Fair enough. I apologize for putting words in your mouth.
In context of the discussion we’re having in this thread, what is your position on the healthcare issue. IOW, what does BrickerCare look like in the US?
I have to say that the best Christians in my old country were shot and killed just because they showed with their actions how unchristian the ones in power were circa 1970-1990.
Could not have those “bad” examples showing the poor people the raw deal they were getting.
As I saw elsewhere someone noted how sad it was that the Republicans do not mind that their efforts could end up killing more Americans than ISIS is killing in a year.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm
I go for that estimate of 18,000 Americans dying for lack of Insurance in a year because of the ones doing the survey and just because is one of the recent studies with the lowest count found. Just to be fair to the “consciences” of Republicans in power. Others estimate higher death counts.
See, I would think you’d be much more amenable to being able to choose your healthcare plan based on your risk/cost/benefit tolerance. So choosing from a list of bronze/silver/gold/platinum plans and available providers and networks would give you more control than simply having the gov’t cover everyone with the same level of care.
I’m for UHC and it being completely funded by taxes with the same (high) level of care for everyone. But if it’s going to cost you anyway, I could see the argument in being able to choose per an ACA type system (with built in assurances not to gouge those most vulnerable).
Yes, I disagree, because sometimes definitions become a matter of debate, and sometimes they are crystal clear, like the definition of what a human being is. Like, for instance, whether a bean-sized non-sentient lump of protoplasm is a human being, versus whether a Syrian refugee is a human being.
Let me cite a case in point on this matter of compassion, sent to me by Canadian ex-pat relatives who are currently resident citizens of the US. They have been horrified by the xenophobic treatment of Muslims and refugee applicants under the current administration, and equally horrified by Republican attempts to decimate the health care system and the meager incremental progress that was made by the Obama administration.
It was this New York Times article citing one particular family as an examplar of the thousands of Canadians who have personally sponsored and helped – emotionally and financially – thousands of Syrian refugee families become settled in this country and integrated into their communities. Keep in mind that Canada is a country that no longer outlaws abortion at any stage, although in practice late-term abortions are very rare. This is also a country that embraces single-payer universal health care from coast to coast.
So either liberals in Canada are wildly inconsistent in being compassionate in health care policy and generous in refugee admissions and resettlement while being horribly cruel in abortion policy, or maybe you’re misguided on some vital point. The alternative view is that Republicans are absolutely consistent in their lack of compassion towards immigrants, the poor who lack health care, the middle class who pay too much for it, and women who seek the right to have control of their own bodies. You brought up the comparison with abortion. You decide which viewpoint is the most logically consistent explanation. Keep in mind who your current president is.
It’s too early to tell how good or bad the new bill will be.
Obama care did not meet expectations, aside from raising other people’s health care costs, and inserting a penalty for those with no coverage.
Absolutely not true.
The ACA covered millions of people who did not previously have access to affordable healthcare. It extended coverage for young adults living at home. Expanded Medicare coverage.
It isn’t perfect. But it’s not in any way a failure that the GOP insists it is.
Back off.
Let’s stick to discussing the actual topic and leave the personal cracks to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
No, the process is entirely different. The current process can be used to support the forced purchase of broccoli, GM cars, gym memberships, carrot juice, etc. There is no limit. It’s not just about where the charge is entered in the ledger - it is an argument of constitutional principles and the proper role and power of government.
You don’t see a difference between merchandise and health care, between a GM car and saving a life? There is absolutely a limit to what such a principle should mandate – it shouldn’t mandate anything at all, unless it has to operate in a system so screwed up that basic human rights are treated like merchandise.
You mean merchandise and insurance right? Equivocating health care and health insurance would not be accurate. The constitutional principle that allows congress to force the purchase of health insurance can be applied to broccoli, as well as gym membership at Trump You Up Fitness CentersTM, among other things.
This wins the thread.
He does rather imply this, doesn’t he?
Bricker quotes himself:
While Bricker’s stances almost seem contradictory, I’m sure he’ll argue that he’s been utterly consistent. Would that instead he made a sincere attempt to lay out his position, clearly and completely. Bricker: can you overlook momentarily that you are twice as smart as anyone else and can you forgo the pleasure you get by demonstrating that? Do you need it explained step-by-step why your recent post seems to contradict the quote above?
There’s exaggeration in the above, e.g. “almost universally been a GOOD thing,” but toning it down can you explain where and why Mr. Silver’s alleged position is objectively inferior to yours? Do you want Virginia to provide state-wide UHC? Would you vote for a national UHC constitutional amendment?
I did take the time to track down Bricker’s response to this. He repeats his “Since I’m not saying that the ACA was unconstitutional, but merely unwise as a role of government…” in a disparaging tone, implying that all four of wolfpup’s points are thereby dispensed with. What’s with that?
Will someone please point me to the post(s), if any, where Mr. Bricker refutes Mr. Wolfpup.
I’m not comprehending your assertion.
You concede that the federal government has the power to force you to do something (face death fighting in a war).
You assert that the federal government does not have the power to force you to do something, or at least should not have that power, and did not have that power before the ACA. In this case, the “something” is to “buy something”, specifically insurance.
But if a government already has the power to conscript you against your will, to force you to enlist in the armed forces as a necessary part of the power to wage war, how do you not think that it has the power to compel purchase of something as a necessary part of the power to regulate the economy? Suppose it becomes vital to the interest of the United States that some product (let’s use broccoli) be in plentiful supply. To encourage this, the federal government requires each citizen to purchase one pound of broccoli each month. How can this be any less allowable than conscription?
What I take from your argument, then, is not that you truly believe that the federal government was given a power by the ACA it never had, and should never have, but rather that the ACA is an exercise of power by the federal government you would prefer it not to use, because you think government forcing someone to do something without having chosen to subject oneself to the possibility (say, by choosing to drive a car) is not a good idea. And I might agree with you. But it’s quite different, in my mind, to say: this is something the government should do very sparingly, compared to saying: this is something the government never had the power to do before, and shouldn’t have the power to do now.
But I will point out one simple thing: you were never compelled to purchase insurance. You were simply taxed by the federal government if you didn’t. That’s an even different kettle of fish.
The constitution authorizes congress to act in many different areas. Because it allows action in area A, does not mean that B is authorized. Conscription is authorized through the ‘raise armies’ clause. The raise armies clause is not what grants congress the authority to tax and spend for the general welfare - that is through the general welfare clause. Because they stem from different sources of power, it would not be a very good argument to assert that since the raise armies clause authorizes conscription, that forcing people to purchase broccoli is okay because that is less intrusive than conscription
Not so. I think that forcing people to purchase something should be unconstitutional - a power it never had pre-ACA and a power it should never have. I could be missing something, but this is not a power that has previously been exercised by the federal government and in that sense it is an expansion of federal power - not something they should exercise sparingly, but something they’ve never done before. Also a bad idea. Obviously the folks wearing the black robes disagreed with my assessment, but my opinion is unchanged.
A tax penalty for inaction is compulsion to act. The size of the lever matters not.
Septimus, these questions have been asked of me and answered by me so frequently in this thread that post #400 parodies the phenomenon.
IMHO I think it was seen before, and related to the military too, in cases were even the military reports that equipment, specific tanks, ships, weapons or military bases are not needed but the lawmakers write check for them anyhow.
It’s been a lengthy discussion. Kindly summarize, if you don’t mind.
Septimus, this crosses a couple of lines. I’m giving you a warning here for personal attacks. Please keep the personal comments to yourself, please.
Meanwhile, outside the realm of tiresome and tedious argumentations from tenthers and libertarians, this bill which you folks are celebrating will end up stripping tens of millions of Americans of their health care. Personally, when it comes to the question of this legislature, I think that’s a slightly more crucial point, don’t you?
Like it or not, as things go now it is costing all of us to pay for trips to the emergency room,people cannot be turned away, so our costs go up like it or not. The new bill just takes away from the people who need it, because insurances only want to insure people who they feel won’t need health care as much as someone who does.
No. I don’t. In the long term health of the nation as a whole, I think adhering to the wisdom of recognizing proper federal roles is vastly more important.