House passes "repeal and replace"

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Bricker

Bad news is that this interview is not going well for you so far.

Every time I disappoint you a Smurf loses his blue.

Stranger

[DSYoungEsq]

@Bone

Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, etc. are entitlements. The ACA is different in that it expanded the power of the federal government allowing it to force you to buy something, regardless if you wanted it or not. Today it is health insurance. With no limiting principle tomorrow it could be Trump University diplomas. That is not a power the federal government should have.

I do not believe this is the essence of Bricker’s objections. You may also be failing your interview. Though perhaps not so badly as Stranger…

[QuickSilver]

@UltraVires

I’m with Bricker. He gets his conservative card back after voting for Hillary.

I wish the law went further and completely dismantled Obamacare. It is not a function of government in a free society to take money from someone and give it to me just because I need something.

You should stop paying and filing taxes, on principal.

[Bricker]

@wolfpup

The evidence seems to be that this plan will result in a great many poor and sick people losing their health care. If someone interprets your support of it as your belief that the poor and the sick don’t deserve proper health care and that depriving them of it is a terrific idea – and I don’t see how any other interpretation is possible – what credible response could you provide?

My response is that your imagination is dramatic in its limitation.

Except that your friends the Republicans are meddling in federal health care every bit as much as Obama’s Democrats ever did – the only difference is they’re putting their own reprehensible ideological spin on it. Moreover, Medicare has been a federal program for a great many years, thoroughly opposed by Republicans at the beginning for much the same reasons that they’re opposing Obamacare now – too socialist, gives too many people health care who should damn well either pay for it themselves or have the good grace to die. But now Medicare is well entrenched and highly valued and it’s not going anywhere. That ship – federal management of health care – sailed a long time ago.

Why should I support the building of a second ship under those circumstances?

I actually agree with you that a UHC program should ultimately be state-administered, but because of Medicare and many other factors there is a federal role in cost-sharing and establishing standards. The federal government has to be viewed as a collaborative partner in these state initiatives, otherwise “let the states handle it” is just a cop-out synonymous with “I don’t want it” and ensures it will never happen, just like the states that have struggled in vain trying to propose or introduce single-payer.

I don’t object to that vision of the feds as collaborative spending partners in the process.

[DSYoungEsq]

@UltraVires

I’m with Bricker. He gets his conservative card back after voting for Hillary.

I wish the law went further and completely dismantled Obamacare. It is not a function of government in a free society to take money from someone and give it to me just because I need something.

So, you believe that every time ANY government taxes you (or takes fees from you) and then pays that money to someone else (directly or indirectly) to provide for that other person’s need, that is wrong? Do I really need to follow this up with the inevitable showing that this would logically mean that government could provide no services of any type? ;):dubious:

[Leaper]

@UltraVires

It is not a function of government in a free society to take money from someone and give it to me just because I need something.

Okay, I keep seeing this, and I keep coming back to the same thought: what hope does your philosophy offer? Why should the poor, disabled, chronically ill, and suddenly cancer stricken go along with this? How does “I’m sorry you have to go bankrupt and die, but that’s not my problem” help societal stability?

I mean, you may not care, but do you at least acknowledge that running a national government that way might wind up with people being guillotined in the town square? What does your way of doing things offer people who are in need of help just to survive besides a shrug, especially when they can look at other countries who do things differently?

Speaking of which, would you personally have a different answer than Bricker with regards to my question on how you would convince a Canadian or European that the American system is better?

(These questions apply to all who agree with the OP in general principles; there are at least a couple.)

[Bricker]

@Grim_Render

Rebelled against the Uk because they didn’t want to pay taxes, signed a union treaty, then had a politics convention in Philadelphia to write a founding document.

Those are all things that happened, but the thing that ALSO happened, and which you don’t explicitly mention, is the key: the states, which were separately sovereign, ceded a portion of their sovereignty to the new federal government, under the guarantee that the new federal government’s powers would be enumerated, not plenary.

[Bone]

@DSYoungEsq

I do not believe this is the essence of Bricker’s objections. You may also be failing your interview. Though perhaps not so badly as Stranger…

Well…yeah of course not. That’s MY objection. The power to compel purchase of a thing like the ACA does with no limiting principle is pretty terrible. Granted I haven’t read enough of the new house bill to determine if it’s any better. I suspect it sucks donkey balls simply based on the source.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Bricker

Why is the rest of the country required to pay for you and your beloved?

Because it’s the law, unless you’re trying to argue that Congress does not pass the laws of the land. Because it’s constitutional, unless you’re trying to argue that the Supreme Court does not interpret the law of the land. And that, my friend, is the only definition of “the proper role of government” that makes a damned bit of difference.

Here’s looking forward to when the Senate opens this rotting can of worms that the cowardly House of Reps kicked their way.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

Those are all things that happened, but the thing that ALSO happened, and which you don’t explicitly mention, is the key: the states, which were separately sovereign, ceded a portion of their sovereignty to the new federal government, under the guarantee that the new federal government’s powers would be enumerated, not plenary.

Yeah. So they came up with the Articles of Confederation which turned out to be such a disaster they went back to the drawing board and drew up a new piece of paper giving the federal government substantially more power over them.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Bone

Well…yeah of course not. That’s MY objection. The power to compel purchase of a thing like the ACA does with no limiting principle is pretty terrible.

In the State of California, you are compelled to purchase auto insurance. So, too, in the State of South Carolina, where I live now.

So are you asserting that this is ok for states, but not ok for the federal government?

[mikecurtis]

[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
First of all, those appealing Bricker’s position with arguments of how much more harm would be visited upon people who would be excluded due to pre-existing conditions or could otherwise not afford insurance or treatment need to understand that Bricker doesn’t give a fuck about anyone. His only position is the ideological one that government shouldn’t provide any services or protections unless he feels like it should, which is at least a consistent argument. It’s selfish and also stupid, but internally consistent
[/QUOTE]

well that’s not very nice. Bricker has said that’s he’s not unfeeling to the harm it may cause, just that he believes its a fair trade off to fix what shouldnt have happened at all. something that most of the conservatives in congress are not willing to say out loud. so i have to give him credit for that.

Why should government be involved in the health care business? Setting aside any arguments for human compassion or dignity, it makes sense from an economic point of view to not suffer costs of excessive lost time at or inability to work, facilitating the spread of preventable disease, ensuring that children get proper care and nutritional guidance so that they do not suffer avoidable chronic health conditions, et cetera. In terms of “wise policy moves” it makes good pragmatic sense to provide at least a basic level of medical care to everyone

this is the very foundation of why i believe the UHC it should prevail. not only is it compassionate, but it makes good business sense!

It is an issue that insurers and pharmaceutical companies contributing to PACs and other campaign funding vehicles are pushing. It is a threat to their gravy train of obscured profitability, inefficiency, and waste

and even tho ive heard this argument before, i dont understand it at all. why wouldnt insurers and providers and the rest want more people involved in receiving healthcare - more customers means more money, right? what am i missing?

mc

[wolfpup]

@UltraVires

It is not a function of government in a free society to take money from someone and give it to me just because I need something.

A civilized society would first ask what that “something” is instead of proffering such an all-encompassing generalization. And a civilized society would recognize that if that “something” involves putting out a house on fire, protecting against crime, building and maintaining public infrastructure, or providing a universal system of health care and a basic economic safety net, then it furthers the best interests of the civilization and raises the standards of the commonwealth.

[Grim_Render]

@Bricker

Those are all things that happened, but the thing that ALSO happened, and which you don’t explicitly mention, is the key: the states, which were separately sovereign, ceded a portion of their sovereignty to the new federal government, under the guarantee that the new federal government’s powers would be enumerated, not plenary.

And they also wrote an constitution with the possibility to amend things if they turned out badly. And the point where healthcare turned out badly was passed a long time ago.

[DSYoungEsq]

@HMS_Irruncible

Because it’s the law, unless you’re trying to argue that Congress does not pass the laws of the land. Because it’s constitutional, unless you’re trying to argue that the Supreme Court does not interpret the law of the land. And that, my friend, is the only definition of “the proper role of government” that makes a damned bit of difference.

Here’s looking forward to when the Senate opens this rotting can of worms that the cowardly House of Reps kicked their way.

Whoa, hold on. This argument, in essence, says that the proper role of government is whatever the people who control it at any given time decide to do with it. That’s not particularly helpful when one is trying to sort out limits on what can be done. :eek:

[Bone]

@DSYoungEsq

In the State of California, you are compelled to purchase auto insurance. So, too, in the State of South Carolina, where I live now.

So are you asserting that this is ok for states, but not ok for the federal government?

Not if I don’t drive, or if I am self insured, or I only drive on my own land.

[Bricker]

@HMS_Irruncible

Because it’s the law, unless you’re trying to argue that Congress does not pass the laws of the land. Because it’s constitutional, unless you’re trying to argue that the Supreme Court does not interpret the law of the land. And that, my friend, is the only definition of “the proper role of government” that makes a damned bit of difference.

Sure. I don’t disagree in the slightest.

But this thread was opened after one of the two houses of Congress ALSO passed a law, which I assume you’ll agree will be equally constitutional if passed by the Senate and signed by the President. So that argument is a wash, in a sense.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Grim_Render

And they also wrote an constitution with the possibility to amend things if they turned out badly. And the point where healthcare turned out badly was passed a long time ago.

So amend the Constitution. Bricker has already said he’s fine with that. More than once in this thread alone.

[Bricker]

@Grim_Render

And they also wrote an constitution with the possibility to amend things if they turned out badly. And the point where healthcare turned out badly was passed a long time ago.

Yes, they did, and as I have twice affirmed in this very thread, I would be completely supportive of a constitutional amendment that passed to accomplish federal health care.

[Leaper]

@DSYoungEsq

Whoa, hold on. This argument, in essence, says that the proper role of government is whatever the people who control it at any given time decide to do with it. That’s not particularly helpful when one is trying to sort out limits on what can be done. :eek:

Yes, but as I’ve observed before, this is a matter of LITERAL life and death, and while your argument may have merit, those who advance it, especially in government, rarely offer any alternative to those for whom it is life and death other than a “well, then, go ahead and die already. I’m more worried about the future hypothetical than your present condition.”

I don’t see how that’s tenable, sustainable, or humane.