Legally can the federal government now force you to buy a Chevrolet?

[dataguy]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Or why drive to the doctor, struggle to find parking, and wait in the waiting room when you can get an ambulance ride for free? After all, you want to get your money's worth out of your insurance. Most won't do that, but some already do. Expect it to get worse when its "free" for everyone.

You actually know people who do this? Call an ambulance to avoid having to search for a parking space, etc?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Could Obama have told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that, as a matter of principle he (Obama) does not believe the mandate is a tax and Verrilli is not to argue that it is before the Supreme Court? Why didn't Obama do that?

Maybe he believes it's not a tax as a matter of law, not as a matter of principle; as a matter of principle he believes the bill will save lives. He could easily say, "Look, it's not a tax, obviously, but whatever description of it is gonna get those jokers at the SC to accept it is fine by me."

Under such circumstances he can personally believe it's not a tax, but allow the SC to accept that argument. No lie thereby occurs.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Chimera

Ok, fine. I reserve the right to think that reasoning is asinine.

The only part of it that is asinine is what you offered up. And I showed it to be. Now, if you choose to not defend it, at least you're moving in a less asinine direction. Progress!

But I would like to see an attempt. For laughs if nothing else.

You crack me up. You present these questions that you think are so profound, these carefully constructed Super-InescapableTM logic traps. So ingenuous are these question(s) that...

Originally Posted by Chimera

To date no one has answered the question. Instead they ignore it and keep raging.

And you profess oh-so-dispassionate curiosity:

Originally Posted by Chimera

I have no idea, and I'd really like to know.

Someone (actually multiple people at this point, but I'll speak for myself) easily answers your question (you know, that one you're just SO curious about), and shows it to be an exercise in ridiculosity, and your defense: "that reasoning is asinine". :roll eyes:

How about you explain why you think the reasoning is asinine? You know, like in a debate, never mind Great Debate. Now that you've had this gnawing curiosity of yours slaked, do you have nothing else to offer? Nothing?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Obama lied thru his teeth that this was not a tax.

Yes. So? Whether he lied or told the truth has nothing to do with Congress' power to tax. Congress has the power to tax. Your ire appears to be that Congress, at Obama's behest, passed a tax, and Obama refuses to admit it's a tax. That's a political problem, not a legal one.

As the OP mentions, we have now established that the federal government can order you to buy something from a private company.

No. But the federal government can tax you if you fail to buy that product.

Congress is supposed to have the power to regulate interstate commerce. Not buying something means you are not engaging in interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress does not have the right to regulate it.

This is not an exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. It's an exercise of Congress' power to tax.

It pisses me off when the government oversteps its boundaries. It pisses me off more when the government lies about what it is doing, and then oversteps its boundaries. It pisses me off most when the government lies about what it is doing, oversteps its boundaries, and passes legislation that isn't going to fix the problems it's supposed to fix.

This is like the Kelo v. New London decision - it is plainly contrary to the Constitution. And nobody seems to give a shit.

I'm sorry to say this, Shodan, but in this complaint, you sound like a liberal to me.

By that I mean you are conflating what pisses you off with what violates the Constitution. I absolutely disfavor the ACA, and have from the get-go. But I do not confuse that with believing it's unconstitutional. Congress can tax. Its says so in black and white, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. This is a tax. Period.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Could Obama have told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that, as a matter of principle he (Obama) does not believe the mandate is a tax and Verrilli is not to argue that it is before the Supreme Court? Why didn't Obama do that?

I thought he did.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by dataguy

You actually know people who do this? Call an ambulance to avoid having to search for a parking space, etc?

Ask any paramedic. It happens.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by magellan01

The only part of it that is asinine is what you offered up. And I showed it to be.

<snip>

How about you explain why you think the reasoning is asinine? You know, like in a debate, never mind Great Debate. Now that you've had this gnawing curiosity of yours slaked, do you have nothing else to offer? Nothing?

You are either not very good at understanding others, or you're very good at deliberately not understanding others.

I pose a question about the reason for being angry about this. You didn't actually answer the question. You continued the "because they're making me buy it!" line. I referred to that as asinine if it is something you have and want. I have already explained my reasoning there.

How about YOU offer up something more than frothing anger that you're being forced to buy something you both have and want?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Let's try an analogy, because those ALWAYS work:

Bob walked around naked in his hometown, because his interpreted the anti-indecency laws in his town to apply only to lascivious conduct, and he was just wanted to be free, man.

He got arrested.

His lawyer suggested he try a first-amendment defense. "Bullshit," Bob said, "that's only supposed to protect political and religious speech, not walking around naked." So at his bench trial, he told the judge about his interpretation of the anti-indecency laws. "Also," he said, "my lawyer tells me other people have gotten away with nekkid strolling through a first-amendment defense. I think that's nonsense, but here are the relevant cases."

The judge rejects Bob's reading of the anti-indecency laws, but accepts the first-amendment defense.

Has Bob lied at any point?

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

That's what we currently have: people without medical insurance can't afford regular medical care, so they go to the ER, the only place where they can't get turned away. The ER is really inconvenient, though, so people like this will stop going there, which will represent a significant cost savings.

I'll expect this when you show me cites for frivolous ambulance abuse in any country with UHC.

It got worse in Edmonton, AB Canada:

...Edmonton, however, has regularly been in a state of “red” in recent months, with no ambulances to respond to calls as the fleet is tied up waiting at a hospital or transporting non-urgent patients.
... Edmonton’s problem was fuelled by the takeover of ambulance services by [Alberta Health Services] that froze expansion as the city’s population exploded.

It is a frequent enough issue to make the FAQs for the ambulance service in Toronto.

I am covered by O.H.I.P., but received a bill for $240.00. Why?

O.H.I.P. insures ambulance transportation only for those trips that are medically essential. The hospital to which you were transported makes the determination as to whether your ambulance trip was medically necessary. If the doctor decides that you could have made your way to hospital by another means, you will be billed for the full amount of the ambulance bill. This is necessary in order to ensure that the system is not abused, and that the service is available to those who really need it.

It has required entirely reworking primary care in the field in the UK. Cite:

The UK, National Health Service has developed an Emergency Care Practitioner (ECP) scheme in a reaction to a change in primary health care provision in order to increase the percentage of patients treated in a community setting or at the scene of an incident.34 In the UK, 50% of patients transported by ambulance to emergency departments are discharged without any significant treatment or referral.

Ambulances are not being reserved for serious medical emergencies. To a select group of "frequent flyers" they are a glorified taxi.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by magellan01

But, as Obama the great Constitutional scholar told us, it's definitely NOT a tax. Except when they have to defend it in court, then magically it turns into a tax, a tax that really isn't a tax.

The best part about this is that he managed to get this tax past a bunch of Republicans who think "tax" is a four letter word. I want to point and laugh at the Republicans who are so upset that a politician lied about something. OMG

He laid his cards face up on the table. Everybody knew exactly what was being proposed with the individual mandate. Then he said "King high Straight", took the pot, the Reps went home broke and said "Waaaiiiit.... since when does a straight beat a flush?"

[adaher]

The government cannot command citizens to buy anything. What it can do is use tax incentives to encourage the buying of things. The government already requires you to buy hybrid cars, sort of. YOu pay higher taxes if you buy a gas guzzler and you get a credit if you buy a hybrid.

However, the important distinction is that as with the health care law, payment of the tax places you in 100% compliance, legally equal to someone who buys insurance. Same goes for the car, if you buy a hybrid you are legally as compliant as someone who buys a Hummer.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by dataguy

You actually know people who do this? Call an ambulance to avoid having to search for a parking space, etc?

Any 9-1-1 center or ambulance office knows several of these people. There is a somewhat pejorative nickname, frequent flyers.

There are patients who literally will jump out of the ambulance once it reaches the hospital and walk away. I have personally dealt with a patient who left the ER waiting room, walked a couple blocks, and called an ambulance thinking it would move him to the head of the line.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Bob walked around naked in his hometown, because his interpreted the anti-indecency laws in his town to apply only to lascivious conduct, and he was just wanted to be free, man.

He got arrested.

As I used this above, should Bob cry foul because the government doesn't have the power to force him to buy clothing?

[tomcar]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

Would you prefer that the government get into the insurance business itself—the way it handles police protection, fire protection, military defense, road maintainence, etc.?

I am not sure where you live. But where I live the government does a fine job at these things. It's actually the private industries that are sh*t - Like AEP, AT&T, Verizon, etc. The Gov. has done some crappy stuff as far as starting unnecessary wars but that is another issue...

[adaher]

The government as cellular provider? Um, that wouldn't work very well. The government is good at some things, but only things that are by necessity provided by one payer. Where competition is possible, the private sector will tend to do better.

[tomcar]

Originally Posted by adaher

The government as cellular provider? Um, that wouldn't work very well. The government is good at some things, but only things that are by necessity provided by one payer. Where competition is possible, the private sector will tend to do better.

I was not offering the gov as a cellphone provider. Everybody claims how the gov can't do as good a job as the private sector. My point is that the private sector isn't that great either (if there really is a difference between the government and big business, the line is too blurry to tell anyways.)

[adaher]

The difference is competition. If business has no competition, it does as badly as government. That's why privatization usually doesn't work, the incentives don't change.

But if the government tried to compete with private businesses offering the same product, they'd lose 9/10 times unless they were heavily subsidizing it.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by tomcar

I am not sure where you live. But where I live the government does a fine job at these things.

I agree (for the most part). My question was not a rhetorical one, and was addressed to a specific poster and, by extension, to anyone who has a problem with the federal government "ordering you to buy something from a private company."

Having the government simply take over the health insurance business might or might not work out okay, but the existing insurance companies aren't going to let it happen.

[Chimera]

I dunno, the goverment did a pretty fair job of building the internet.

[XT]

Originally Posted by tomcar

I was not offering the gov as a cellphone provider. Everybody claims how the gov can't do as good a job as the private sector. My point is that the private sector isn't that great either (if there really is a difference between the government and big business, the line is too blurry to tell anyways.)

The difference being that if you don't like a product or service from a private company you generally have options...options you lack with the government. Don't like Microsoft OS? Well, get a Mac...or a Linux OS. Don't like Chevy? Well, unless the government does force us all to buy them you could always get a Toyota. Don't like Verizon? Go with AT&T, or Sprint, or T-Mobile...or myriad other cell phone companies. You have choices with private industry.

However, don't like the war in Iraq? Well, tough titty, you are paying for it anyway little cow boy. Want Universal Health Care? Again, tough...you can't have it unless you want to move to another country. Hell, think they are doing a shitty job with the roads (they do here in New Mexico)? Got to hate that...you are fucked since you have pretty much no say in it. Oh, you can vote, but unless there is a clear majority of voters who agree with you (or are voting the same as you are anyway), you pretty much have no recourse except to move to somewhere else.

[Czarcasm]

The trouble is that in private business making a quick profit, selling off the assets of the company and firing everybody counts as a "win" as long as the guys on top come out ahead.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Chimera

I dunno, the goverment did a pretty fair job of building the internet.

They DEVELOPED the initial concept (for reasons that have zero to do with how it's used today), but they had virtually nothing to do with the internet as you know it today. It was private industry that gave you pretty much all you are using right now. The biggest thing the government did besides the early development was to get out of the way and allow it to be opened up to the general public.

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Let's try an analogy, because those ALWAYS work

Brilliant. I can't wait to see people respond to it. (Not in a ha-ha-wait'll-they-see-this-argument way, but in that it presents the issue clearly and cleanly and I'm actually interested in the response.)

Originally Posted by Iggy

Could Obama have told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that, as a matter of principle he (Obama) does not believe the mandate is a tax and Verrilli is not to argue that it is before the Supreme Court? Why didn't Obama do that?

I'm also interested in this. I'm skeptical that he could do that. The Solicitor General has a duty to defend the laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. I'm not sure the president can--or if he can, should--unilaterally tell the SG to soft-peddle a particular defense because of political concerns. Does anyone know the law on this matter?

Originally Posted by babygoat666

Here's some precedence from that socialist George Washington: link

That's a great article. Thanks!

Originally Posted by XT

Theoretical questions like this are, IMHO, silly. The government COULD do a lot of things. They could, for instance, reinstitute the draft.

During the last draft, the government gave deferrals for people in college--something they had to pay for. That means that the government could reinstitute the draft and offer deferments only to people who buy Chevys. It could even order the drafted soldiers to stand in the middle of Kabul holding signs with pictures of Mohammad! How can this be constitutional? See what happens when you elect a socialist Muslim from Kenya!

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by XT

You have choices with private industry.

As long as the government insures that we have choices (re: anti-monopoly regulations)

[XT]

I've got no trouble with government regulating private industry. That's one of their roles, IMHO. Now, where the bar is set would probably be a debate...but that there should be a bar? Not from me.

-XT

[steronz]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that State governments, which generally don't operate under constitutions that are as restrictive as the US one, can pretty much do whatever they want. So if Ohio told me that I had to have a Chevy in my driveway by the end of the week or I'd go to jail, I'd pretty much just have to go buy a Chevy.

In fact, the whole objection to the ACA was the the Federal government was overstepping it's specific boundaries, not that it was doing something that a State government couldn't already do (I'm looking at you, Mass.)

I'm also assuming it's been this way since 1803, and to my knowledge, nobody freaked out about this before. Probably because of voting (as was pointed out early on in the thread). Yay voting!

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by XT

They DEVELOPED the initial concept (for reasons that have zero to do with how it's used today), but they had virtually nothing to do with the internet as you know it today. It was private industry that gave you pretty much all you are using right now. The biggest thing the government did besides the early development was to get out of the way and allow it to be opened up to the general public.

You're wrong. The government was part of every step in the development of the internet. And where private persons were instrumental in creating parts of the internet, they were government funded. In fact, private corporations like AT&T tried to inhibit the internet. Why would they support something that would supplant their existing phone lines and monopolies? Even if you don't know anything about the internet, answer that question. And how many years did it take for online commerce to be profitable? Decades? No company would bet their bottom line on a gigantic project whose profitability was iffy and unpredictable. The government had to invent the internet, no one else could

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Chimera

You are either not very good at understanding others, or you're very good at deliberately not understanding others.

I pose a question about the reason for being angry about this. You didn't actually answer the question. You continued the "because they're making me buy it!" line. I referred to that as asinine if it is something you have and want. I have already explained my reasoning there.

How about YOU offer up something more than frothing anger that you're being forced to buy something you both have and want?

Let's try this. You ask a very direct question and I will answer it. I thought I did this, but just to be sure, let's try again.

You're question is : _______________________________________?

[tomcar]

Originally Posted by adaher

The difference is competition. If business has no competition, it does as badly as government. That's why privatization usually doesn't work, the incentives don't change.

But if the government tried to compete with private businesses offering the same product, they'd lose 9/10 times unless they were heavily subsidizing it.

I hate to state the obvious here but all the big businesses are being subsidized too, in terms of taxs breaks, preferential treatment, bailouts, etc.

[tomcar]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

You're wrong. The government was part of every step in the development of the internet. And where private persons were instrumental in creating parts of the internet, they were government funded. In fact, private corporations like AT&T tried to inhibit the internet. Why would they support something that would supplant their existing phone lines and monopolies? Even if you don't know anything about the internet, answer that question. And how many years did it take for online commerce to be profitable? Decades? No company would bet their bottom line on a gigantic project whose profitability was iffy and unpredictable. The government had to invent the internet, no one else could

+1
I was going to bring up big businesses trying to stifle internet usage. Thats why Google is creating infrastructure. Once they do, Verizon and AT&T will be things of the past. They are getting to greedy.

[babygoat666]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Sure we give a shit. And Obamacare is like charging gasoline taxes on people who don't own cars, because they aren't paying their fair share towards keeping up the roads.

All that would be needed was to swear up and down that it was not a gasoline tax, until after it passes and turns out it was a gasoline tax all along.

Regards,
Shodan

Are you telling me that the people being forced to buy health insurance for some reason do not and will not ever need health care? This is the worst analogy I have ever seen.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Let's try an analogy, because those ALWAYS work:

Bob walked around naked in his hometown, because his interpreted the anti-indecency laws in his town to apply only to lascivious conduct, and he was just wanted to be free, man.

He got arrested.

His lawyer suggested he try a first-amendment defense. "Bullshit," Bob said, "that's only supposed to protect political and religious speech, not walking around naked." So at his bench trial, he told the judge about his interpretation of the anti-indecency laws. "Also," he said, "my lawyer tells me other people have gotten away with nekkid strolling through a first-amendment defense. I think that's nonsense, but here are the relevant cases."

The judge rejects Bob's reading of the anti-indecency laws, but accepts the first-amendment defense.

Has Bob lied at any point?

I don't think so. Not based on what you've presented.

But I've already opined that I don't think Obama was necessarily lying. Did you intend for your analogy to have any use othe than to illuminate the possibility that Obama didn't lie?

[XT]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

You're wrong. The government was part of every step in the development of the internet. And where private persons were instrumental in creating parts of the internet, they were government funded. In fact, private corporations like AT&T tried to inhibit the internet. Why would they support something that would supplant their existing phone lines and monopolies? Even if you don't know anything about the internet, answer that question. And how many years did it take for online commerce to be profitable? Decades? No company would bet their bottom line on a gigantic project whose profitability was iffy and unpredictable. The government had to invent the internet, no one else could

I'm sorry, but nothing in that article contradicts what I said. I never said that private industry invented the internet. That was definitely a collaborative effort between private industry (contractors) and the Government (including research institutes and colleges, if you want to count them as 'the Government'). But the internet AS YOU USE IT TODAY is almost entirely from private industry, taking the basic design and technologies and expanding them to provide a service that wasn't originally envisioned by the Government. Now, if you want to say that the research types at various universities are 'the Government', then I suppose you have a case that 'the Government' was along for every step of the process from then until now, but having been there I can tell you that, from my perspective at least it was private industry that took the lead after the early to mid-80's. The best thing The Government(tm) did was to allow it to be opened up and to generally get out of the way and allow private industry to expand in new directions.

[Little Nemo]

It's like how the federal government can force you to move to another country if they want to.

Don't laugh, it happened to my uncle. They drafted him into the army first but then they made him go to South Korea and live there. And it was legal and everything. So the precedent's clear.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by babygoat666

Are you telling me that the people being forced to buy health insurance for some reason do not and will not ever need health care?

I believe the idea is that when they need health care, they'll just pay for it.

You know, like when they're in a horrible car accident with an uninsured driver and run up a $500,000 medical bill. Instead of relying on insurance, they ask Jeeves to bring them their checkbook... or go completely bankrupt, I forget which.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

You're wrong. The government was part of every step in the development of the internet. And where private persons were instrumental in creating parts of the internet, they were government funded. In fact, private corporations like AT&T tried to inhibit the internet. Why would they support something that would supplant their existing phone lines and monopolies? Even if you don't know anything about the internet, answer that question. And how many years did it take for online commerce to be profitable? Decades? No company would bet their bottom line on a gigantic project whose profitability was iffy and unpredictable. The government had to invent the internet, no one else could

Yes, the government played a role:

The origins of the Internet reach back to research of the 1960s, commissioned by the United States government in collaboration with private commercial interests to build robust, fault-tolerant, and distributed computer networks. The funding of a new U.S. backbone by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s, as well as private funding for other commercial backbones, led to worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies, and the merger of many networks. The commercialization of what was by the 1990s an international network resulted in its popularization and incorporation into virtually every aspect of modern human life. As of 2011, more than 2.2 billion people – nearly a third of Earth's population — use the services of the Internet.[1]

Let's not forget this individual that made it what it is today:

Sir Timothy John "Tim" Berners-Lee, OM, KBE, FRS, FREng, FRSA (born 8 June 1955[1]), also known as "TimBL", is a British computer scientist, MIT professor and the inventor of the World Wide Web. He made a proposal for an information management system in March 1989[2] and on 25 December 1990, with the help of Robert Cailliau and a young student at CERN, he implemented the first successful communication between a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) client and server via the Internet.[3]

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

It's like how the federal government can force you to move to another country if they want to.

Don't laugh, it happened to my uncle. They drafted him into the army first but then they made him go to South Korea and live there. And it was legal and everything. So the precedent's clear.

Which, under Obama, means they could send a drone to kill him without trial! (Joking, but that really is the huge overstep of government power that conservatives [and liberals] should be up in arms about!)

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Chimera

. . . And frankly, I don't buy the "everyone tries to get their money's worth" line. I'm not going to run to the doctor every other day to "get my money's worth". I don't do it now and I pay a shit load for my insurance.

Well, the contrapositive is, alas, true: I don't have insurance, and so I simply sit and take it when I have minor medical maladies. If I had insurance, I'd go to the doc and have 'em looked at.

So, yeah, to be fair, if there were magically, overnight, a national health care system here, costs would go up a little, as people like me went in to have our little problems treated.

(In my opinion, this is a Good Thing, not a bad thing...)

[aux203]

Originally Posted by dataguy

You actually know people who do this? Call an ambulance to avoid having to search for a parking space, etc?

I do. I've met plenty of people who called an ambulance because they wanted one or more of the following:

a) to be seen without having to wait in the waiting room
b) pain medication
c) a free meal
d) somewhere to spend the night
e) wanted to get out of jail for a while
f) some attention

Not like there's an epidemic of these people, but they tend to generate a lot of visits. In general they have no ability or interest in paying their bills and everyone knows it. Most ER's have a few and can list the most common ones of the top of their heads. From my interactions with foreign MDs, this isn't a problem limited to the United States, though I'd be curious if anyone has studies the relatively frequency of this sort of thing. I'm not aware of it if they have.

Not that this has anything to do with Obamacare. No health care system can eliminate assholes. If anything, it would be a lot cheaper if they were torturing their PCP instead of using the emergency care system.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

I don't have insurance, and so I simply sit and take it when I have minor medical maladies. If I had insurance, I'd go to the doc and have 'em looked at.

Even if there was a deductable? How much would you be willing to pay to have 'em looked at?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Your ire appears to be that Congress, at Obama's behest, passed a tax, and Obama refuses to admit it's a tax. That's a political problem, not a legal one.

I think we thrashed this out in the Bush-Iraq threads. It is not against the law to lie to Congress, or the public. Obama was not under oath. But yes, you are correct that passing legislation under false pretenses is a political problem.

No. But the federal government can tax you if you fail to buy that product.

That's a distinction without a difference. It's not against the law to speed; you just have to pay a tax if you do it.

I'm sorry to say this, Shodan, but in this complaint, you sound like a liberal to me.

There's no need to get insulting.

Regards,
Shodan

[drachillix]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Ask any paramedic. It happens.

most often to a shitty medic.

Transport by ambulance needs to be justified (at least here in CA) and even medical/medicaid etc will reject payment claims that cannot be medically justified. Ambulance companies are often private companies that have no desire to not get paid.

an ambulance crew can refuse to transport you if they do not feel in their judgement that it would be detrimental for you to do so.

[drachillix]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Any 9-1-1 center or ambulance office knows several of these people. There is a somewhat pejorative nickname, frequent flyers.

There are patients who literally will jump out of the ambulance once it reaches the hospital and walk away. I have personally dealt with a patient who left the ER waiting room, walked a couple blocks, and called an ambulance thinking it would move him to the head of the line.

What we called frequent fliers were just the ones like alcoholic non compliant diabetics, major asthmatics, guys with seizure disorders and a meth habit. They have legitimate medical needs, sometime exacerbated by their own behaviors, but still real emergencies.

IF someone is bailing out of an ambulance and wandering off I question how they justified transporting him. We saw a lot of folks who had justifiable concerns about their condition but whom later could be driven by a family member or visit the doc/clinic of your choice in the next couple days.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Shodan

That's a distinction without a difference. It's not against the law to speed; you just have to pay a tax if you do it.

No, for a couple of reasons. The fine from speeding is assessed by the courts, after a finding of guilt. The speed limit is enforced by police. These are not characteristics of taxes.

The ACA's tax is collected by the IRS. Need I say more?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by magellan01

But I've already opined that I don't think Obama was necessarily lying. Did you intend for your analogy to have any use othe than to illuminate the possibility that Obama didn't lie?

Nope.

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by Bricker

The ACA's tax is collected by the IRS. Need I say more?

They sure did in the dissent. I thought it was a pretty compelling argument as to why this is not a tax but a penalty. Did you find fault with it?

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by drachillix

What we called frequent fliers were just the ones like alcoholic non compliant diabetics, major asthmatics, guys with seizure disorders and a meth habit. They have legitimate medical needs, sometime exacerbated by their own behaviors, but still real emergencies.

IF someone is bailing out of an ambulance and wandering off I question how they justified transporting him. We saw a lot of folks who had justifiable concerns about their condition but whom later could be driven by a family member or visit the doc/clinic of your choice in the next couple days.

Well practiced frequent flyers report symptoms but may lack matching signs. Patient complains of chest pain, but medics find no abnormality on EKG, no elevated BP, no elevated pulse rate, etc... Paramedic has to transport. We have one patient who complains of sudden onset, 10 out of 10, abdominal pain and will wait standing on the side of the road holding her little suitcase.

Various efforts have been tried in some communities (not ours). Providing taxi vouchers to travel for routine medical appointments. Some cities have proposed a modest charge ($20 or so, more than bus or taxi fare) that is ineligible for reimbursement by insurance. Ft Worth has implemented some efforts to proactively visit and provide more in home care.

I forsee the PPACA boosting the frequent flyer problem dramatically.

[Chimera]

Criminal charges and a bill should clear up those symptoms.

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by XT

I'm sorry, but nothing in that article contradicts what I said. I never said that private industry invented the internet.

You are trying to answer a question that was not asked, which is that who is responsible for the internet as it is today. Post #72 makes it clear, when you repeatedly claimed that:

They DEVELOPED the initial concept (for reasons that have zero to do with how it's used today), but they had virtually nothing to do with the internet as you know it today. It was private industry that gave you pretty much all you are using right now.

This answer was to a statement on how the government BUILT the internet. So why does your answer have nothing about who built it and focuses completely on how it is NOW?

Of course right NOW the internet is pretty much the way it is due to private companies. Those companies have had decades to build up their networks and infrastructure and business plans! Nobody has claimed here that the government is responsible for Google, or Facebook. You are claiming that in direct response to the question of who built the internet originally, and it is the government. If that's not an attempt to distract people from the real issues, then I don't know what is

Can you simply answer the question of is the government responsible for inventing the internet at its very beginnings? That's the only issue we're concerned about.

Originally Posted by magellan01

Let's not forget this individual that made it what it is today:

From the article:

Some of Crovitz’s errors seem to stem from technological ignorance; in arguing that Xerox’s graphical machines were in some way responsible for the design of the Internet, Crovitz seems to conflate the Internet and the World Wide Web. The Web is the system of linked, usually graphical documents you see in a Web browser—i.e., sites like Slate. The Internet is the network over which the Web and other communications systems—e-mail, instant messaging, file-sharing—travel. The Internet predated the Web.

We are talking about who invented the internet, not who invented the World Wide Web. And you made the exact mistake that the article writer on Slate.com said that people like you often do when they claim that the government didn't invent the internet. They did, and it was only the government that could have done so

Hang your head in shame

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

We are talking about who invented the internet, not who invented the World Wide Web. And you made the exact mistake that the article writer on Slate.com said that people like you often do when they claim that the government didn't invent the internet. They did, and it was only the government that could have done so

Hmmm. Ponder, if you will, why I first provided a link to the beginnings of the internet—stating that the government did play a role—and then chose these words to point to TBL's contribution:

(emphasis added for those with poor reading skills)

Originally Posted by magellan01

Let's not forget this individual that made it what it is today:

I'll leave you to it...