Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Healthcare Anger (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  11  12  13   
Author Topic: Healthcare Anger
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Of course, I wonder how much they're blowing smoke over the fraction of their employee base is Medicaid eligible anyway, meaning that they're already offloading the costs to the state and wouldn't see any discouragement in that policy here.

Considering most of the companies taking the huge write-offs as a result of this reform were specifically mentioning medical benefits for their current employees and retirees I imagine a number of them are. Collecting retirement = not drawing as much income as they used to...
Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Yeah, I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to the skiers. It's also nonsense, the natural cost of service is whatever the supplier is willing to offer and the customer is willing to pay.
So say industries that "save" costs by dumping their waste into the water, making everyone pay more for water cleanup so they can drink it (never mind the extended ecological fallout)
Right, not wanting to force people to shoulder other people's health care costs is the same as siding with polluters. I've already said at least once that the government has the right and duty to protect its citizens from being harmed by their neighbors - it is, in fact, one of the two fundamental purposes of government (security, from both foreign and domestic threats, and justice). It has nothing to do with health care, or any other welfare program for that matter. If this is what you think passes for logic and moral reasoning, we're done on this subject. I'll see you and the rest of the ideology-blinded paternalistic elitist Autocrats at the polls come November. With some luck and an outbreak of good sense, maybe we'll be able to consign you all to the history books with the rest of the wanna-be slavers where you belong.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
==>"Since you've already been caught on this point, be careful about such absolutes."

Yeah, caught up in the moment, I guess, and confused today's Republicans with those of 40 years ago. Those dixiecrats are no longer Democrats, as Johnson knew would happen when he put forward the Civil Rights Act. Even the ever-defamed Nixon stood to the left of today's Republican Party. Can you imagine any leading Republican today saying what Nixon said in 1969 on Social Security:

==>Good afternoon:

A President signs many bills, but one that I signed today gave me special satisfaction because of the enormous impact it can have on the lives of millions of individual Americans.

I refer to the legislation known as H.R. 1–and especially to its provisions for helping, older Americans. Many of these provisions grew out of recommendations which I have been urging the Congress to act on for several years.

Let’s look at some of the things H.R. 1 will do:

First, nearly 4 million widows and widowers will get larger social security benefits–the full 100 percent of what was payable to the individual’s late husband or wife. This will mean more than $1 billion in additional income for these deserving people in the next fiscal year.

Second, over a million and a half older Americans who are now working can earn more income without having their benefits reduced...

===============
or on Medicare in 1974:

==>To the Congress of the United States:

One of the most cherished goals of our democracy is to assure every American an equal opportunity to lead a full and productive life.

In the last quarter century, we have made remarkable progress toward that goal, opening the doors to millions of our fellow countrymen who were seeking equal opportunities in education, jobs and voting.

Now it is time that we move forward again in still another critical area: health care.

Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.

Three years ago, I proposed a major health insurance program to the Congress, seeking to guarantee adequate financing of health care on a nationwide basis. That proposal generated widespread discussion and useful debate. But no legislation reached my desk.

Today the need is even more pressing because of the higher costs of medical care. Efforts to control medical costs under the New Economic Policy have been Inept with encouraging success, sharply reducing the rate of inflation for health care. Nevertheless, the overall cost of health care has still risen by more than 20 percent in the last two and one-half years, so that more and more Americans face staggering bills when they receive medical help today:

--Across the Nation, the average cost of a day of hospital care now exceeds $110.
--The average cost of delivering a baby and providing postnatal care approaches $1,000.
--The average cost of health care for terminal cancer now exceeds $20,000.

For the average family, it is clear that without adequate insurance, even normal care can 'be a financial burden while a catastrophic illness can mean catastrophic debt.

Beyond the question of the prices of health care, our present system of health care insurance suffers from two major flaws :

First, even though more Americans carry health insurance than ever before, the 25 million Americans who remain uninsured often need it the most and are most unlikely to obtain it. They include many who work in seasonal or transient occupations, high-risk cases, and those who are ineligible for Medicaid despite low incomes.

Second, those Americans who do carry health insurance often lack coverage which is balanced, comprehensive and fully protective:...

[ March 28, 2010, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: Al Wessex ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug64:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Yeah, I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to the skiers. It's also nonsense, the natural cost of service is whatever the supplier is willing to offer and the customer is willing to pay.
So say industries that "save" costs by dumping their waste into the water, making everyone pay more for water cleanup so they can drink it (never mind the extended ecological fallout)
Right, not wanting to force people to shoulder other people's health care costs is the same as siding with polluters. I've already said at least once that the government has the right and duty to protect its citizens from being harmed by their neighbors - it is, in fact, one of the two fundamental purposes of government (security, from both foreign and domestic threats, and justice). It has nothing to do with health care, or any other welfare program for that matter. If this is what you think passes for logic and moral reasoning, we're done on this subject. I'll see you and the rest of the ideology-blinded paternalistic elitist Autocrats at the polls come November. With some luck and an outbreak of good sense, maybe we'll be able to consign you all to the history books with the rest of the wanna-be slavers where you belong.
So you pretty much de facto discard the central argument of the entire debate? You're right that that pretty much leaves nothing to talk about. The assertion that they are exactly equivalent is the reason that this has been a legislative priority for decades. Instead of trying to conveniently blame this on a desire for autocratic control, why don't you take a moment to consider what this debate looks like for the perspective of someone who does consider the two thing equivalent?

Heath care is, if you hold all other things roughly equal, a need that is evenly distributed across the economic spectrum. Disabling and fatal diseases don't care how much money you have. (Things aren't equal though, and things like poorer nutrition, substandard living conditions, labor intensive work, and economic stress all increase the need for it) If people can't afford to pay for the care that they need to save their life or remain functional enough to work, that does not diminish their need for that care, and they're going to seek it out regardless of their ability to pay, whether that means mortgaging their family's future for it or getting the care bu forcing the care providers to absorb the cost. In any of those case the rest of society has to swallow th costs in terms of lower economic activity or future failed debts if the people don't get the care or spend the rest of their lives working only to pay mounting debts from it instead of improving their economic standing, or from higher treatment costs as they pay more to eat the losses from providers on unpaid bills.

Pollution and lack of basic health care are absolutely identical in their global social and economic effects, and poorer people, who can't afford to buy their way around the effects, suffer the brunt of the burden.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are right, if you cannot see the clear qualitative difference between the golden rule and the silver rule, then your ability to think logically has been overridden by your ideology and there is no point trying to debate with you. We will simply have to leave it to whose group can bring the greatest number of voters to the polls, those that love freedom, or those that want to enslave their fellow citizens.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Democrats' deafness reaps hate mail
quote:
People get loud and angry when they feel as if they're being ignored.

Unfortunately, they sometimes also get ugly.

Democrats stubbornly refused to listen to the tremendous public outcry against their health care package. They attempted to minimize the protests and marginalize the protesters. But now that they've shoved the bill down America's throat, they're feigning shock -- and even fear -- at the vehemence of the backlash.

They say they're being terrorized by potentially violent opponents of the health care bill, and produce stacks of letters, e-mails and phone messages they claim make them fearful of their lives.

Sprinkled among them are what may be a few legitimate threats. This is a wholly unacceptable way to react to losing a political fight, and should be dealt with seriously by law enforcement agencies.

But most of what is being passed off as menacing is nothing more than old-fashioned hate mail. Much of it is crude and offensive, a lot of it is inappropriate, but it doesn't rise to the level of a threat.

For example, the office of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, is under guard after he received a mountain of angry messages for flip-flopping on abortion funding. Many of the message senders call him vile names and bid him a miserable end. But they stop short of warning of intent to do harm.

Rep. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, takes as a threat a message expressing the wish that he die a slow and painful death from cancer. That's nasty business. But it's no worse than the e-mails that pop into my inbox.

For a long stretch, I heard from a detractor who wanted me separated from body parts that I'm rather fond of. I felt intensely unloved, but never in danger of losing my vitals.

There's nothing new here. Hatred has been part of politics for some time. Ask former President George W. Bush about his mail. Bush loathers even made a movie fantasizing about his assassination.

The real threat presented by the hate mail is to the Democratic pretense that they've passed a bill demanded and welcomed by the American people. Neither Stupak nor Schauer can say with any credibility that their votes represented the will of their right-of-center Michigan districts.

Nor can the Democratic caucus as a whole. Democrats won the White House and control of Congress on the votes of a broad majority of the country. Then they declared a mandate to govern on behalf of their narrow partisan base.

That's why people are angry. They feel betrayed. And they don't get a sense that their feelings matter in Washington.

Elections have consequences. But so does political arrogance. Democrats made a higher priority of delivering a political victory for President Barack Obama than serving the nation with good policymaking.

Now they're learning that the majority isn't silent. If Democrats keep pretending not to hear the people, they'll only grow louder and angrier.


Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug64:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Yeah, I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to the skiers. It's also nonsense, the natural cost of service is whatever the supplier is willing to offer and the customer is willing to pay.
So say industries that "save" costs by dumping their waste into the water, making everyone pay more for water cleanup so they can drink it (never mind the extended ecological fallout)
Right, not wanting to force people to shoulder other people's health care costs is the same as siding with polluters.
Pyrtolin's example shows how your definition of "natural cost of service" is not very useful.
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Now they're learning that the majority isn't silent.
Again, let me point out that this whole "majority" crap is in fact a lie.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At best it is a plurality of one segment, which tends to be Republican. A fair reading of the public sentiment would show that a bigger overall plurality support most of this bill and would like many other things it doesn't have.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Now they're learning that the majority isn't silent.
Again, let me point out that this whole "majority" crap is in fact a lie.
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
At best it is a plurality of one segment, which tends to be Republican. A fair reading of the public sentiment would show that a bigger overall plurality support most of this bill and would like many other things it doesn't have.

There's a big difference between liking some of the things in the law and liking the law, and that's what's hopefully going to sink the Autocrats come November - the call by Republicans to "repeal and replace."

At RealClearPolitics, the current average of the twelve polls on the new health care law running from 3-10 through 3-26 comes out to 40.8% in favor, 50.1% opposed. And that's with one poll (and only one) skewing the results by giving a majority in favor of the bill when every other poll shows the reverse by anywhere from four to twenty points (the twenty point poll is by CNN, BTW). Of those twelve polls, six are at 50% or more, two are at 49%, and two are at 48%.

Meanwhile, only one poll favors the bill and it only reaches 49%, while five of the polls have the support below 40%.

This average doesn't cover all the polls taken over this time frame - if a polling company polled more than once only the latest result was used.

And mind, this is just the nation overall - how much of this support comes from states and districts that are so blue they'd vote for a dead dog before they'd vote for a Republican? Likewise, how much of the opposition comes from states/districts that are so red they'd vote for that dead dog before they'd vote for an Autocrat? It's the states/districts on the fence that will make the difference, and now a lot more of them are going to be in that column than used to be. The last article I saw focusing on that showed said that Obama has lost every state he took from Bush, so how much is his campaigning going to help? Especially since he isn't going to be the one on the ballot - not for a few years.

Likewise, it isn't just who likes it and who doesn't like it but who really likes it and who really doesn't like it (i.e., likely voters), and that's running 2-1 against.

As well, the Autocrats aren't going to be able to get away from this before November. Are you a candidate worried about the deficit, jobs, immigration, or federally funded abortion? You'd better be running in favor of repeal or you're going to have problems.

[ March 28, 2010, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Doug64 ]

Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So what is it about Republicans and their inability to call the Democratic Party by its actual name? Is it something built into their mindset, the name-calling? Or is it just a symptom of some larger issue of illegitimacy or something?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They hoo shall not be named.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
So what is it about Republicans and their inability to call the Democratic Party by its actual name? Is it something built into their mindset, the name-calling? Or is it just a symptom of some larger issue of illegitimacy or something?

Up until the vote, my standard rule was to call people by whatever name they'd prefer to be called. After that blatant example of corrupt elitist autocratic hubris, that's just one more thing that changed. I may even start liking Anne Coulter's columns, we'll see.

[ March 28, 2010, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Doug64 ]

Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And check out the latest Day by Day cartoon. It nicely encapsulates a lot of people's feeling on the subject.

[ March 28, 2010, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Doug64 ]

Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Didn't this "Socialist-Marxist Caligula of Communism" get elected campaigning for a healthcare bill that was to the left of what actually got passed?

Getting confused here about how he's being autocratic by doing something more moderate than what he campaigned on.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It nicely encapsulates a lot of people's feeling on the subject.
Hi and Lois encapsulates a lot of people's feelings, too, but I don't look to it for recommendations.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He made quite a few promises, some of which he's kept, others he hasn't. (Negotiate the health care bill in the light of day in front of the C-Span cameras, anyone? How about "reduce health care premiums by $2500? Not going to happen.) But looking at the list, I noticed something interesting - he described it as "universal coverage." I suspect that a lot of people that voted for him thought he meant "universally available" not "mandated that every man, woman and child in the US participate." Then there's "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" - again, not likely when all the new taxes get imposed and premiums start to go up. Basically, he made conflicting promises. Mind, he never promises a single payer European-style system, though he certainly would have preferred one. But whatever people expected, they certainly didn't expect a plan that would blow the deficit sky-high. Which, of course, is why the Autocrats lied through their teeth about what this bill is going to cost while cooking the books. Of course, in this case they weren't even able to fool all of the people some of the time, which is why a majority of Americans think their costs are going to go up along with the federal budget and that this plan is too much government involvement, while pluralities think their coverage will get worse and that seniors will be worse off. Just the sort of thing the Autocrats aren't going to want on people's minds come election day.

Basically, he, and the rest of his fellow former Democrats, is an Autocrat, not for keeping a campaign promise, but for refusing to consider the wishes of a majority of US citizens once they got a look at just what Congress was talking about passing, especially the cost and intrusion into their personal affairs. Which might have something to do with why a plurality of voters thinks its a bad thing that the Autocrats are running Congress; 70% think it's a good thing that Brown won the senate seat in Massachusetts; and 62% of Republicans, 45% of Independents and 22% of Autocrats have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party Movement (vs. 19% of Republicans, 37% of Independents, and 56% of Autocrats that don't).

Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But whatever people expected, they certainly didn't expect a plan that would blow the deficit sky-high.
Haven't read the CBO report on it have you?

quote:
again, not likely when all the new taxes get imposed and premiums start to go up.
You mean the taxes on people making over 200,000 a year? Or the premiums that are going to slow down their rate of increase?

[ March 28, 2010, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: PSRT ]

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The CBO was a prime example of the GIGO principle, which is why a large majority think it's so much waste paper.

And Obama didn't promise a slow down in the increase of premiums, he promised a $2500 decrease. Most people don't believe that's going to happen, either. Instead, they expect their health care cost to rise while the deficit gets even worse. It'll be interesting to see what kind of smoke and mirrors the Autocrats are going to try to pull when it comes time to reauthorize the "doctor fix" - especially if the Republicans point out the pay-go law the Autocrats passed.

Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doug, I'd save the names for the folks who insist on calling Tea Partiers teabaggers...which is pretty much every liberal on this forum, so go at it.
Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, using that particular name is a good way to get me to not respond, or even follow the thread if it's used in the opening post. At least my chosen name is based on that actual behavior of those it's applied to.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug64:
You are right, if you cannot see the clear qualitative difference between the golden rule and the silver rule, then your ability to think logically has been overridden by your ideology and there is no point trying to debate with you. We will simply have to leave it to whose group can bring the greatest number of voters to the polls, those that love freedom, or those that want to enslave their fellow citizens.

So, basically, instead of admitting the possibility (regardless of whether they're right or wrong in the assumptions behind it) that the folks you are arguing against might believe that they're coming from a position that they believe extends liberty to more people you insist that they must be power hungry autocrats and it's not possible for them to have any other motivation.

I could easily reverse that last statement of yours from the other side by saying "Those who which to free their fellow citizens from systemic oppression of those who wish to continue to keep them enslaved. Either may be pithy, but neither are reasonable grounds for debate. I try to avoid doing such for that very reason. And while I don't always manage to avoid stepping over that line I do my best to pull back to the respectful side when I err.

If you want to continue arguing against an imagined caricature, there's not much anyone can do to stop you, but you're not really going to ever get anywhere productive until you're willing to discuss the principles that are actually in play.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The "Autocrat" label is based on behavior, not motivation. I'm sure many of them have the best intentions in the world and are all for eliminating cosmic injustice, whatever the cost to the freedom of their fellow citizens or the increase in the deficit (we'll pay for it somehow, once people get used to their latest shiny gift from Washington, right?) and for the most part I have no real way of sorting the sheep from the goats (though some, like Bart Stupak, make that easier). But sheep or goat, their chosen method of attaining their goals puts them all in the same boat.

And like I said, if you can't recognize the difference between the Silver Rule and the Golden Rule there's not much point continuing the debate.

[ March 29, 2010, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Doug64 ]

Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The "Autocrat" label is based on behavior, not motivation.
When you label them as inherently autocratic you imply that they know and understand that they are acting in that way rather than it just being your opinion that they have acted in an autocratic manner.

quote:
I'm sure many of them have the best intentions in the world and are all for eliminating cosmic injustice, whatever the cost to the freedom of their fellow citizens
And here again, you close your eyes to the position that they are acting in an attempt to increase net freedom. You are actively begging the question by using a your assertion as evidence of its own truth.

quote:
or the increase in the deficit
And again, a effect that is actively under debate, with the basic evidence pointing toward the opposite being true. How do either of these apply if they believe that they are increasing freedom and decreasing the deficit? By assuming that they agree with your opinion of the situation you are implicitly assuming motives that require agreement on those positions.

If you want to point to a good example of a goat here, Rep Altmire is a great one- In the initial whipping, he promised a yes vote. Then he officially announced a position against the bill (and voted against it). Then he told his constituents that he'd been told to vote against it to try to drum up republican electoral support since there were enough votes in support. Except that he was told no such thing, and now that his district has been informed, they're pretty solidly looking to toss him out.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And like I said, if you can't recognize the difference between the Silver Rule and the Golden Rule there's not much point continuing the debate.
Unless you actually explain what you mean here, this statement doesn't mean much. So far as I see it, the healthcare bill easily passed both as much as they apply.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Silver Rule

The Golden Rule

Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug64:
The Silver Rule

The Golden Rule

I know what they are. That doesn't unravel the handwaving you're doing to suggest that there's any trouble with applying either of them here.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
At best it is a plurality of one segment, which tends to be Republican. A fair reading of the public sentiment would show that a bigger overall plurality support most of this bill and would like many other things it doesn't have.

I think you hit the operative part of the discussion. They support most of what was in the bill, but not all. Even the Republican's have admitted there were needed reforms in the bill.

But saying people support "most" of what I'm proposing to do is good enough for saying they support everything....

Is like a candidate saying that since everybody supports "law and order" and keeping criminals off the streets... That they'd be perfectly fine with executions for every violent felon currently in the Prison System.

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug64:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Yeah, I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to the skiers. It's also nonsense, the natural cost of service is whatever the supplier is willing to offer and the customer is willing to pay.
So say industries that "save" costs by dumping their waste into the water, making everyone pay more for water cleanup so they can drink it (never mind the extended ecological fallout)
Right, not wanting to force people to shoulder other people's health care costs is the same as siding with polluters. I've already said at least once that the government has the right and duty to protect its citizens from being harmed by their neighbors - it is, in fact, one of the two fundamental purposes of government (security, from both foreign and domestic threats, and justice). It has nothing to do with health care, or any other welfare program for that matter. If this is what you think passes for logic and moral reasoning, we're done on this subject. I'll see you and the rest of the ideology-blinded paternalistic elitist Autocrats at the polls come November. With some luck and an outbreak of good sense, maybe we'll be able to consign you all to the history books with the rest of the wanna-be slavers where you belong.
So you pretty much de facto discard the central argument of the entire debate? You're right that that pretty much leaves nothing to talk about. The assertion that they are exactly equivalent is the reason that this has been a legislative priority for decades. Instead of trying to conveniently blame this on a desire for autocratic control, why don't you take a moment to consider what this debate looks like for the perspective of someone who does consider the two thing equivalent?
Someone's sarcasm meter is broken. Mine was pegged when reading Doug's response to you.

In this case, I think you'd find Doug to consider the polluter to be a party other than the one you consider to be the polluter.

quote:
Heath care is, if you hold all other things roughly equal, a need that is evenly distributed across the economic spectrum.
So how is that like pollution then? I thought the consensus was that the person doing the pollution should be responsible for bearing the cost of the cleanup, not the public at large....
Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheDeamon:
So how is that like pollution then? I thought the consensus was that the person doing the pollution should be responsible for bearing the cost of the cleanup, not the public at large....

So you'd prefer a system more like Superfund for health care then? Something that would take care of the problem of providing care and bill companies that weren't sufficiently providing it on their own for the related costs. It would get somewhat tricky to figure put how to assign costs for people who aren't employed, but in any case would represent a heck of a lot more government involvement in trying to address the problem than the current proposal does.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by TheDeamon:
So how is that like pollution then? I thought the consensus was that the person doing the pollution should be responsible for bearing the cost of the cleanup, not the public at large....

So you'd prefer a system more like Superfund for health care then? Something that would take care of the problem of providing care and bill companies that weren't sufficiently providing it on their own for the related costs. It would get somewhat tricky to figure put how to assign costs for people who aren't employed, but in any case would represent a heck of a lot more government involvement in trying to address the problem than the current proposal does.
I didn't say anything about my preference. I was pointing out how HCR was being pursued in this newest law and how Pollution Abatement has been handled are entirely different.
Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheDeamon:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by TheDeamon:
So how is that like pollution then? I thought the consensus was that the person doing the pollution should be responsible for bearing the cost of the cleanup, not the public at large....

So you'd prefer a system more like Superfund for health care then? Something that would take care of the problem of providing care and bill companies that weren't sufficiently providing it on their own for the related costs. It would get somewhat tricky to figure put how to assign costs for people who aren't employed, but in any case would represent a heck of a lot more government involvement in trying to address the problem than the current proposal does.
I didn't say anything about my preference. I was pointing out how HCR was being pursued in this newest law and how Pollution Abatement has been handled are entirely different.
Except my argument wasn't specifically about abatement but the nature of the effect. Pollution affects everyone roughly equally much the same way that lack of healthcare affects everyone relatively equally, thus it falls well in the realm of government to find a way to properly abate the problem for those that can't afford to do it themselves. In the case of pollution, where a distinct culprit can be identified, it's possible to fund these efforts by assigning the cost of cleanup to the bad actors. This really isn't possible on a general scale with healthcare, so instead the cost must be distributed the same way we share other similar costs for public needs that have an equally distributed need or utility, such as national defense, law enforcement.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Doug64

quote:
Not unclear, just wrong - yes, we created a stronger central government with the powers to tax directly and raise its own army, among other things, but that wasn't because the previous Congress lacked the theoretical power to pass laws and take actions binding on the states.
One wonders, then, why anyone bothered with a constitutional congress in the first place.

I note your use of the loophole-word "theoretical."

quote:
Article IX opens up with "[t]he United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power ..." The second paragraph of Article IX opens with "[t]he United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort ..." There's others. That sounds like supreme authority to me.

But in fact they had no such supreme authority, as shown by the dealings of state governments at the time.

You are making a very odd argument -- that the Founders intented to increase federal power, that they in fact did increase federal power, but that the Constitution they created does not contain have any textual basis either in language or structure to support a "theoretical" increase in federal power.

Or have I misunderstood you?

quote:
But as Madison says in the Federalist Papers and is reinforced with the 10th Amendment, the powers of Washington are supreme in their field but limited to those powers granted.
I don't disagaree with this sentence if you remove the part about 10A. You keep quoting Madison as if he is representative of all "Founders." He was just one man. Hamilton wrote as many Federalist papers, and didn't want a Bill of Rights at all. I reject the notion that there was some general consensus behind the Constitution aside from the surface form -- for the simple reason that there simply wasn't. The document was the result of a compromise between extremely disparate agendas.

My view on federal power is in accord with McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819:

quote:
Even without the aid of the general clause in the constitution, empowering congress to pass all necessary and proper laws for carrying its powers into execution, the grant of powers itself necessarily implies the grant of all usual and suitable means for the execution of the powers granted. Congress may declare war; it may consequently carry on war, by armies and navies, and other suitable means and methods of warfare. So, it has power to raise a revenue, and to apply it in the support of the government, and defence of the country; it may, of course, use all proper and suitable means, not specially prohibited, in the raising and disbursement of the revenue. And if, in the progress of society and the arts, new means arise, either of carrying on war, or of raising revenue, these new means doubtless would be properly considered as within the grant. Steam-frigates, for example, were not in the minds of those who framed the constitution, as among the means of naval warfare; but no one doubts the power of congress to use them, as means to an authorized end. It is not enough to say, that it does not appear that a bank was not in the contemplation of the framers of the constitution. It was not their intention, in these cases, to enumerate particulars. The true view of the subject is, that if it be a fit instrument to an authorized purpose, it may be used, not being specially prohibited. Congress is authorized to pass all laws 'necessary and proper' to carry into execution the powers conferred on it.
This case was authored by Chief Justice Marshall, as was your Marbury v. Madison. The problem with Marbury is that Marshall was caught in a politically impossible situation and had to weasel his way out of it. For all it's historical importance as the beginning of judicial review, it is a truly slippery bit of writing, the 3-card monty of all Supreme Court decisions. The above quote from McCulloch is much closer to the traditional Federalist view - the judiciary by 1820 being the one place where old-guard Federalism had held up.

quote:
There is no change in context - as it was with the Articles of Confederation, it was with the Constitution.
Go back and read them both. The change is quite drastic. The Articles say only that expenses incurred for the common defense and general wellfare shall be paid for by the states in common, or "in congress," - i.e., no slakers or parasites allowed. It does NOT give congress supreme power in determining or instigating whatever resulted in those expenses - it merely provides for their payment once incurred.

The constitution, however, lists as a primary federal "power" what the Articles do not even list as a federal "right" - provide for the general welfare.

It is as big as the difference between "obligation of contract" and "freedom of contract," and in fact parallels that relationship (i.e. to chose to engage).

quote:
For the layout, the Founders simply combined the powers of Congress that are separated in Article VIII (taxes) and Article IX into one section with the first two clauses dealing with how Congress could raise money and the rest dealing with how Congress could spend money. For flexibility within its sphere of power, there is no need for the "general welfare" clause - interstate commerce, properly understood, is expansive enough.

You're reaching here. They made a deliberate choice to place it at the top of "powers." You just don't want to see it.

I'm breaking this lengthy post into parts 1 & 2...

[ March 29, 2010, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Only if you think courts never get it wrong and so never need to overturn precedent, even long-established.
Of course they can "get it wrong." But here's a better way of looking at it - things change. The point of the Constitution is that we have a system a discipline when responding to the changes, not that we have a view of government fixed in amber.

As for when they do "get it wrong" and it sticks, yes, it CAN cause certain parts of effectively die off. Look at "priviliges and immunities." I think most scholars agree that Sluaghterhous was not correctly decided - nonetheless, P & I is effectively useless.

quote:
Before that, a more expansive reading of the "general welfare" clause was part of the reason the Federalists got permanently turfed out of office and into the history books with Jefferson's election.
Indeed. But they're the ones responsible for the Constitution in the first place, not the Jeffersonians. And that expansive reading was the *point.* Most of the Jeffersonian-types weren't so hot on the federal govt., and, I suspect, not particularly happy with the Constitution either, given the political turmoil of that era.

quote:
I didn't say it did, though getting rid of the expansive "general welfare" understanding does much the same thing - once you admit that simply existing does not engage you in interstate commerce (economic or social), and the same can be said for birth control. It simply isn't something Congress has any right to legislate on outside of its own property and (to a limited extent) employees.

Congress *didn't* legislate on the right to privacy - it was found by the courts in law and custom.

quote:
Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean that Congress has a right to legislate or that it has constitutional protection at the federal level.
Of course not.

quote:
A good example is the question of the government's right to seize property from one private citizen and give it to another.
I need a specific example. This can mean too many different things.

quote:
The Supreme Court ruled that was not banned by the Constitution but noted that states could give stronger protections in state constitutions and all but begged them to do so.
Actually, I think the opposite is true - the SCOTUS is rather unhappy when states do this, especially in Fourth Amendment cases.

quote:
Legally, when the Supreme Court acts, or when Congress decides to repeal, even when the President refuses to enforce because of his own oath of office and dares Congress to take him to court. And of course, ultimately the states can call a constitutional convention if they don't like the spin Washington puts on things.
I agree.

quote:
Only negatively, to restrict the power of the states. It didn't give Congress a single new positive power.

It obviously and inescapably did, as McCulloch demonstrates. One follows from the other. The relationship as you formulate it is logically impossible. Restricting the states requires and leads to many new powers (or "means" if you prefer).

quote:
Beyond that, the Supreme Court has prevented the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to state employees (though that was later overturned), prevented Congress from requiring state legislatures from dealing with something it doesn't want to (nuclear waste), prevented federal regulation of state judges, prevented requiring state executive branches from implementing federal regulations.

Those are the examples I was referring to - the Feds requiring states to directly enforce federal laws. That does not apply to the health care bill, as far as I know.

quote:
And as the recent court cases involving the 2nd Amendment point out, the fact that an amendment hasn't been applied in a long time doesn't mean it vanishes - it's still a part of the Constitution, right there in writing and waiting to be put to its proper use. IMHO that's one of the great things about a written constitution.

See comments on P of I above.

[ March 29, 2010, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KidB, I'll respond to your posts, but it's going to be awhile - perhaps not until the weekend (probably the first time I'll have a single chunk of time large enough).
quote:
Originally posted by TheDeamon:
Someone's sarcasm meter is broken. Mine was pegged when reading Doug's response to you.

In this case, I think you'd find Doug to consider the polluter to be a party other than the one you consider to be the polluter.

Yeah, I did get just a bit out of sorts at that comparison. It isn't who's doing the polluting, but Pyrtolin's moral equivalence between believing that employers shouldn't be required to supply general health care for their employees (as opposed to work-related health costs) and believing that employers should be allowed to indiscriminately pollute. The problem is that the first falls under the Golden Rule and the second under the Silver Rule. You might as well say that believing employers should have the right not to offer general health care to their employees logically entails believing they should have the right to shoot those employees when they don't need them anymore.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No- my equivalence was between the implicit, practical costs of dealing with cleaning up pollution and providing health care. They're costs that exists regardless of whether or not the company pays for them directly or cuts its prices by not paying for it and allowing society at large to pick up the tab. It had nothing to do with the moral aspect of the question at all.

It's absurd to say that you've arrived at a natural cost when the supplier's price is artificially low because they're not paying the full price that it actually costs to produce the product, instead forcing others to pick up the tab. If an employer is not either providing health coverage or paying its employees enough to afford it on their own on top of all of their other needs, then they are actively the actual labor price by displacing the cost of filling those needs to whoever has to step in to make up the difference (never mind the fact that the workers are, at that point, losing money on their labor instead of making money, since their cost to produce the labor is higher than the compensation that they're receiving for it)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Didn't this "Socialist-Marxist Caligula of Communism" get elected campaigning for a healthcare bill that was to the left of what actually got passed?

Getting confused here about how he's being autocratic by doing something more moderate than what he campaigned on.

He campaigned on no mandate.
Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Didn't this "Socialist-Marxist Caligula of Communism" get elected campaigning for a healthcare bill that was to the left of what actually got passed?

Getting confused here about how he's being autocratic by doing something more moderate than what he campaigned on.

He campaigned on no mandate.
And on pushing for single payer instead. So not only did he fall to the right of the single payer position, but to the right of the no mandate position as well.

[ March 30, 2010, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug64:
There's a big difference between liking some of the things in the law and liking the law, and that's what's hopefully going to sink the Autocrats come November - the call by Republicans to "repeal and replace."


Oooo...are they going to replace it with single-payer healthcare? 'Cuz that would be cool!
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
==>"But saying people support "most" of what I'm proposing to do is good enough for saying they support everything....

Is like a candidate saying that since everybody supports "law and order" and keeping criminals off the streets... That they'd be perfectly fine with executions for every violent felon currently in the Prison System. "

Since when did Congress start insisting that they had to like everything in a bill?? And do you really think a simple-minded strawman is a useful way to argue -- ah, that is how the Republicans have argued, I forgot about death panels and forcing Mom/Pop's out of business to pay for elective surgery for street people! They don't want to pare it back to the many things in it they have campaigned for and promoted as recently as two years ago, they want to start over from scratch. This is politics, partisan obstructionism, pure and simple. Let's not pretend there is any principle of the public good or purity here.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  11  12  13   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1