doesn't necessarily mean doing it is right, the devil is always in the details.

How do you arrive at the conclusion the federal government has a right to do it?

 

[goldcatt]

Gold,
You have agreed that healthcare is not a right. As such, that means that the feds have no business trying to do what they are doing with the proposed legislation correct? Hence, we need to be about rebuking the federal wannabe involvement, and allowing the respective states to take charge as they see fit.

You can't argue both sides, which is what you appear to be doing.

How so?

I'm saying I'm a pragmatist, I'm not looking at this ideologically. I want to see results. I don't care which "side" they come from. I just don't see more than one solution being offered, and that is in itself a problem. The best ideas are formed from debate.
And you know where I stand on the constitutional argument. The Fed has the right to do it. That doesn't necessarily mean doing it is right, the devil is always in the details.

How do you arrive at the conclusion the federal government has a right to do it?

To do what, exactly? Define "it", please.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

How so?

I'm saying I'm a pragmatist, I'm not looking at this ideologically. I want to see results. I don't care which "side" they come from. I just don't see more than one solution being offered, and that is in itself a problem. The best ideas are formed from debate.
And you know where I stand on the constitutional argument. The Fed has the right to do it. That doesn't necessarily mean doing it is right, the devil is always in the details.

How do you arrive at the conclusion the federal government has a right to do it?

To do what, exactly? Define "it", please.

You are the one that used the phrase. I was responding to your own words.

 

[goldcatt]

How do you arrive at the conclusion the federal government has a right to do it?

To do what, exactly? Define "it", please.

You are the one that used the phrase. I was responding to your own words.

Got me there.
OK, they have the right to be involved in regulating health care and/or to subsidize private insurance (as they do in the mandate for SCHIP) or offer public coverage (as they do in medicare and the VA). That would be commerce as the main rationale.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

To do what, exactly? Define "it", please.

You are the one that used the phrase. I was responding to your own words.

Got me there.
OK, they have the right to be involved in regulating health care and/or to subsidize private insurance (as they do in the mandate for SCHIP) or offer public coverage (as they do in medicare and the VA). That would be commerce as the main rationale.

Where exactly in Article 1 do we find the duty of Congress to subsidize a program that they don't have power under Article 1 to regulate in the first place? If it truly was a rightful power of Congress, there would be no subsidy. It would be paid in full through the feds.

The purpose of the commerce clause was to keep the respective states from passing unfair and uniformed tariffs amongst each other, not for the feds to usurp power by calling anything they want to do as falling under commerce of the Republic.

 

[goldcatt]

You are the one that used the phrase. I was responding to your own words.

Got me there.
OK, they have the right to be involved in regulating health care and/or to subsidize private insurance (as they do in the mandate for SCHIP) or offer public coverage (as they do in medicare and the VA). That would be commerce as the main rationale.

Where exactly in Article 1 do we find the duty of Congress to subsidize a program that they don't have power under Article 1 to regulate in the first place? If it truly was a rightful power of Congress, there would be no subsidy. It would be paid in full through the feds.
The purpose of the commerce clause was to keep the respective states from passing unfair and uniformed tariffs amongst each other, not for the feds to usurp power by calling anything they want to do as falling under commerce of the Republic.

That's a policy decision, not the result of Congress having a power.
As for the commerce clause I'll agree it is currently read too broadly. But my disagreement with current law makes it no less real, binding or applicable to an industry generating billions each year across state lines.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Got me there.
OK, they have the right to be involved in regulating health care and/or to subsidize private insurance (as they do in the mandate for SCHIP) or offer public coverage (as they do in medicare and the VA). That would be commerce as the main rationale.

Where exactly in Article 1 do we find the duty of Congress to subsidize a program that they don't have power under Article 1 to regulate in the first place? If it truly was a rightful power of Congress, there would be no subsidy. It would be paid in full through the feds.
The purpose of the commerce clause was to keep the respective states from passing unfair and uniformed tariffs amongst each other, not for the feds to usurp power by calling anything they want to do as falling under commerce of the Republic.

That's a policy decision, not the result of Congress having a power.
As for the commerce clause I'll agree it is currently read too broadly. But my disagreement with current law makes it no less real, binding or applicable to an industry generating billions each year across state lines.

To sum up your retort, you acknowledge that Congress does not actually have the right to do so per the Constitution. Even so, you assert that they should, because the clause has been 'liberally' interpreted for decades, and lots of money is cross state lines that the feds could seize for themselves, in the way of taxes etc. What a scam.

For someone claiming to be a pragmatist, you are all over the place.

 

[goldcatt]

Where exactly in Article 1 do we find the duty of Congress to subsidize a program that they don't have power under Article 1 to regulate in the first place? If it truly was a rightful power of Congress, there would be no subsidy. It would be paid in full through the feds.
The purpose of the commerce clause was to keep the respective states from passing unfair and uniformed tariffs amongst each other, not for the feds to usurp power by calling anything they want to do as falling under commerce of the Republic.

That's a policy decision, not the result of Congress having a power.
As for the commerce clause I'll agree it is currently read too broadly. But my disagreement with current law makes it no less real, binding or applicable to an industry generating billions each year across state lines.

To sum up your retort, you acknowledge that Congress does not actually have the right to do so per the Constitution. Even so, you assert that they should, because the clause has been 'liberally' interpreted for decades, and lots of money is cross state lines that the feds could seize for themselves, in the way of taxes etc. What a scam.

For someone claiming to be a pragmatist, you are all over the place.

No, I'm saying under current standards, Congress can regulate, subsidize, provide, etc. That's the way it is.
I'm not sure I've explained my position here. Yes, I believe the commerce clause is currently read too broadly. However, the words as written give Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several States. That means, they can regulate industries that cross State lines. I do not agree with some of the other powers that have been derived from the clause, but I'm thinking those are not applicable here.
If the Framers didn't intend it to be read as such, they should have been more specific in their wording. Even they were susceptible to unintended consequences, my friend.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

That's a policy decision, not the result of Congress having a power.
As for the commerce clause I'll agree it is currently read too broadly. But my disagreement with current law makes it no less real, binding or applicable to an industry generating billions each year across state lines.

To sum up your retort, you acknowledge that Congress does not actually have the right to do so per the Constitution. Even so, you assert that they should, because the clause has been 'liberally' interpreted for decades, and lots of money is cross state lines that the feds could seize for themselves, in the way of taxes etc. What a scam.

For someone claiming to be a pragmatist, you are all over the place.

No, I'm saying under current standards, Congress can regulate, subsidize, provide, etc. That's the way it is.
I'm not sure I've explained my position here. Yes, I believe the commerce clause is currently read too broadly. However, the words as written give Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several States. That means, they can regulate industries that cross State lines. I do not agree with some of the other powers that have been derived from the clause, but I'm thinking those are not applicable here.
If the Framers didn't intend it to be read as such, they should have been more specific in their wording. Even they were susceptible to unintended consequences, my friend.

You tell me no, and then go on to state what I just did to you, in not so many words.

As you well know, when there is question as to what a section and clause mean, legislative intent is used.

Face it Counselor. Your position (such as it is) is not as clearcut and dogmatic as you first espoused.

 

[goldcatt]

To sum up your retort, you acknowledge that Congress does not actually have the right to do so per the Constitution. Even so, you assert that they should, because the clause has been 'liberally' interpreted for decades, and lots of money is cross state lines that the feds could seize for themselves, in the way of taxes etc. What a scam.

For someone claiming to be a pragmatist, you are all over the place.

No, I'm saying under current standards, Congress can regulate, subsidize, provide, etc. That's the way it is.
I'm not sure I've explained my position here. Yes, I believe the commerce clause is currently read too broadly. However, the words as written give Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several States. That means, they can regulate industries that cross State lines. I do not agree with some of the other powers that have been derived from the clause, but I'm thinking those are not applicable here.
If the Framers didn't intend it to be read as such, they should have been more specific in their wording. Even they were susceptible to unintended consequences, my friend.

You tell me no, and then go on to state what I just did to you, in not so many words.

As you well know, when there is question as to what a section and clause mean, legislative intent is used.

Face it Counselor. Your position (such as it is) is not as clearcut and dogmatic as you first espoused.

Legislative intent? What legislature?
Your particular brand of interpretation may look to original intent as the arbiter of meaning, but yours is only one of many.
And no, I am generally not dogmatic. Dogma is for sissies who can't think for themselves.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

No, I'm saying under current standards, Congress can regulate, subsidize, provide, etc. That's the way it is.
I'm not sure I've explained my position here. Yes, I believe the commerce clause is currently read too broadly. However, the words as written give Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several States. That means, they can regulate industries that cross State lines. I do not agree with some of the other powers that have been derived from the clause, but I'm thinking those are not applicable here.
If the Framers didn't intend it to be read as such, they should have been more specific in their wording. Even they were susceptible to unintended consequences, my friend.

You tell me no, and then go on to state what I just did to you, in not so many words.

As you well know, when there is question as to what a section and clause mean, legislative intent is used.

Face it Counselor. Your position (such as it is) is not as clearcut and dogmatic as you first espoused.

Legislative intent? What legislature?
Your particular brand of interpretation may look to original intent as the arbiter of meaning, but yours is only one of many.
And no, I am generally not dogmatic. Dogma is for sissies who can't think for themselves. [/QUOTE]

As to sissies...you are the one that wears skirts and dresses Counselor, not me.

And dogmatic does not actually mean what you tried to pass off just now.

* Main Entry: dog·mat·ic
* Pronunciation: \dȯg-ˈma-tik, däg-\
* Variant(s): also dog·mat·i·cal \-ti-kəl\
* Function: adjective
* Date: 1660

1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts <a dogmatic critic>
2 : of or relating to dogma
synonyms see dictatorial

— dog·mat·i·cal·ly \-ti-k(&#601;-)l&#275;\ adverb

— dog·mat·i·cal·ness \-ti-k&#601;l-n&#601;s\ noun


Being distracted has gotten the best of you tonight Counselor.