He did. Post 630. Along with Richard Parker in post 629. Both of which you somehow missed.
The post in question is 621, not later ones.
You posted the first quoted post at 9:08a(PDT)
The two posts that cited the link were posted at 8:48a(PDT) and 8:49a(PDT)
It’s a famous saying. You honestly never heard it before?
I have honestly not heard it before. Well, maybe, but I don’t remember hearing it.
GIGO posted his link in #621, I responded in the very next post, #622.
But you go ahead without me. I’m done with this as it’s obviously turning into a hijack.
From that same link, a quote from Jefferson that certainly pertains to this thread:
But that’s not something with any operational meaning. Can you imagine a SCOTUS justice arguing that wrt the constitutionality of a given law? The only way I could see is if there was a truly unforeseen, existential threat to the country-- like an invasion from outer space or something.
What about this quote from the same link:
[QUOTE=Donald Trump]
Our constitution is great, but it doesn’t necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, okay?
[/QUOTE]
A case could be made for an actual dire threat that could wipe the country from the earth. But I don’t think this is one of those cases.
Although I do find it funny that a poster named **BobLibDem **and Donald Trump have the same thoughts about suicidally following the Constitution 
This is especially a dangerous idea for a president to put forward. Now that I am in power, you can trust me to do what’s good for the country. There is a reason The One Ring had to be destroyed, rather than given to Gandalf, Elrond, Aragorn or Galadriel to wield “for the good”.
That would be cute. Both insurance companies and Congress are busy proving themselves under no obligation to provide health care, so what argument do they have?
In an alternate scenario, states could implement their own versions of Medicare-for-everyone and use insurance companies as administrative contractors, with that role up for bid.
Maybe there is a point between the two extremes we can discuss?
Not only can I imagine it, I don’t have to.
[QUOTE=Justice Hugo Black]
Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders—as inevitably it must—determined that they should have the power to do just this.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Justice Felix Frankfurter]
To talk about a military order that expresses an allowable judgment of war needs by those entrusted with the duty of conducting war as “an [p225] unconstitutional order” is to suffuse a part of the Constitution with an atmosphere of unconstitutionality. The respective spheres of action of military authorities and of judges are, of course, very different. But, within their sphere, military authorities are no more outside the bounds of obedience to the Constitution than are judges within theirs. “The war power of the United States, like its other powers … is subject to applicable constitutional limitations,” Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U.S. 146, 156. To recognize that military orders are “reasonably expedient military precautions” in time of war, and yet to deny them constitutional legitimacy, makes of the Constitution an instrument for dialectic subtleties not reasonably to be attributed to the hard-headed Framers, of whom a majority had had actual participation in war.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not seeing it. Can you quote the exact part you are thinking of? To me it says that the war powers granted to the president (and the military) are as much a part of the constitution as anything else. Where does it say: The constitution doesn’t allow this, but we’re going to give it a pass anyway?
…these are not “good metrics.” What are you measuring?
Lets put two hospitals side-by-side. Everything is identical, but the hospital on the left has 3 MRI scanners and the hospital on the right has 4 MRI scanners.
Does the hospital on the right have objectively better metrics than the hospital on the left?
Lets bring the analogy closer to your Canada example. The hospital on the right now has 6 MRI scanners. Twice as many as the hospital on the left. How much more objectively better is the hospital on the right now?
Lets bring it to the UK. The hospital on the left has 3 MRI scanners. The hospital on the right now has 10. Is the hospital on the right objectively better?
Now what if I were to tell you that from a medical standpoint, the optimal amount of MRI scanners per hospital to deliver satisfactory outcomes was 1 MRI scanner. Which hospital is doing it better, the one on the left, the one on the right, or the one right behind me that only has one MRI scanner?
America has nearly 3 times the MRI scanners than we have in New Zealand. The first morning I was in hospital (mentioned earlier in the thread) I was scheduled for an MRI. I got wheeled into the MRI waiting room that afternoon. I had maybe a ten minute wait before they wheeled me in. Was my experience objectively worse than what I would have experienced if I were in America?
Without further context your metric is meaningless. I would argue the hospital on the right with 10 MRI scanners is worse off: because it has invested millions of dollars in pointless MRI scanners when that money could have been better deployed somewhere else.
Which really is the tale of the US healthcare system.
I don’t think that there is much disagreement amongst liberals at all. They nearly all agree that the ACA model is imperfect, and want to move towards fixing it. They would love to see single payer, but American society is just not ready for it yet. So “imperfect” will have to do for now. The ACA was always going to be a compromise between what the “left” could live with, and with what the “right” would concede. The current ACHA has had zero input from the “left”. I don’t think that is wise.
I don’t think I’ve read anything more horrific on this messageboard in my life.
I read it last night before I went to bed: I hoped that when I woke up and read it with fresh eyes it would have improved. But it hasn’t.
Its horrific for a number of reasons. I think one of the reasons it horrifies me is the thought that you are not the only person who thinks this. That this is mainstream-conservative thinking.
The thing is though is that the year is 2017. UHC has been implemented in a variety of different ways all over the western world for decades. You can quite clearly see what does and doesn’t work. There is no need for 50 individual experiments. You take what works. You tweak it. You implement it. And then you course-correct as required. You do it nationwide because it will be billions of dollars cheaper and easier to implement.
The world is a smaller place now. I can hop onto google maps and virtually drive down a street in suburban America. I can skype with a friend in Los Angeles. I can email a business in Arizona. We can’t turn back the clock. The world is moving towards greater globalization, not less.
Chaos theory predicts that the “fifty petri dish” experiment with health care is doomed to fail. The United States of America is a giant, complex systems of millions of interactions that happens every day. These “50 experiments” won’t work in isolation. They can’t work in isolation. It isn’t 1776 any more. Are you wondering why people are “astounded to learn that there is any difference between federal and state power at all”, this is the reason why. The difference between federal and state power is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Because it makes things harder to do. And more expensive. And as we are discovering during this healthcare debate, it is inherently cruel.
You think that it is unwise for the roles of the Feds and the State to blur. I couldn’t disagree more. If America is going to continue to be a powerhouse in the world it needs to evolve. There are millions of disparate voices in America who are not represented by the people in power right now. Native Americans, people of colour, the LGBT community, women played no part in drafting your founding document, and don’t want to play a part in your grand experiment. They want decent healthcare that is affordable. They want life, liberty, and they want to be happy, not miserable. You concede that “repeal and replace” will probably result in poorer outcomes: but consider that to be an acceptable sacrifice to ensure that there is no increase in the power of the federal government at the expense of the states. I think that is incredibly unwise.
I couldn’t think of anything less wise to be honest. I think that this slavish devotion to a philosophical principle is the opposite of wise: and your inability to offer a decent argument shows just how unwise it is.
We’ll agree to disagree.
I am less than pleased to imagine that your vision might come to pass and America joins the ranks of marching towards the lowest common denominator. America IS a powerhouse and does not “need to evolve,” to maintain that.
You are welcome to keep advocating for your view, of course. But as college campuses have shown us lately, once your views get into the majority, dissenting voices become anathema. I want no part of that.
One thing the SDMB is great for: after one of these threads I write another check. This time it’s to the American Action Network, a PAC that’s helping with repeal lobbying. Not even tax deductible, and I find their tactics questionable. But damn, Banquet Bear, I read your post and I thought. . . rather fund a questionable PAC than stand idle and watch the Banquet Bear mentality wipe out the federal/state divide.
I support this wholeheartedly. We can’t succeed in the 21st century and beyond if we limit ourselves to the vision of 18th century aristocrats.
…you haven’t explained what “the lowest common denominator” is. What is it? Why is it so bad?
We all agree that America is a powerhouse now. Will it continue to be a powerhouse if it yanks affordable healthcare from people who just got it? If it passes responsibility for the rights of the LGBT community exclusively to the states? 30 years ago arguably yes. But now? These people have a voice. And they will use it. And they can be heard more easily now than any time in human history.
And if you choose not to listen, then sooner or later it will all come crashing down.
You can block out dissenting views as much as you like. That won’t make them shut up.
I don’t live in the United States. So you can write a check to whomever you damn well like. I have a “check” account by the way: but I don’t have any checks. They are obsolete. I haven’t seen one in years. The name lives on in legacy only. Nearly everything here is done via bank-to-bank transfer. Because bank-to-bank transfer is cheaper, easier, with less waste, is near instantaneous and is vastly more efficient. Even the way you spend money is slower and more expensive than the rest of the world.
Our founding document is the Treaty of Waitangi. My society is founded on a partnership between tangata whenua and the crown. We put a strong emphasis on whanau: on looking after each other. It is the cornerstone of who we are as a people.
About five years ago my dad went outside to get the newspaper. At about five in the morning. It was pouring down with rain: and my dad fell over. And he couldn’t stand up again. He had to roll across the dirty muddy grass to get to the drive way. Then he had to roll down the drive way to get to get to the stairs. Then he had to painstakingly crawl up four stairs, and then started to bang on the floor to wake me up. I found him on the ground, bruised, soaking wet, not able to talk.
My dad had had a stroke. He was taken to the critical care unit and spent a couple of days there before moving to a general ward. He was there for about a month before they sent him to Kenepuru Hospital for a couple of weeks of rehabilitation. When he finally came home, the nurse visited every few weeks to see that he was doing okay. The hospital supplied a walking frame so he could keep moving around the house.
And dad is still here. No “death panels” down under. 82 and still going strong. Apart from the medication (at $2.00 per item per prescription), and incidental costs like driving to see him and parking, we spent zero dollars out of pocket. And in pure government dollars we spent half the amount the United States does on healthcare.
You can go to any western country in the world and hear similar stories. Affordable healthcare. It isn’t even up for debate. The exception is the United States. Because in the United States achieving better health outcomes and happier people at affordable costs is not the priority. Preserving the distinctions between the feds and the states is so much more important. :rolleyes:
You are a smart guy Bricker. You should really ask yourself why the arguments you put forward in this thread in defense of “repeal and replace” are so incredibly lame. You might want to ask yourself why you spent your last post telling us all that you were donating money to a questionable PAC based on the opinion of somebody who lives on the other side of the world.
Because that really is unwise. Are you that scared of my voice? Well imagine the voices you will hear if the ACA is repealed. You better start installing those storm shutters. Because things are going to get awfully loud.
Banquet Bear, that was beautiful.