# 2/3 say ditch individual health care mandate



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2012)

Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
"
Two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate  in the federal health care law or the law in its entirety,  signaling the depth of public disagreement with that  element of  the Affordable Care Act.
This ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that Americans oppose the law overall by 52-41 percent. And 67 percent believe  the high court should either ditch the  law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage."

The people never wanted it. This is a travesty like the abortion *law*. Nobody ever wanted it in the first place.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ches-two-thirds-say-ditch-individual-mandate/


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 19, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
> "
> Two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate  in the federal health care law or the law in its entirety,  signaling the depth of public disagreement with that  element of  the Affordable Care Act.
> This ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that Americans oppose the law overall by 52-41 percent. And 67 percent believe  the high court should either ditch the  law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage."
> ...



Which brings up the age-old question as to how susceptible the Supreme Court is to this kind of pressure....


----------



## gallantwarrior (Mar 19, 2012)

The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate.  I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.  Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
Unfortunately, too many of the Justices are activists who have demonstrated their willingness to subvert  the Constitution in favor of their concept of social justice.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 19, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate.  I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.  Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
> Unfortunately, too many of the Justices are activists who have demonstrated their willingness to subvert  the Constitution in favor of their concept of social justice.



Ain't it the truth.....


----------



## JohnA (Mar 19, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate.  I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.  Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
> Unfortunately, too many of the Justices are activists who have demonstrated their willingness to subvert  the Constitution in favor of their concept of social justice.



 examples  please


----------



## g5000 (Mar 19, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate.  I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.



No.  They did not.  There is no such rider and the question of severability is therefore debatable.

The ACA is certainly unworkable without it, though.

If the mandate falls, ObamaCare falls with it, since the alleged zero cost to the federal budget of the ACA all hinges on the mandate.

It would be interesting to see a poll that asks people if they would still like to see the mandate eliminated if it means all of ObamaCare goes with it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 19, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate.  I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.  Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
> Unfortunately, too many of the Justices are activists who have demonstrated their willingness to subvert  the Constitution in favor of their concept of social justice.



Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic Magazine Legal Affairs Editor, has said the following:

Pro-Business Conservatives: represented by policies of the US Chamber of Commerce, *strongly represented on the Roberts&#8217; Court,* where they won some 13 of 18 cases in which they filed a brief. Most business cases are unanimous or 7-2 decisions, vs those cases that deal with culture war issues. These conservatives favored TARP, and he use of federal pre-emption (federal law to take precedence over or to displace a state law) for farm subsidies, healthcare cases.  

Based on this sentiment, a court which has embraced a broad vision of federal power, as found in regulation of medical marijuana, *expect the Roberts Court to reject the pro-states rights view that would lead to the invalidation of the healthcare case.*


Consider this proposition: when Congress passes a law, it is assumed that the members have viewed same as constitutional.
The same for he Executive when he signs same.
So, what a Supreme Court Justice should do is give credence to a law being constitutional, unless it can be clearly shown that the language of the Constitution shows it to be unconstitutional....

...in a perfect world.


----------



## g5000 (Mar 19, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:



The constitutionality of a law is not determined by a popular vote.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2012)

I know.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2012)

though I have some question over whether or not we should have laws leveled against us if the majority doesn't want it.


----------



## pete (Mar 19, 2012)

More than 2/3rds didnt want it when it was shoved up our ass!!


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 19, 2012)

g5000 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate.  I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.
> ...


Actually they failed to include a severability clause.  Such a clause would mean the rest of the legislation is Constitutional even if one part is found unconstitutional.  Congress didnt put that in.
They could still decide that Congress meant to put it in and declare it severable.
Severability Clause at Heart of Judge Vinson's Ruling That 'Obamacare' Is Unconstitutional

Obamacare is not dependent legally on the mandate.  As policy it might.  But as policy it sucks anyway.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Mar 19, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate.  I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.  Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
> ...



[highlights added for emphasis] Considering that most Congressional representatives have implied, even outright admitted, that they failed to completely and comprehensively read this legislation prior to passing it, and we can safely assume that the Chief Executive  views this legislation as his legacy, there is little reason to assume that the Constitutionality of this law has  been properly determined.  That leaves it to the Court to interpret whether the law meets Constitutional standards.
Last time I looked, there was no language in the Constitution that gave government the power to 1) force an individual to purchase and product or service, or 2) to punish any individual who declines to comply with an otherwise unconstitutional requirement to make such a purchase.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Mar 19, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



A better representation, indeed.  They failed to include a severability clause, as opposed to my expression of including a rider.  Thanks for clarifying.  Personally, the omission was entirely intentional because they did not want their opus picked apart piecemeal, knowing that there would be enough to entice many that revoking the entire mess would be most difficult.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Mar 19, 2012)

g5000 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
> ...



Thankfully not!


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 19, 2012)

The ACA is law and will remain so. Until we get single payer, that is.


----------



## Clementine (Mar 19, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
> ...



The Supreme court isn't supposed to be susceptible to pressure from anywhere.   They need to strictly adhere to the constitution and if they do that, they'll strike the health care reform down.   The Obama administration is stretching the commerce clause to force people to purchase something from a third party against our will.    We are protected from that.    Once the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional, the rest of the bill goes away.   It's an all or nothing deal.


----------



## Listening (Mar 19, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> The ACA is law and will remain so. Until we get single payer, that is.



You sit on the SCOTUS ?

Or maybe you should call them and tell them what your findings are.   I am sure they will listen to you.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 19, 2012)

Sure...if you replace it with a Public Option.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 19, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> Sure...if you replace it with a Public Option.



I like the public option.  ANy member of the public has the option of buying health insurance with his own money.  No employer contribution.  No gov't subsidy.  No gov't control over pricing.
That's a real public option.
What you want is the pubic option.


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 19, 2012)

Obama thought the mandate was unnecessary, that people would want it anyway- and they will.

This just proves that 2/3 are duped and don't know what they're talking about. Not surprising considering the gigantic Pub Propaganda machine and the cowardly corporate media...


----------



## Syphon (Mar 19, 2012)

"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins"

there is already Supreme Court precedent that allows the Fed to regulate the commerce of a private entity.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

heres another interesting ruling from 2011:
Supreme Court Commerce Clause | Supreme Court ruling hints of difficulty for Obama insurance law foes - Los Angeles Times

The Supreme Court may not be so anxious to rein in Congress' broad power to pass regulatory laws under the Constitution's commerce clause, the key point of dispute in the pending court battles over President Obama's health insurance law.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices turned down a constitutional challenge to a 2002 law that makes it a federal crime for a felon to have body armor or a bulletproof vest.
The majority's decision, rendered without comment, could make it more difficult for those challenging health insurance reform to win court orders overturning parts of the new law.
"The federal power claimed is the authority to regulate anything &#8212; from the possession of French fries to the local theft of a Hershey's Kiss," argued lawyers for Cedrick Alderman, a Seattle man who appealed the body-armor law.
But the lower courts had upheld the law. The Supreme Court considered the appeal over several monthsbut rejected it Monday in Alderman vs. United States.
Alderman's appeal concerned only whether Congress had the power to enact a law regulating the possession of a product &#8212; in this instance, body armor. 

based on precedent such as this, there is a high likely hood that the court will uphold the mandate.


----------



## Listening (Mar 19, 2012)

More crapp claims from the left.

We'll see what the SCOTUS says.  It is unfortunate for the left (but good for America) that this garbage can be overturned and all the trash that followed it put in the dump.


----------



## Listening (Mar 19, 2012)

francoHFW said:


> Obama thought the mandate was unnecessary, that people would want it anyway- and they will.
> 
> This just proves that 2/3 are duped and don't know what they're talking about. Not surprising considering the gigantic Pub Propaganda machine and the cowardly corporate media...



Maybe 2/3 or 99 2/3rds are smarter than you and see this for what it is.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 19, 2012)

Listening said:


> More crapp claims from the left.
> 
> We'll see what the SCOTUS says.  It is unfortunate for the left (but good for America) that this garbage can be overturned and all the trash that followed it put in the dump.


outside the mandate, point to which part of the law you actually disagree with. specifically the section. i can guarantee you havent read a single word of it.


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 19, 2012)

Fox News

Megyn Kelly confronts Romney on mandates.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 20, 2012)

There is no explaining the disdain that nutters have for the idea of a healthy society.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 20, 2012)

g5000 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate.  I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.
> ...


The zero cost is rather meaningless as it is not true anyway but it would fail on the preexisting conditions as that would make insurance simply unworkable period.  Any insurance company would fail as a business almost immediately.  A real survey would link these two facts together because the preexisting conditions part of the law is massively popular.  Should they do such a thing though, I believe you would see widespread opposition to repealing it and that would not fit with the goal of the pollsters in this case.


LoneLaugher said:


> The ACA is law and will remain so. Until we get single payer, that is.


That is the sad but likely case.


LoneLaugher said:


> There is no explaining the disdain that nutters have for the idea of a healthy society.


There is no explaining the lying bullshit you post here when talking about others positions.  No one is against a healthy society.  We are against government mandates and the loss of rights.


Syphon said:


> "The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins"
> 
> there is already Supreme Court precedent that allows the Fed to regulate the commerce of a private entity.
> 
> ...



Both meaningless.  The contention is not that the government cannot regulate ownership but rather that they can MANDATE the purchase of a specific product.  There is ZERO precedence for this on a federal level because it has never happened before.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
> "
> Two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate  in the federal health care law or the law in its entirety,  signaling the depth of public disagreement with that  element of  the Affordable Care Act.
> This ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that Americans oppose the law overall by 52-41 percent. And 67 percent believe  the high court should either ditch the  law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage."
> ...




Yes, people are woefully misinformed on what this law is.  Thankfully, the justices won't be.  

The justices will probably uphold it for no other reason than they know that if they strike down the individual mandate, the private insurance system would collapse within five years.  (Without the ability to restrict for "pre-existing conditions", people wouldn't buy insurance until they got sick.)


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2012)

My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.  

All ObamaCare does is spread the costs around a little more by forcing people into the system, subsidzing others, and reducing a few costs like eliminating the people who use emergency rooms as their family doctors.  

Because we see Health Coverage as a form of compensation rather than as a public service like every other sensible country does, we come up with these creative concepts of how you've "earned" your health care when in fact, when you need it, you are taking more than you ever put in.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.
> 
> All ObamaCare does is spread the costs around a little more by forcing people into the system, subsidzing others, and reducing a few costs like eliminating the people who use emergency rooms as their family doctors.
> 
> Because we see Health Coverage as a form of compensation rather than as a public service like every other sensible country does, we come up with these creative concepts of how you've "earned" your health care when in fact, when you need it, you are taking more than you ever put in.



"Forcing" is the key word here.  I don't want government "forcing" its citizens into anything short of national emergency.
That is the difference.  The Left wants to force people to behave in certain ways.  The Right only wants to force them not to behave in certain ways.
Health insurance is fundamentally no different from any other insurance.  That is why it is compensation when paid by employers.
Obamacare is a demonstrated disaster waiting to happen.  Every state that has tried this system has had exactly the same experience: exploding costs.  Tennessee dismantled Tenncare for exactly this reason.  Why anyone thinks it will be different this time is beyond me.
If yoy think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Mar 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
> "
> Two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate  in the federal health care law or the law in its entirety,  signaling the depth of public disagreement with that  element of  the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> The people never wanted it. This is a travesty like the abortion *law*. Nobody ever wanted it in the first place.


....And, much *LIKE* the "abortion law".....the general-public (eventually) *prefers*....



> ....*Affordable Care*....



....after considering *the alternative*....especially when it affects *THEM*....*PERSONALLY!!!*​


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Send in the clowns.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 20, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.



In fact, it makes the problem worse by holding the public hostage to insurance companies when what we really need is less insurance on the base cases with more for the extreme cases.  I need insurance for cancer, not birth control.  Missing limbs, not a broken arm.  When you get a cold there is no reason to have the insurance company pay for the doctor visit - it is asinine.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

Boy, The Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich are going to be awfully pissed when they learn the mandate they proposed 20+ years ago is unconstitutional.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> "Forcing" is the key word here.  I don't want government "forcing" its citizens into anything short of national emergency.
> That is the difference.  The Left wants to force people to behave in certain ways.  The Right only wants to force them not to behave in certain ways.
> Health insurance is fundamentally no different from any other insurance.  That is why it is compensation when paid by employers.
> Obamacare is a demonstrated disaster waiting to happen.  Every state that has tried this system has had exactly the same experience: exploding costs.  Tennessee dismantled Tenncare for exactly this reason.  Why anyone thinks it will be different this time is beyond me.
> If yoy think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.



Both the left and the right want to force people to do things they don't want to do.  So that argument doesn't fly.  

Every other industrialized country has single payer health coverage.  

They spend less, live longer, have less babies die in infancy, have less bankruptcy.... 

It's like you just pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist, I guess.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.



Well, health care costs are going to continue to be a larger share of incomes for quite a long time.  That's true in every developed country. What do you want to do about it, offer less health care?  Less advanced health care?  I don't mean that sarcastically - it's a very difficult issue and the idea that health care costs are increasing are a natural outcome of people living longer and accessing better health technology.

Maybe it's not such a bad thing after all?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > "Forcing" is the key word here.  I don't want government "forcing" its citizens into anything short of national emergency.
> ...



Remind me what the right wants to force.  And no, abortion doesn't count.
I don't give a shit about "every other industrialized nation."  That is crap.  It is a non-argument.  Every other industrialized nation has lower corporate tax rates than we do.  Do you support lower taxes on corporations?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.
> ...



Except those costs are rising in part because of gov't interference.  Obamacare will make that trend worse, much worse.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.
> ...



I actually kind of agree with this.  But here's the thing, this is how the doctors make their money.   

I had an operation that is usually considered "elective", but I had a medical reason for it.  My doctor charged my insurance company $32,000.  A co-worker tried to get the same operation, but in her case, it really was elective and the insurance company wouldn't cover it.   Same Doctor. Same procedure.  They did it for her for $17,000.  

The problem with "Pay as you go" health coverage is that people will neglect that cold until it turns into Pneumonia.   They'll hobble around on that broken ankle hoping it will get better on its own.  

The other part of the problem is that instead of just paying people, and letting them get a policy that fits their needs, we've made health insurance a form of compensation.  While wages for working folks have remained flat in the last 30 years, the cost of health insurance has ballooned.  

 If we just paid people what their insurance cost and made them go out and get their own insurance, the system would collapse.  It would become like car insurance, and older people would be like the ones who get frequent accidents- they'd be uninsurable.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Mar 20, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.


....Which is exactly *WHY* *BU$HCO's* *MEDICARE D* is gettin'.....​


> ....*DEEP-SIXED**!!!!!*
> 
> *
> 
> ...


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Remind me what the right wants to force.  And no, abortion doesn't count.
> I don't give a shit about "every other industrialized nation."  That is crap.  It is a non-argument.  Every other industrialized nation has lower corporate tax rates than we do.  Do you support lower taxes on corporations?



Yeah, not letting a woman get an abortion DOES count as the right trying to force their way.  Sorry.  

Not talking about tax rates on Corporations.  They have higher income taxes on the wealthy to compensate, and hey, "Corporations are people, too".  They tax the profits at the individual level.  

Now, please go back on track. How is it the rest of the industrialized world pays less per capita, lives longer, has a lower infant mortality rate, if single payer, socialized medicine or universal health care is just sooooo darned awful?  

Why is there no country that is out there clamoring for "American Style Health Care".  They kind of look at us like we're fat retards .   And in this case, they are probably right.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Except those costs are rising in part because of gov't interference.  Obamacare will make that trend worse, much worse.



So in countries that have more government "interference", we should see more expensive health care costs?

Hmm...let's look around and see if that's the case, shall we?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 20, 2012)

OK........but you simply cannot look beyond our borders. America is exceptional and what they do in other countries does not apply here.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Except those costs are rising in part because of gov't interference.  Obamacare will make that trend worse, much worse.
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxNhOBemsic]Q&A: T.R. Reid - YouTube[/ame]

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi1acHg3mhw]BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Single Payer Health Insurance | PBS - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 20, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


That's because of market forces drives cost down (not to mention affordability).  We NEED to go to a system that allows competitive pricing.  


> The problem with "Pay as you go" health coverage is that people will neglect that cold until it turns into Pneumonia.   They'll hobble around on that broken ankle hoping it will get better on its own.


Some will, yes.  And many others will not.  Some do that now.  What is the difference?  There is none.  There are more things required to drive costs down and there are going to be problems with all of them but pay as you go for minor incidents is by far the best that I can see with the least in consequences.


> The other part of the problem is that instead of just paying people, and letting them get a policy that fits their needs, we've made health insurance a form of compensation.  While wages for working folks have remained flat in the last 30 years, the cost of health insurance has ballooned.
> 
> If we just paid people what their insurance cost and made them go out and get their own insurance, the system would collapse.  It would become like car insurance, and older people would be like the ones who get frequent accidents- they'd be uninsurable.


I don't think you are correct here.  I am on the complete other side of this issue and while I am a small government guy, the beast we have created with employer HC needs to be killed.  The only way I see that happening is making it ILLEGAL for employers to offer HC plans.  That's right, it should be illegal.  You are creating an inherent problem in the system when you separate the customer from the product.  With healthcare, insurance does this.  By having the employer involved it simply adds another layer to the problem.  In essence, you have the user (you) covered by an insurance company that is beholden to the employer's desires paying for a product the employer never uses.  You are completely removed from the process AND your doctor.

The system would not collapse.  Quite the contrary, insurance companies would actually have to cater to the users of their service rather than some vaunted third party.  It would also address the problems that occur when you lose your job and suddenly your insurance is gone.


IAW: have you ever had to deal with healthcare in one of these 'better' countries.  I have been through the German HC system and can say, without a single doubt, our system is FAR better.  Many of the things you note in your last post about those countries that have single payer systems are not so cut and dry as you made them out to be.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.
> ...


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 20, 2012)

Disingenuous nutters.

The high cost of health care is due to the fact that it is a "for profit" industry. Health care should be nationalized, paid for with tax revenues and delivered without regard for profit........to the same degree to all.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

Claudette said:


> This bill does nothing to address the problem with HC, The cost.
> .



How do you suggest we address this problem?  Ration services or ration access?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Remind me what the right wants to force.  And no, abortion doesn't count.
> ...



Wow.  Like predictable or what.  Or course with abortion there is another person involved.

Let's look at health care in other countries.
Britain: system bankrupt.
Canada: system bankrupt
Germany: system bankrupt
etc
Germany is instituting American style competition to get prices down.  We can look at them like bankrupt retards.  Which they are.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Except those costs are rising in part because of gov't interference.  Obamacare will make that trend worse, much worse.
> ...



All countries with socializes systems are seeing their health care costs exploding.  They are all trying desperately to institute changes to control those costs.
Go right ahead and look and see.
Tool.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> OK........but you simply cannot look beyond our borders. America is exceptional and what they do in other countries does not apply here.



The US is exceptional in its demographics and its geography.


----------



## Full-Auto (Mar 20, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> There is no explaining the disdain that nutters have for the idea of a healthy society.



That is laughable. I have yet to hear anyone of the nuts say anything in that respect.

The idea was to control costs, the response from the left was OK more freebees.

Remember this from the party on the left.

Any cut is extreme.  How much further will the debt take us, all the way to the crash.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 20, 2012)

And.....apparently in it's high number of greedy fucks who don't mind lying all the time.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > This bill does nothing to address the problem with HC, The cost.
> ...



That is certainly the Democratic approach.
A better one would be putting the individual in charge of his own health care, including costs. People are better spenders of their own money than of someone else's money.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> And.....apparently in it's high number of greedy fucks who don't mind lying all the time.



But enough about you.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 20, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > There is no explaining the disdain that nutters have for the idea of a healthy society.
> ...



The idea is to get EVERYONE health care. Cost is secondary to that goal. But cost is reduced by making sure EVERYBODY has access to quality health care. Fucking DUH!


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



That..^^^^.....above in *BOLD RED*.

Enough said.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



No on is denied health care in this country.
Another myth of the Left.
Recall that Obamacare was supposed to insure coverage for the 13M Americans who were supposedly without.  When all is said and done we could have hired a personal physician for every one of those 13M people cheaper than this piece of shit system they've put in place.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



the average framily spends more money a year on a roof over their head with heat, electricity, and a cooking facilities than they do on healthcare.

Now...is having a roof over yoiur head as described above any less important than healthcare?

So why is there not a law about thjat as well?

How about a law regarding winter coats for kids.

In other words...whats next?


----------



## Full-Auto (Mar 20, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Everyone does have access. you will need to try much harder.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



It also wouldn't hurt to let these HC companies have to compete against each other country wide. Competition produces good prices. 

Don't know about you but I would be going for the best coverage at the least cost.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Per capita health care costs and the rate of growth of health care costs are lower in all of those countries than in the United States.

Keep reaching.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Yeah, people should all save enough money that they can pay for kidney failure, advanced cancer treatments and a quadruple bypass.  How entirely reasonable!


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



I've already shown you cannot compare rates because the populations are different.
You can compare costs in those countries from period to period.  And those costs are skyrocketing.  Just like MA.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



No you haven't.  How are the "populations different"?  Last I checked, we were from a gene pool that is 99.99% identical to the gene pool in those nations.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Moving the goalposts again?
Those are exactly the things people need insurance for.  Not doctor visits or contraceptives.

You seem especially clueless this morning.  Is it something you drank last night or have I just forgotten what a moron you are?


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Insurance?  But that's not putting people in charge of the costs of health care.  Instead, it's quite intentionally creating moral hazard.

But now that we agree that insurance is needed, maybe we should look at what drives down the cost of insurance.  I'll start:  A bigger pool of insured folks.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Really?  Blacks make up 12% of the population.  How many aer in Europe?
Hispanics make up 16%
Asians make up 5%
That's over a third of the population that is not from the European gene pool.

Our entire mode of living is different owing to the age of the country vs Europe  and its size.  Our diet is different as well.
Keep reaching up there.  Eventually you'll find something.  Like your tonsils.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



How is providing insurance for catastrophic events a moral hazard?  Do you even know wtf you're talking about?
Drive down costs?  How about more choice?  Like across state lines.  How about no mandates on what must be included in a policy?
Surely you agree with that.  You must support Ryan's proposal then.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Wait a second - are you saying that blacks, asians and hispanics require more expensive health care, genetically, than whites?

Please do explain why the color of one's skin impacts the amount required for health care. This should be *interesting*.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Uh, because it incentivized negative behaviors?  Methinks you don't understand moral hazard.



> Drive down costs?  How about more choice?  Like across state lines.  How about no mandates on what must be included in a policy?



Let's see...more choice across state lines.  Kinda like a system of public exchanges where people can buy health insurance from numerous carriers?


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate.  I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.  Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
> Unfortunately, too many of the Justices are activists who have demonstrated their willingness to subvert  the Constitution in favor of their concept of social justice.



Showing that "activist" has no meaning whatsoever.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

g5000 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate.  I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.
> ...



The ACA can function without the mandate. Several states already have guaranteed issue with no mandate.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



More fallacies from you.  What a shocker.
You claim that costs ought to be comparable given we have comparable genes.  I show we do not have comparable genes.
Blacks have a tendency to higher incidents of certain diseases than whites.  This is simply fact.  It isn't what the argument was--you have again shifted the goalposts.  But it is the truth.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...


More canards.
How does catastrophic health insurance create moral hazard any more than car insurance or homeowner's insurance?  Maybe we should outlaw insurance altogether?
Really you ought to reconsider your entire ability to argue.  Every discussion consists of you making some inane statement, me refuting it, and you changing the terms of the discussion.
You fail in every single post.
Yes, it is kind of like a system of public exchanges.  But not like the one enshrined in Obamacare,w hich mandated who must have which coverage and where they must buy it.
But nice try.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

The biggest reason I think the court will uphold the law? Failure to do so would absolutely kill big chunks of the Republican legislative agenda.


----------



## Too Tall (Mar 20, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.
> 
> All ObamaCare does is spread the costs around a little more by forcing people into the system, subsidzing others, and reducing a few costs like eliminating the people who use emergency rooms as their family doctors.
> 
> Because we see Health Coverage as a form of compensation rather than as a public service like every other sensible country does, we come up with these creative concepts of how you've "earned" your health care when in fact, when you need it, you are taking more than you ever put in.



Are you sure everyone is taking out more than they ever put in?


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 20, 2012)

I guess we will have to do universal health care instead of mandated purchase of healthcare.

Its what all the smart countries are doing to decrease cost and assure their populations are healthy


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 20, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Yes, that reduces cost by, well... because... ummm....

No, you don't reduce cost by simply giving access.  That actually INCREASES cost.  There are plenty of ways to reduce cost but Obama did not address cost at all.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.
> ...



This is absolutely true and receives almost no attention.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



No, we DO have comparable genes.  The genetic makeup of blacks and whites is 99.999% identical.



> Blacks have a tendency to higher incidents of certain diseases than whites.  This is simply fact.  It isn't what the argument was--you have again shifted the goalposts.  But it is the truth.



And whites have higher rates than blacks for certain diseases.  You were saying?


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > This bill does nothing to address the problem with HC, The cost.
> ...



They've already stated a clear preference for rationing access.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



Please, explain how one receives care without insurance.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

..and like clockwork, as soon as Rabbi gets exposed for who he really is, he neg reps ya.

As predictable as Sean Hannity saying stupid shit.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> The biggest reason I think the court will uphold the law? Failure to do so would absolutely kill big chunks of the Republican legislative agenda.




Does the GOP agenda have any effect on a legal decision?  No, I don't think so.
The Court will see this as an opportunity to scale back the Commerce Clause to its original intent.  They will find the mandate unconstitutional but leave the rest of the legislation intact.  A GOP administration and Congress will repeal the rest of it.  Obama&Co have been rolling it back already for the last 2 years.
That's what happens when you pass a huge unworkable bill that was rushed through without any thought.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Um, show up?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> ..and like clockwork, as soon as Rabbi gets exposed for who he really is, he neg reps ya.
> 
> As predictable as Sean Hannity saying stupid shit.



And just as preictable you whine you got neg repped when in fact the rep was well deserved as you cannot stick to a topic for even one post.
Wanna tissue?


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



People have been peddling this for years, but there is no evidence to support it. One of the common claims is that blacks were more likely to suffer from hypertension. Turns out it's purely a relic of social factors. Blacks in Africa have some of the lowest rates of hypertension in the world.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 20, 2012)

The insurance mandate in the bill affects approximately 4% of the population, i.e., the number of people who don't have insurance who would be required to get insurance.

Put another way, 96 out of 100 Americans are unaffected by the mandate.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



And the Dems have a clear preference for death panels.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest reason I think the court will uphold the law? Failure to do so would absolutely kill big chunks of the Republican legislative agenda.
> ...



Courts don't make rulings in a vacuum and you're wildly out-of-touch if you really think the Court wants to roll economic regulation back to the _Lochner _ era.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Another factoid exploded.


> Blacks had higher rates for hypertension-related death than whites in all age groups (Figure 2). From 1981 through 1998, average annual increases in the hypertension-related death rate were 10.4% among blacks and 7.9% among whites for persons aged 85 years and older, 5.9% among blacks and 3.6% among whites for those aged 75-84 years, and 3.2% among blacks and 1.4% among whites for persons aged 65-74 years. Death rates remained relatively constant for persons aged 45-64 years (average annual changes of +0.7% for blacks and decrease of -1.0% for whites). By 1989-1998, blacks had 1.4 (p <0.05) times the death rates of whites at ages &#8805;85 years, 2.1 (p <0.01) times the rate at 75-84 years, 2.8 (p <0.01) times the rate at 65-74 years, and 4.2 (p <0.01) times the rates at ages 45-64 years.


Medscape: Medscape Access
Regardless of the factors it is the case.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Show up where? You can go to the ER for emergency treatment, but what about chronic illness?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Courts dont make rulings based on any party's agenda.  And you're insane if you think the Court will endorse more intrusive unlimited government.  They have been pushing back on gov't control for years.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 20, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



Really?  So my employer should simply eliminate our healthcare benefit, and I should go without any healthcare insurance,

because, according to you, my access to medical treatment and services would be unaffected...

Seriously?  

I got to hear this.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > ..and like clockwork, as soon as Rabbi gets exposed for who he really is, he neg reps ya.
> ...



So, care to explain your race-based determination of HC costs?  Please do!


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


OK, Ypou asked a question and I answered it.
Now you want to change the debate.
There are community clinics that treat chronic illness.
Now you'll ask about meds.  Dems will not be satisfied until everything remotely "medical" is "free."


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Exploded? That doesn't undermine my statement in the least. All you've shown is that the rates are higher among blacks, not that it's higher _because they're black_, which was your original claim.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



That is a very naive view of the courts.


----------



## Full-Auto (Mar 20, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



You can go off on where ever your imagination takes you.

Go to the ER,  there is your access.

Frame the issue properly.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I didn't change the debate. I asked about care. You're the one that wanted to pretend emergency care is the beginning and end of treatment. Community clinics are not an answer for chronic illness. They treat colds and sprained ankles, but they don't have the resources to provide treatment for diabetes and cancer. That's today, much less in a world where more employers are dropping coverage.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



hmm...Maybe it has something to do with incomes, not genetics.



> In the latest study, researchers found that lower household income was most strongly associated with elevated blood pressure.



Low Income, Less Education Tied to High Blood Pressure in Young Adults - DukeHealth.org


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
> ...



I hope not at all...even if i agree with this specific pressure.


I prefer them to use the constitution, and the constitution only, when making such decisions.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

It's weird that we're still having this debate 50 years after this paper.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf


----------



## OldUSAFSniper (Mar 20, 2012)

The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it is now called, is very possibly one of the absolute WORST pieces of legislation in the history of this nation.  And here's the reasons why.

The major reason why we were told that Obamacare should be passed was that IT WOULD SAVE MONEY.  Well guess what?  Not only will it NOT save money, it literally will cost (at the time that I write this piece) up to 2 TRILLION dollars for the first ten years.  The CBO has revised these estimates at least five times in the last two years and is working on the sixth time.  The reason these numbers change so regularly?  Why no one read the freakin thing and those that read it, do not understand how one piece affects another.  Health insurance rates have gone up 15% since the passage of this monstrosity and is slated to continue to rise.  So we going to raise taxes on everyone to cover this boon doggle?

The commerce clause.  For the first time in history, the Congress has declared that if you are JUST A CITIZEN of this country, they have the right to make you purchase something.  You don't have to do anything.  You can sit in your house all day, but due to the Commerce clause of the Constitution, they have the right to make you purchase health insurance.  There is something very basically wrong with this position.  The Constitution of the United States LIMITS the reach of the federal government.  IF the Supreme Court upholds this ground breaking new intrusion, then what is next?

Economics.  Small business is hurting.  What is the affect of Obamacare on small business in this country?  Everyone knows that small business will NOT hire until they understand what affects this legislation will have on them.  Right now, where do small business owners go to find out what they can expect in five years?  Ten years?  It will cost businesses LESS MONEY to pay the fines and drop their insurance plans all together.  The promise that you "can keep the insurance that you have" is hollow.  You can't keep it if your employer lets it go.

Taxes.  One of Obama's big things is that he doesn't want to raise taxes on the middle class.  So he wants the rich to pay more.  Unfortunately, in 2014 if you sell your house 2 1/2% goes to the feds to help pay for Obamacare ON TOP of all the other fees/taxes you pay.  Since the CBO has been looking at the numbers and obviously there's not going to be enough to pay for this monstrosity, taxes MUST rise.  And how many of us believe that this tax won't hurt the middle class?

Beaurocracy.  Have you been to the Social Security Office lately?  I have to go about once a year for my daughter who is developmentally delayed.  It is very possibly one of the WORST experiences of my life.  It is exactly what I imagine HEALTH CARE HELL to be like.  "Oh, but it'll be different with health care."  Uh huh.  Only an idiot would believe that a government office would be anything more than a beaurocrats wet dream.

We could have done better.  This thing is a night mare.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> It's weird that we're still having this debate 50 years after this paper.
> 
> http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf



There is no debate to be had, the constitution does not give the federal govt such authority over the citizens.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > It's weird that we're still having this debate 50 years after this paper.
> ...



Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. This regulation is part of the rational basis of Congress to advance a Constitutional end.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Regulating interstate commerce and forcing individual citizens to buy insurance from a private corporation or face penalties/fines are not the same.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



How do you feel about the Ryan plan? What about private accounts for Social Security?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


i challenge you to prove that health insurance is not interstate commerce. when you travel from state to state, does your health insurance not follow you? or do you have to purchase a different product for each state which you travel through?


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Further, the idea that the Founding Fathers would be spinning in their graves over requiring people to buy a private good is funny... considering the Militia Act of 1792 did exactly that.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



who is saying it isnt interstae commerce.

It is.

What does that have to do with Government forcing you to buy something under penalty of law?

When has that ever happened before?

And to add....we now ALSO have government forcing a bhusiness owner to offer a service even if it doesnt want to.

When has THAT ever happened before?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 20, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



So a person without the ability to pay has only extremely limited access to healthcare.

That's what you meant to say.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk I'm not a fan of Ryans Plan for one of the same reasons I don't like Obamacare (affordable care act)...it is too wide ranging and not specific enough.  If he wants to try and deal with social security, which i find to be an overreach of federal authority violating the constitution, then he should do it in its own bill




Syphon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



I purchase my health insurance in state and don't use it in other states, my company is based in my home state, there is nothing interstate about it.   

However that really doesn't matter...for the federal govt has no constitional authority, even under the interstate commerce clause, to force a private citizen to buy a product from a private corporation or face govt penalties.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



What service are businesses being forced to offer?


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Private SS accounts?

I am 100% for it.

The government is forcing me to save money....I dont need them to force me to do it...I do it becuase it isd what I need to do.....I dont need daddy to do it for me. 
I am an adult.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



And the militia act was wrong for doing so, just like the affordable care act is wrong.....next strawman please.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Polk I'm not a fan of Ryans Plan for one of the same reasons I don't like Obamacare (affordable care act)...it is too wide ranging and not specific enough.  If he wants to try and deal with social security, which i find to be an overreach of federal authority violating the constitution, then he should do it in its own bill
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so youve never gone on vacation? never traveled outside your home state for any reason?


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



So the government forcing people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional, but forcing them to open a brokerage account at Fidelity isn't? What makes these two things different?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Nonsense.  The Supreme Court is about as partisan as a governing body can get.  Look at all the 5/4 decisions in the courts history.  See how many don't fall along partisan political lines that parallel the partisan divides between Republican and Democrat.

No, there aren't many.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Contraception without a co-pay. If you want to continue selling insurance, the government is saying YOU MUST offer something more....contraception.

You know, many insurance companies do not offer flood insurance.

I needed to buy it, so I was forced to drop my insurance company and go with another...they lost my business...that was their choice.....and it was my choice....

Should government force all insurance companies to offer flood? Why?

Should auto insuracne ALWAYS offer glass coverage? Some dont. That uis their choice. Others do, and thus why many opt for those companies...especially those that fdrive off road regularly and have pebbles kick up and crachk the windsheild.

Should government make them all offer glass? Why?


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



That's fine if you feel that way as a moral objection, but it completely torpedoes the point that it goes against original intent.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Correction....I am not saying that....albeit, it sure sounds like that.

I do not feel government should be involved in any way shape or form in what I save and how I save it.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Just to be clear, flood insurance is sold through insurance companies but it is a government insurance program.  The people who sell the insurance are just a conduit between the people purchasing the insurance and the federal government.  The conduit has no financial stake in the insurance beyond a fee for service.

No private sector insurance company with an actuarial whose education extends beyond middle school would offer flood insurance


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



How so, the militia act was in 1792, after the constitution...not part of it.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



They dont get that, or perhaps more precisely, they pretend they don't get that because it conflicts with their agenda.

The Medicare voucher plans forces seniors to buy private insurance with vouchers that come from all the mandatory payroll taxes they paid over the years.  

btw, anyone with any sense should oppose any plan that lets either Wall St. or the insurance industry get their hands on any more of your money.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



So presumably you then oppose tax breaks for such things as IRA's, Medical Savings accounts, etc...

...because they are by definition government involvement in what or how you save.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



So the Founding Fathers passed a bill they considered unconstitutional? We're not talking about a time far removed. We're talking under a decade after.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



OK....but that doesnt change the prmise of my post.

But I have news for you.....that in itself likely means it is just a matter of time that insurance companies are FORCED to offer flood

And I am curious...

What is the story about dental insurance.....is that ALSO in the healthcare law? Are they eliminating pre -existing conditions clauses and forcing everyoine to buy it?

If no.....why not?

I need to believe there are mnore health related situations associated with the mouth than there are women who need BC pills for un-related medical conditions.

Not that it matters anyway, seeing as BC pills that are prescribed as something OTHER than contraception are ICD-9 coded as such and not coded as contraception

But that is for another thread.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


people do not choose to participate in the health care market, since every person will need health care at some point in their life. not by choice, but by necessity. 

you dont choose to have a stroke, you dont choose to have a heart attack, you dont choose to get in a car accident, you dont choose to get cancer, you dont choose be born with a disability, you dont choose to have a genetic defect. 

"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," he said. "The provision regulates active participation in the health care market, and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity."
Judge James Graham -- a Reagan appointee -- agreed

show me where everyone will participate in the financial markets? show me any other service that people will use without choice.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



yes...I am 100% against those tax breaks.

I do not need an insentive to save money for my future.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



In the historical context I understand why they passed the act.  However, the constition gave them no authority to pass such an act requiring people to buy guns.

Do you think that act would pass the supreme court today?  

We were in a time of war then and they used that, just like Bush and CO used the war on terror to pass the patriot act (unconstitutional), to pass something that otherwise would not be allowed.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



No, I don't think so.  The government is well aware that companies can not offer flood insurance.  That's why the government steps in, subsidizes the shit out of it and provides it.

And I am curious...

What is the story about dental insurance.....is that ALSO in the healthcare law? Are they eliminating pre -existing conditions clauses and forcing everyoine to buy it?

If no.....why not?[/quote]
From what I understand, dental is not included in the mandate.  Like flood insurance, comprehensive dental insurance is a sure loser for companies.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



exactly...Imagine if government forced them to?


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Indeed!  and when faced with the need to insure hundreds of thousands of previously-existing homes in flood plains, the government didn't force companies to offer flood insurance.  Instead, they saw flood insurance as a public good and offered it through the government with the government assuming the risk.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...


based on your post, this is a great argument for a government run single payer health insurance program...


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


but why would the founding father pass any law if they didnt believe the constitution gave them the authority to do precisely that?


----------



## Claudette (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



What do you mean the Govt assumed the risk?? 

You idiot. We the taxpayers have rebuilt homes for folks living on flood plains, beaches and loads of other places where they never should have built homes. Some of em more than once. 

Good deal for the fucking home owner but not so good for the taxpayers footing the bills.


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



You completely ran away from Madison on another thread.  Why are you asking this question when that answer was provided to you ?


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Claudette said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Yes...

As J. Stossel pointed out.  People build homes in places where they get damaged, get replaced, and get damaged again.

And somewhere in all this, they seem to think we should keep replacing them.

If you want me to pay for your home replacement, I am going to have a say in where you put it.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


youre an idiot and you cant argue madison if it kick you in the face. so go try arguing with grade school kids, you might have a better chance.


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Garbage.

People can chose to never have health insurance nor utilize health care services.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


guess when you get in that car accident they wont have to take you to the hospital, or when you have that heart attack the doctor will just ignore you..... 

guess that better for us that you wont leach off the system anymore..


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



I might have a better chance of getting a rational response.

Your sentence does not make any sense....maybe you should get a gradeschooler to help you.

And your premise for why I am an idiot ?

I presented Madisons writings on Federal vs. State governments and you provided a quote from a fifth grade history book.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

Claudette said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



I mean the government is the payee for claims made to the National Flood Insurance Program.  They are also the recipient of premiums.  It's a government insurance program.



> You idiot. We the taxpayers have rebuilt homes for folks living on flood plains, beaches and loads of other places where they never should have built homes. Some of em more than once.



hmm...it's like I just said that!  Speaking of idiots...



> Good deal for the fucking home owner but not so good for the taxpayers footing the bills.



In most years the NFIP runs a surplus, though it certainly has years when it runs a substantial deficit.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


yup and you were too stupid to comprehend the text of a 5th grade text book. 

that argument went way over your head.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Since about 1989, anyone building in a flood plain where such development is allowed pays actuarially accurate rates for flood insurance.


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> guess when you get in that car accident they wont have to take you to the hospital, or when you have that heart attack the doctor will just ignore you.....
> 
> guess that better for us that you wont leach off the system anymore..



I can buy coverage under my auto insurance.

And I can pay for my care out of pocket.

Or I can choose to not have care.

Why don't you try acting like an adult and stop with the stupidassed arguments ?


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



So, did you just contradict yourself ?

I am not sure I understand what you mean by actuarially accurate.


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> yup and you were too stupid to comprehend the text of a 5th grade text book.
> 
> that argument went way over your head.



There was no argument.  The history book was wrong....imagine that.

That you need to appeal to a fifth grade book shows just how educated you are.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

bwhahaha a history book written for 5th graders went over your head, and the only argument you can come up with is that the book is wrong? man i almost pissed my pants i laughed so hard.

im gonna post the link for everyone to see how dumb you really are. 

The Civil War for Fifth Graders

Radford University's website has the link. Who is Radford University you might ask...

The institution now known as Radford University was founded by the Virginia General Assembly in the spring of 1910. The State Normal and Industrial School for Women at Radford grew out of a late nineteenth-century effort to expand Virginia's public school system and prepare a sufficient number of teachers. The school was to be located on 33 acres in east Radford known as the "Heth Grove." On October 3, 1911, Dr. John Preston McConnell was appointed president of the institution.
Radford University is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards and to upholding the public&#8217;s trust. We recognize that our behavior affects not only our own individual reputation, but also that of Radford University. Accordingly, this Code of Ethics forms the ethical principles that will guide all members of the university community in all decisions and activities.

just keep digging that hole.....

so tell the world again how the North didnt want a strong central government and how the south didnt want all the power to rest with the states. and tell us all again how the North winning didnt mean that the fed was to be strong.....


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



No.



> I am not sure I understand what you mean by actuarially accurate.



Rates paid into the program are high enough to cover the associated risk of coverage.


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> bwhahaha a history book written for 5th graders went over your head, and the only argument you can come up with is that the book is wrong? man i almost pissed my pants i laughed so hard.
> 
> im gonna post the link for everyone to see how dumb you really are.
> 
> ...



That you are a complete jackass is no longer in doubt.

I asked if you knew what Shay's Rebellion was and how it triggered the end of the Articles of Confederation.  Understanding what the difference is between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution is the first step.

You, didn't answer.

So, please show the world how you continue to appeal to fifth grade history books all the while ignoring the context of the Federalist Papers as written by the Father of the Constitution.

Please go to the sixth grade and get a little better informed.

Moron.


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



But didn't you say no actuarial would offer flood insurance ?


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Yes, I did.  Perhaps you should read a bit closer.  Hint:  Not all homes in flood plains were built after 1989.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Who provides the money for any Govt program??

Your an idiot.


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Just looking for the linkage.

Thanks.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > bwhahaha a history book written for 5th graders went over your head, and the only argument you can come up with is that the book is wrong? man i almost pissed my pants i laughed so hard.
> ...


we never talked about Shays Rebellion or the Article of Confederation. my you have with yourself in your little fantasy world, but not where the big boys and girls play. 

 we talked about the federalist papers, to which you completely ignored my reference to Fed 10. and why many people considered it the most import of all the federalist papers. which plainly advocates for a strong central government. 

did you forget all about this one?
Federalist Paper #10 is arguably one of the most important documents in U.S. history. Madison spoke openly and honestly, from his class-based point of view, about the issues of democracy and republicanism...clearly favoring the latter. He touches on many issues still with us today...class divisions, in particular...and stratification by design, in general. He openly discusses just "who should govern" and why he thinks so. Although it has an innocent sounding title, its content is very powerful...it is far more than "just a political document." It's a philosophical justification for a particular class-based point of view.
Federalist Paper #10

One of the most famous essay is the Federalist No. 10 written by Madison. It constructs the problem of "factions" and how a* large republic framed by the Constitution, can better give a cure for these.*
What is federalist paper 10 about

and again, prove the south wasnt for states rights and the north wasnt for a strong fed. you should really take your foot out of your mouth from time to time. 

Causes of the Civil War - Causes of the American Civil War - Beginning of the Civil War
As the S*outh recognized that control of the government was slipping away, it turned to a states' rights argument to protect slavery*. Southerners claimed that the federal government was prohibited by the Tenth Amendment from impinging upon the right of slaveholders take their "property" into a new territory. They also stated that the federal government was not permitted to interfere with slavery in those states where it already existed. They felt that this type of strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution coupled with nullification, or perhaps secession would protect their way of life.

you havent even posted one link providing evidence you even have a clue what you are talking about.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

Claudette said:


> [
> 
> Who provides the money for any Govt program??
> 
> Your an idiot.



Well, in the case of the National Flood Insurance Program the vast majority of the money is "provided" by the clients who hold flood insurance.  Any amount beyond the ability of the fund to pay is covered by the taxpayers and lenders, which is why we have an NFIP instead of private flood insurance.

FYI, if you are going to call someone an idiot you should at least employ proper English.  It's not "your an idiot".  It's "you are an idiot" or, "You're an idiot".


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


Linkage to what?


----------



## Claudette (Mar 20, 2012)

So essentially we, the taxpayer, can be left holding the bag. 

Oh yeah. Works for me. NOT


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> bwhahaha a history book written for 5th graders went over your head, and the only argument you can come up with is that the book is wrong? man i almost pissed my pants i laughed so hard.
> 
> im gonna post the link for everyone to see how dumb you really are.
> 
> ...



Here you go piss-for-brains....

One of several explanations that Madion provided (Federalist #45).

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members. 

The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed, and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people, must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system. Compare the members of the three great departments of the thirteen States, excluding from the judiciary department the justices of peace, with the members of the corresponding departments of the single government of the Union; compare the militia officers of three millions of people with the military and marine officers of any establishment which is within the compass of probability, or, I may add, of possibility, and in this view alone, we may pronounce the advantage of the States to be decisive. If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side. It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State. 

*The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. *


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



The authority flows out of their power to organize and maintain the militias. I don't think such an act would pass muster today, on the grounds that it doesn't have a rational basis (hunting rifles wouldn't do much against an enemy tank), but the provision wouldn't be unconstitutional on its face.

The United States was not engaged in a war in 1792, unless you want to count the Whiskey Rebellion as a war.


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Hey Syphon,

Do you see health care in that list ?


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Sure, in the same sense people don't have to pay taxes, because they could always not work and starve to death in the streets.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > bwhahaha a history book written for 5th graders went over your head, and the only argument you can come up with is that the book is wrong? man i almost pissed my pants i laughed so hard.
> ...


im not even gonna read your argument until you prove that the north didnt want a strong fed and south didnt want state to have the power. 

i also want you to address Fed 10 and Madison advocating for a strong federal government. until you do that your on ignore. you cant even have a decent debate with your 4th grade skills.

oh btw THE SOUTH LOST the Civil War and the North got the strong Fed they wanted!


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



One can also say:

An idiot is what you are.
I see you as an idiot.
Bright, you are not.
When God gave out brains, you were waiting on line for the free healthcare.
You were dropped on your head when you were younger, weren't you.
You are as dumb as nails.
You are as dumb as a door knob
You failed the exam to becoime the town idiot.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


yup and if you were dying in the street and a cop or firefighter or decent human being saw you, they would take you to a hospital and you would get treatment no matter what your ability to pay is.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



why does government see healthcare as something ALL should have and thus enacted a law to ensure all do at a reasonable cost...

But....

They do not feel the same about housing....despite the fact that people freeze to death in the streets of places like Chicago and New York?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


you can choose where to live. you can choose to not have a job. 

but do you choose to get hit by a car? do you choose to have a heart attack? do you choose to have a stroke? do you choose to break your arm? do you choose to get cancer? do you choose to have a child born with a disability? do you choose to have a genetic condition?


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



interesting...


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



yep...and the ER would take you no matter what your ability to pay is.

And if it isd found you cant pay, thyey7 dont charge you...they send the bill to the federal governement.

And the government pays.

And we the taxpayer were OK with that system. It met the need to ensure all got medical care when they needed it...but did not forece anyone to do anything they did not want to do.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Mar 20, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Yeah....sure they do.......







> *How Insurance Companies Fight Recession**
> HERE*​


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


Can you offer another explanation?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


That's what Medicaid was designed for.
Any other asinine comments?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I believ e you will still find disparity between whites and blacks on any income level.  The rates for Asians in similar income levels are substantially lower I think.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



How is that a rebuttal to anything he wrote?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


many tax payers arent ok with this system. hence the need to make everyone pay something. the reason rates keep going up is due to unpaid medical bill which then get spread across the premiums of those who actually pay. 

you would think the right would support making people pay the services they use...


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Health insurance.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



No that is not so.  Unpaid bills are only a small part of health costs.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Did you just make that up?

You are saying that INsurance companies are the ones who take on the cost of a doctor not getting paid by an uninsured individual...and then spread those "losses" to their premium holders?

So tell me.....lets use Dr. Jones; Ed the patient, and ABC health insurance.

Ed the patient has no insurance. He goes to the ER for a broken arm.
Dr. Jones fixes his arm and the ER bills Ed 3000...
Ed ignores the bill.
Exactly who decides that ABC Health Insurance must pay Dr. Jones?

Giomme a break...you made that up.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


apparently $49B to you is only a small fraction

Up to $49 billion unpaid by uninsured for hospitalizations - USATODAY.com


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



and how much will the healthcare plan cost the taxpayer?

I believe somewhere in the vicinity of 1 trillion over 10 years.

Seems like it will be twice as expensive.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


that doctor will increase what he charges his other customers or the rates he charges insurance companies in order to recoup costs.
this leads to insurance companies having to charge higher premiums in order to pay the higher rates doctors and hospitals are charging

guess you never thought about that now.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



No offense.

But the unpaid bills cause Docs to raise their Reimbursement rates - which causes insurance to cost more.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


so your not willing to take into account the 40 million people who dont use any services because they dont have insurance?

so lets see $1T over 10 years is $100 B a year divided by 40 M people is $2500 a person a year or roughly $200 a month. not exactly bad now ya think. 

Houston hospitals? unpaid medical bills pass $1B - Houston Business Journal

apparently another hospitals bills are approaching $1B in unpaid medical costs. are you willing to say they can start turning away people?


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



uh...no.

Docs do not have a say in their reimbursement rates.

If they do not comply with the insurance programs, they do not accept patients with that insurance.

But a valient effort to explain whatever it is Syphon said...but Syphon is wrong.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



those 40 million can...and have been using ER's at the cost of the tax payer.


----------



## Full-Auto (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



1.7 trillion was spent in 2003 where does your 49 billion fraction out at?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Read about Prometheus.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


so your ok with paying for other people health care?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



forcibly so, even.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


What the new study suggests, though, is *that providers often pass along the cost of treating the uninsured to their insured patients. Its analysis found that families pay, on average, as much as $1,100 extra and individuals $410 extra in health-care premiums each year in order to cover the cost of treatment to uninsured patients who cannot afford to pay their bills*. That amounts to as much as 8% higher premiums due to the lack of universal health care in the U.S. "So many Americans think that universal coverage is for the uninsured," says Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who has been a vocal advocate of health-care reform. "This is the hidden tax we all pay for our failure to insure all Americans.

Read more: Do Your Premiums Help Cover the Uninsured? - TIME


thanks but try again....

are you gonna say TIME magazine is not a valid source now?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


so why are you against the health care law and making everyone pay something?


----------



## Full-Auto (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Not everyone pays, simple enough?


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



the way the system is now...yes. Never complianed about it. It would be inhumane to complain about it.

No need for governemnt to spend twice a smuch for the same result....AND forcing people to buy something they cant afford....or dont want.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Uh, I'm not?


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



becuase it opens the door to what we are now seeing.

Last week it was "I want free birth control"...and the result is insurance companies are mandated to offer it.

Whats next?

Massages?

Accupuncture?

Face lifts? (I cant get a job becuase I look old...a face lift will open doors for me)...

Like I said...it is opening some very ugly doors.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



are you aware that a large percentage of the cost of clothing in a retail store is incorporated into the pricing to compensate for stolen goods?

What you are saying is not unusual.....but it has nothing to do with the insurance ciompanies....they reimburse what they reimburse.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



yo....so far had 12 closings in the Albany area.....paid 100 per.....2 people did them....one made 800 the ohter 400....each closing took about 45 minutes...an hour and 15 minutes including drive time.

GET YOUR FREAKING NYS notary pubolic license.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


clothing stores can refuse to sell or service any customer.

can a hospital refuse to treat any patient?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



exams are every Tuesday @ 11. I just need to study for them. (forgot all about this, now reinvigorated). Lemme see here.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



????

Has noithing to do with it.

Look...we dont see eye to eye...sorry Bud......I dont like the healthcare law and I fear that mandate.
It has already opened the door to another mandate (contraception).
Heck...when will it end?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


birth control was part of the preventative care that also included mammograms and such.

New "Preventive Services" Coverage Mandate - Requirements Are Clarified

so are you against providing mammograms at not additional cost? what about immunizations? those are terrible and controversial as well.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


what else beside the mandate is so terrible?

your missing the point that no one is being forced to take contraception. it is simply being made available to any one who chooses to use it as not additional costs. as in its included in the cost of your premium. the same way immunizations and mammograms are going to be included.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



when a woman is prescribed birth control pills for a medical condition, it is not "birth control".
It is coded (ICD-9) as something doifferent.
Same with a mammogram...has nothing to do with birth control

Bottom line...an insurance company doesnt want to cover something? They will lose a piece of the market....for most will purchase insurance from someone else.

I refuse to fall for that open ended argument.

Sorry.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



In the context of $2.6T in health care spent yeah it isnt mcuh.


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 20, 2012)

It's amazing- the dupes have NO CLUE! LOL!

Breaking: The EU pays half as much for better results, and without any health related bankruptcies- instead of 750k, 3/4  people who THOUGHT they had insurance...or 45k DEATHS because of no insurance...

   Preventive care and having a doctor are CHEAPER than ER care when the problems are out of control...
  People CAN afford ACA. That's the whole point, MORON. And it's guaranteed. READ SOMETHING.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



The mandate is EVERYTHING to me.
The rest? No issue...although I believe government has not proven it can handle somewthing as vast as healthcare....

As for the contraception thing.

????????????????????????????????????

Who is saying one willk be forced to use it?

Insuracne companies are going to forced to offer coverage for it...even if they dont want to.

THAT is another mandate.

Goivernment does not have the right, IN MY EYES, to madate anyone MUST buy anything and anyone MUST SELL anything.

If you owned a convenience strore...would you want the state to step in and FORCE you to sell lottery tickets?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



So you support Medicaid, including its expansion under so-called Obamacare?

Amazing.


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 20, 2012)

Massages? Accupuncture? If they are cost effective for some people. Mass had massages for some, SAVED MONEY. Birth Control is PROVED to save money. Face lifts? Don't be an idiot. (A union in Buffalo has that, but under ACA that will be a Cadillac plan and taxed out of existance...

   So your argument is you're ignorant and "skeered"?  The classic Pub dupe...


----------



## grunt11b (Mar 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
> "
> Two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate  in the federal health care law or the law in its entirety,  signaling the depth of public disagreement with that  element of  the Affordable Care Act.
> This ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that Americans oppose the law overall by 52-41 percent. And 67 percent believe  the high court should either ditch the  law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage."
> ...



 As much as I want this thing repealed, the scenario you are presenting is not realistic, we do not live in a pure form of democracy where the majority rule. We live in a constitutional republic where our justices are bound by law, not public opinion. Let's hope they follow the law to the T. If they are allowed to waiver away from the constitution and rule on this case due to the majority of the citizens opinions then that would leave a huge gaping hole for them to rule on everything else, and thus ends the republic.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Do you think you are typical in that regard?


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Nope.

Those that feel that those tax breaks are valid, but say they want government out of their lives are hypocrites.

My wife is one of them.


----------



## grunt11b (Mar 20, 2012)

JohnA said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate.  I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.  Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
> ...



 How about the judge in California who overturned the peoples vote on gay marriage. That there is a prime example of judicial activism in favor of what the judge considered social justice.


----------



## grunt11b (Mar 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> though I have some question over whether or not we should have laws leveled against us if the majority doesn't want it.



 That's where we elect people who best represent us, so shit like that doesn't happen.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

grunt11b said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


that same ruling was upheld by the appeals court as well. guess it wasnt activism after all.

Prop 8, California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Declared Unconstitutional

California gay marriage ban overturned, appeal planned | Reuters


----------



## grunt11b (Mar 20, 2012)

francoHFW said:


> Obama thought the mandate was unnecessary, that people would want it anyway- and they will.
> 
> This just proves that 2/3 are duped and don't know what they're talking about. Not surprising considering the gigantic Pub Propaganda machine and the cowardly corporate media...



 He thought it was so unnecessary that he signed off on it instead of giving the people a choice.


----------



## grunt11b (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> "The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins"
> 
> there is already Supreme Court precedent that allows the Fed to regulate the commerce of a private entity.
> 
> ...



 Judicial activism at it's best.


----------



## grunt11b (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > More crapp claims from the left.
> ...



 The part where you have to claim gold purchases over $500 at tax time. Or how about the part where you have to pay a heavy sales tax if you sell a house. How these two have anything to do with healthcare is beyond me, but they are in there. Just two small things that nancy pelosi said we would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it.


----------



## grunt11b (Mar 20, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> There is no explaining the disdain that nutters have for the idea of a healthy society.



 Healthy?.... or controlled?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

grunt11b said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


can you point out the specific section of the law that state this? 

oh thats right, cause they arent in the bill.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

grunt11b said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > "The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins"
> ...


so any time the courts make a decision you disagree with its "judicial activism" but when you agree with it, its correct?

only a wing nut can make that argument.


----------



## grunt11b (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > JohnA said:
> ...



 The people voted, the judge overruled the people. It is a constitutional violation by the judge, and it was judicial activism, it does not matter what the appeals court said or did not say. That was a states issue to decide, and the people decided against it, the judge had no right to go against the people other than his own view of social justice.


----------



## grunt11b (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Gold Coin Dealers Decry New Tax Law - ABC News

obamacare, sales tax, housing sales, real estate sales tax | BigNewsNow


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Anytime a judge overrides the decision of a Jury OR overides the decision of the electorate...whether I agree or not...it is judicial activism.


----------



## grunt11b (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



 I did not say that, you did. While you are putting words in my mouth order me lunch as well. 
 Any ruling that infringes on an individuals right to prosperity I am completely against. Any ruling that goes against the constitution I am against. Do you have a garden at home? If so how would you like it if the government came in and declared that garden to be theirs? a garden that YOU planted to feed your family on? That's basically what they did with wicker V filburn, and dont think that since that set court precedent that they could not use that as precedent to come and get yours as well. That is why judicial activism needs to be kept in check, it sets precedent for future generations to lose even more rights and freedoms.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



wow....you are debating about sometghing you really are somewhat niave about?

Not good man.....are you really not aware what is in that law?

How can you debate with integrity then?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



What voice in your head told you that?


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

grunt11b said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



I trhink he left in shame. All he knows about the healthcare law is what he hears on TV.....and then he tried to criticize Y(OU for talking about something that is in there that he wasnt aware of.

If it were me? I would likely sign off for good.

That be embarrasing.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Another poster did so earlier in this thread: higher rates of poverty.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


Oh you so agree with every single thing Grunt says?

Sorry, just chanelling the "debate technique" of Syphon and other losers around here.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Medicaid only covers those unable to work. Not all chronic conditions result in permanent disability.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Already dealt with.  Even at similar economic levels blacks experience more health problems.
Next.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



No one forces businesses to offer health insurance. They're free to not offer coverage and pay the fee instead. It's no different in that sense from unemployment and Social Security.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



if TruthMatters said the sky is blue, mint jelly is green, a chocolate lab is brown and the brick road in the WIzard of Oz was yellow.....I would agree with all she said.

Does tha mean I will always agree with her?

I dont think so.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



That's the clever shell game. Sorta like how Romney claims everything is fine because the social safety net exists, while also working to gut the safety net.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

grunt11b said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Except that "social justice" in that case also struck down an unconstitutional law.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

grunt11b said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



Using that standard, courts serve no purpose. If the actions of the people's representatives are assumed to be valid, what is the role of courts?


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



what has Romney done to gut the social safety net?

Better yet....how could he have...seeing as he is currently not an elected official nor is he a lobbyist.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

grunt11b said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



The 1099 requirement (of which the gold flipping is a subset) was repealed.

Obama Makes It Official: 1099 Repeal Signed Into Law - Kaiser Health News


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



"Working to", not "accomplished".

Romney's proposal is to gut the safety net.


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



You are note even close.

The assertion that everyone will "require" health care at some point is unsupportable.  I can point to people in affluent neighborhoods who have never seen and say they will never see a regular physician.

Health care can come from outside the "system".

Nice try though.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



what proposal?


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Don't you mean stupid.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



He's released a tax plan loaded with tax cuts for the wealthy.
He's said he wants to increase defense spending.
He said he wants to balance the budget.

We are currently running a deficit. His plan reduces revenue and increases defense spending. The result is that not defense spending has to decline by a huge amount.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



no...he is not stupid.

But I find his thought process interesting.

Based on his post, I understand why he feels as he does.

But one must think like him to feel that way....and his thinking is very much askew.


----------



## Polk (Mar 20, 2012)

If you want to see Romney's rhetoric put in to legislative language, look at Paul Ryan's new budget proposal that came out today, which slashes Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



You are full of shit.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



it has been shown that if you decrease taxes of business owners (not just the wealthy...the GOP never uses the trem wealthy...becuase not all business owners are wealthy)....but decrease their taxes and it will result in a higher tax revenue for the federal government.

Yoiu may disagree with that premise...but the bottom line, he belevies that we will have more tax revenue with his policies.

I agree.

So where is he saying he wants to dismantle the safety net?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Can you provide the data for that? Please include all data for different corporate tax rates. Thanks.


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Which brings up the age-old question as to how susceptible the Supreme Court is to this kind of pressure....









*[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Brandeis-Frankfurter-Connection-Political-Activities/dp/0195031229"]The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices [/ame]*

.


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 20, 2012)

Yup, Pubs STILL want to gut Medicare and replace it with a voucher. If the voucher's not enough, tough. You lose EVERYTHING to go on medicaid and live in the ghetto...LOL- That's how we got a Dem here for the first time ever. Yup, run on that LOL!


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



They are forced to pay money for health insurance one way or another.
Yes, it is  like Social Security.  Which is bankrupt.  Why would you want two dysfunctional programs?


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> im not even gonna read your argument until you prove that the north didnt want a strong fed and south didnt want state to have the power.
> 
> i also want you to address Fed 10 and Madison advocating for a strong federal government. until you do that your on ignore. you cant even have a decent debate with your 4th grade skills.
> 
> oh btw THE SOUTH LOST the Civil War and the North got the strong Fed they wanted!



Let me guess.  You're in prison....?

My guess is that you CAN'T read it.  

You can't even spell or punctuate.

But, you have Madison before you who you won't read.  Game, Set and Match.

BTW: As shown in Federalist 45, Madison was for a stong central government that had a very limited scope.  It was not, as I originally asserted, an open ticket.  So the fed can be very strong in it's defined areas and totally powerless in those places that lie outside it's scope.  Federalist 10 is nothing more.  It is more about local factions, than anything.  Again his argument for a very limited but meaningful federal government.  Health Care was not in that scope.

Madison also penned the 10th amendment, which I am sure will be a surprise to you.

I also showed you the Slaughter House Cases which essentially shut up the propopents of using the 14th to continue their tyranny from D.C.

I am sure you can't read those either.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Polk said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Balancing the budget is gutting the social net?  Obama has said he wants to balance the budget too.  Is Obama also for gutting the social net?


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

francoHFW said:


> Yup, Pubs STILL want to gut Medicare and replace it with a voucher. If the voucher's not enough, tough. You lose EVERYTHING to go on medicaid and live in the ghetto...LOL- That's how we got a Dem here for the first time ever. Yup, run on that LOL!



Nice strawman.

Pull your head out of your ass and take a clean breath of fresh air.


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 20, 2012)

Voodoo tax rates pandering to the rich are totally discredited except to the 20-30% dittohead morons....


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 20, 2012)

Intense, you're a dittohead moron dupe of the greedy rich/corprations- take your own advice, RW troll lol.


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 20, 2012)

Straw man?- replacing Medicare with a voucher system is the Pub suicide pact. They believe their own BS. Lower taxes on the bloated rich to do it LOL! Unbelievable! LOL! Kudos!


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


In any reasonable insurance universe, companies offering insurance would be handing out birth control pills like candy on halloween.  While the pills might cost them a couple bucks, pregnancy and its potential complications cost more per woman than an entire lifespan of birth control pills.

Because insurers can drop patients at any point, the incentive structure that should be built into the system is not necessarily in place.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



No, you said you "think" you're right.  you (of course) offered no research or evidence.


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

francoHFW said:


> Voodoo tax rates pandering to the rich are totally discredited except to the 20-30% dittohead morons....



Kiss Obama good bye.


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



It would be difficult to argue with this if it weren't for the fact that this is about something that hits into the superstructure of thier moral codes.

Possibly an easier example would be seatbelts in cars.  If they were not mandatory, I would guess insurance companies would offer a discout to buy them.


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

francoHFW said:


> Straw man?- replacing Medicare with a voucher system is the Pub suicide pact. They believe their own BS. Lower taxes on the bloated rich to do it LOL! Unbelievable! LOL! Kudos!



Hey dickwad,

Show some numbers to prove your point.

Just show an example of how this works.

Pick and example and let's see how it works under medicare and how it would work under the Ryan plan.

Should not be that hard.....for a normal person.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Premature Mortality

there ya go.
Now go fuck yourself.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



perhaps...but that doesnt mean the government should mandate it.

If a merchant dfoes not want to sell something for whatever reason, he should not be forced to sell it.

Take this scenario...

A man gambles all he has....and loses.
He loses his wife, his house, his family...everything...

He gets counseling...

Builds himself back up again and buys a convenience store.

He refuses to sell lottery tickets becuase he knows what gambling did to him and he does not want to be a part of ruining someone leses life.

YUes, he will lose some potential customers for many like to buy a gallon of milk, a newspaper, and 20 bucks of lottery tickets.

But that is his choice.

Now...the state has fianncial issues and is pushing the lottery...and the state legislature passes a law that says ALL CONVENIENCE STORES MUST SELL LOTTERY TICKETS.

Now what?

Look...it is not an issue of whether or not the business owner shoudl or should not want to offer a prodcut.

It is about government deciding it for them.

It is wrong.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Is Rabbi expressing his love of black people again?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



I see I take a couple of weeks away and come back, but your analogies are still terrible. 

The key difference you are missing in your analogy is no one's actual well-being and life or death is hanging in the balance with whether or not they can buy a lottery ticket.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



and such is true as it pertains to birth control pills.

And dont give me that BS about "it is for a womans health"

It is not and never was....that was lewftist talking head crap desiogned for the most naive to believe.

When a GYN, GP or Derm prescribes birth control pills for other reasons than burth contriol, it is coded using the ICD-9 system as NOT birth control...never was called birth control...never was an issue...even for the Catholic Church.

So that being said...exactly what does BC have to do with well being and life or death?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Sorry, I missed the part about birth control. I thought you were comparing it against the mandate itself.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



the general mandate...once signed into law...opened the door to the BC mandate.....

What is next?

Mandate that massages have to be covered?

I heard to day that massage therapy was found to be health inducing.

I do not believe in government mandatiung one must BUY something or SELL soimething.

It can only lead to bigger issues.


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 20, 2012)

The dupes will love ACA, Pelosi was right on that dupes won't understand it till it's implemented. Affordable, guaranteed, saves money, morons/corporate tools....


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


The issue is even more than that.  Big government produces Big solutions.  But those solutions may not work well globally.  The BC issue was a good example, and we'll see much mroe of that.  With a market solution, the market will create niches for exceptional situations.  With government it can't.
But you're right about the mandates.  Pretty soon gov't will mandate insurance include gym membership.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 20, 2012)

grunt11b said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Civil rights issues are constitutional issues.  You don't vote them away, unless you're amending the constitution.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 20, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



So you agree that most people can benefit from being incentivized to save.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 20, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



it is none of my business...none of your business...none of governments business.

But on a side note....

I do not believe in incentives. 

I dont write off my donations......well...actually that is a lie...I dont believe I should get a write off in return for a donation so I tell my accountant how much of my aftetr tax income I want to donate...and he applies a formula and tells me how much it really is in pre tax dollars....I donate that much and he then writes it off.

Incentives may benefit people....but if they need an incentivce, then maybe they should not do it.


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

francoHFW said:


> The dupes will love ACA, Pelosi was right on that dupes won't understand it till it's implemented. Affordable, guaranteed, saves money, morons/corporate tools....



Show some numbers SFB's or post on something you might know a little about.

You are little more than a trained chimp who spits out lies at the first sign of a banana.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



you didn't actually read the whole thing, did ya?  If you had done so, you would see this:



> Our study has practical implications for those working to reduce racial disparities in Minnesota and elsewhere. Our findings support the notion that racial disparities can occur across all socioeconomic groups and that _disparities in health mirror larger social and economic inequalities in our society._ With this knowledge, health advocates interested in _reducing disparities in premature mortality might do well to advocate for laws and policies that uphold civil rights and foster social justice._15



in other words, it's not because they have "black" genetics.  But when you start from your hyper-racial prism, where black people are incapable of leading, it's easy to apply race to your assessment of everything else.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > im not even gonna read your argument until you prove that the north didnt want a strong fed and south didnt want state to have the power.
> ...



still failed to address the fact that madison advocates for a strong central government. keep avoiding fed 10 like the plague since it plainly goes against your argument. what came first? fed 10 or fed 45? what do historians call the most important federalist paper? fed 10. 

game set match, boitch!

youre really a retard, its perfectly acceptable to post on a message board without using perfect punctuation. i.e. just like texting.......

so put up or shut up....

tell me again how the north didnt want a strong fed and south didnt want the states to have all the power. comon..... ive given 5 chances to prove me wrong and you still keep changing the argument.

you are also the idiot who likes to spout off the things that arent in the constitution but yet the courts have ruled that government has the power to do.
Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

or did you forget that the courts interpret out law now.....


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> still failed to address the fact that madison advocates for a strong central government. keep avoiding fed 10 like the plague since it plainly goes against your argument. what came first? fed 10 or fed 45? what do historians call the most important federalist paper? fed 10.
> 
> game set match, boitch!
> 
> ...



You've not shown how the Federalist 10 supports your argument at all.  You are relying on someone else from what I can tell because your fifth grade history book is probably mute on the point.  Might be time to advance junior.

However, you only need read the words of Madison in his actual inclusion in the Bill of Rights to know you are so full of crapp, your eyes are brown.

Let's see...10...oh yeah.....that pesky 10th amendment.......

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Making you look stupid is so easy.

But let's continue.....

Federalist 10 is not considered any more imporant that any of the others.  It is most quoted because Madison shows why a Republic is more desirable than a democracy (something you lefties don't agree with....but I digress).

And here we have Federalist 46:

RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. *The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. *The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents. 

......... which connects to his earlier statements in 45 which I highlited for you and you have not addressed (except to post some crap about how 10 comes before 45..).

continuing....if you can ingest the following......

*It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. *It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage. But in a distinct and very important point of view, the advantage will lie on the same side. The prepossessions, which the members themselves will carry into the federal government, will generally be favorable to the States; whilst it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government. A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of Congress, than a national spirit will prevail in the legislatures of the particular States. Every one knows that a great proportion of the errors committed by the State legislatures proceeds from the disposition of the members to sacrifice the comprehensive and permanent interest of the State, to the particular and separate views of the counties or districts in which they reside. And if they do not sufficiently enlarge their policy to embrace the collective welfare of their particular State, how can it be imagined that they will make the aggregate prosperity of the Union, and the dignity and respectability of its government, the objects of their affections and consultations? For the same reason that the members of the State legislatures will be unlikely to attach themselves sufficiently to national objects, the members of the federal legislature will be likely to attach themselves too much to local objects. The States will be to the latter what counties and towns are to the former. Measures will too often be decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments and people of the individual States. What is the spirit that has in general characterized the proceedings of Congress? A perusal of their journals, as well as the candid acknowledgments of such as have had a seat in that assembly, will inform us, that the members have but too frequently displayed the character, rather of partisans of their respective States, than of impartial guardians of a common interest; that where on one occasion improper sacrifices have been made of local considerations, to the aggrandizement of the federal government, the great interests of the nation have suffered on a hundred, from an undue attention to the local prejudices, interests, and views of the particular States. I mean not by these reflections to insinuate, that the new federal government will not embrace a more enlarged plan of policy than the existing government may have pursued; much less, that its views will be as confined as those of the State legislatures; but only that it will partake sufficiently of the spirit of both, to be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the preorgatives of their governments. The motives on the part of the State governments, to augment their prerogatives by defalcations from the federal government, will be overruled by no reciprocal predispositions in the members. 

Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. 

*But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. *But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter. 

*************************************

As to the stupid assertions of your 5th grade history book (you got that your I (am dumb) pad to junior ?  One more time....the Civil War was fought to PRESERVE THE UNION....got it.

Game (your not even in it), Set (down but don't hurt yourself), Match (that you might breed is scary).


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Hey there butt-nugget (Syphon)....

Let's finish your ass-kicking with Federalist #39:

But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. *In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.* It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.

*******

You have not addressed any of this.

All you do pull #10 out of your ass and you don't even know what it says or the context in what it is saying it.  I'll bet you don't know how many articles comprise the entire set anyway.

So keep trying there Junior....I really would suggest a 6th grade history book.  It might serve you better.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Yanked that out fo your butt, eh?
They clearly compare health across similar socioeconomic planes and blacks have worse health.  That is the only salient thing.  We can argue as to why in a different thread.
I've proved my point.  More than you've ever done.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> Hey there butt-nugget (Syphon)....
> 
> Let's finish your ass-kicking with Federalist #39:
> 
> ...


bwhahahahah hey bitch, remember when you failed to comprehend a website written for 5th graders to understand.......

oh yeah, you sure showed me!!!!! when you actually graduate the 5th grade come back and maybe the adults will let you sit at the big kid table....

oh yeah..... tell me again how the south wasnt for states rights and the north didnt want a strong fed....... tell me again who wont the civil war......... tell me again how you still dont know jack from shit.....

so thats it, get mad at me! yell at me! call me names!!!!! im sooooo scared of you and your "words". then again the words of someone with a 4th grade education are very important to me anyways....


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Hey there butt-nugget (Syphon)....
> ...



Wow, great arguments.

You posted article 10 and just really rolled over the top of the other Federalists Papers that clearly make a liar out of you.  That you need someone to tell you who won the Civil War is not unexpected.

You're not sitting at any table junior.  You're in your crib.

That you don't understand history seems evident.  Maybe you should pick up a 3rd grade history book and get your facts straight before you try to do something that will make you look even more assanine (if that is possible).

Come back when you've got an argument, Junior.  I'll be waiting.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


yeah good argument from someone who stomps their feet and calls people names when theyve been pwned in public. 

maybe if you took your head out of your ass you might finally get that 5th grade education and realize that when the North won the war, part of the victory was a strong federal government. the states were not left with all the power. but then again i wouldnt expect someone who calls themself "listening" to be able to listen very well.

here is why it is the most important for one last time. 

Madison begins by stating that a "well contructed union" will be able to break apart the violence of factions. He states this is the vice that democratic government have fallen prey to. Democracies are not stable and that the source of this instability is a self interested majority:

if we wanted all the states to have more power than the fed, we would not be the United States of America, we would be the States of America and each state would govern itself as such. this was what the south wanted and is one of the main reasons they lost the war. if you want to go back to those days go ahead and try, but it has already been established through many avenues that a strong federal government is required in order to have a stable union.

you have failed to show that fed 10 is not considered the most important federalist paper. you have failed to show that Madison did not believe in having a strong federal government, you have failed to show have any real intelligence. all you have done is show little snippits of the other federalist papers and shout SEE, SEE, i told you so like a child. no one is buying your little games and shows anymore.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 20, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> That's because of market forces drives cost down (not to mention affordability).  We NEED to go to a system that allows competitive pricing.



The thing is, people don't price medical treatment the way they price buying sneakers or cars.  They aren't going to go to "Murry's Discount Colonoscopies".   When it's that serious, they want the best.  




> The problem with "Pay as you go" health coverage is that people will neglect that cold until it turns into Pneumonia.   They'll hobble around on that broken ankle hoping it will get better on its own.


Some will, yes.  And many others will not.  Some do that now.  What is the difference?  There is none.  There are more things required to drive costs down and there are going to be problems with all of them but pay as you go for minor incidents is by far the best that I can see with the least in consequences.[/quote]

Well, there's a major difference. A part of the reason the current system is nearly in collapse is because people are going to Emergency rooms to treat ailments that could have been treated for one tenth the cost as a family practioner- if they had one.   They welch on those bills and the cost is spread to the rest of us.  

The fact that we demand hospitals treat first and worry about payment later is part of the problem.  Because, eventually, those costs get spread around.  




> I don't think you are correct here.  I am on the complete other side of this issue and while I am a small government guy, the beast we have created with employer HC needs to be killed.  The only way I see that happening is making it ILLEGAL for employers to offer HC plans.  That's right, it should be illegal.  You are creating an inherent problem in the system when you separate the customer from the product.  With healthcare, insurance does this.  By having the employer involved it simply adds another layer to the problem.  In essence, you have the user (you) covered by an insurance company that is beholden to the employer's desires paying for a product the employer never uses.  You are completely removed from the process AND your doctor.
> 
> The system would not collapse.  Quite the contrary, insurance companies would actually have to cater to the users of their service rather than some vaunted third party.  It would also address the problems that occur when you lose your job and suddenly your insurance is gone.



The problem with the Market Fetishists like yourself is that there is no reason for insurance companies to give policies to the people who need it the most- the chronically ill. 





> IAW: have you ever had to deal with healthcare in one of these 'better' countries.  I have been through the German HC system and can say, without a single doubt, our system is FAR better.  Many of the things you note in your last post about those countries that have single payer systems are not so cut and dry as you made them out to be.



No, it's not. Germany, for instance, has a mixture of public and private that seems to work better than ours does.   Germany has also had universal coverage since 1888, and it's survived Kaisers and Nazis and Wars, but it's still afloat.


----------



## Listening (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> yeah good argument from someone who stomps their feet and calls people names when theyve been pwned in public.



Thanks.

I figured I kicked your ass up one side and down the other.  Good of you finally acknowelged that.



Syphon said:


> maybe if you took your head out of your ass you might finally get that 5th grade education and realize that when the North won the war, part of the victory was a strong federal government. the states were not left with all the power. but then again i wouldnt expect someone who calls themself "listening" to be able to listen very well.



Well junior, nothing changed in the union after the war.  The fed had the power accorded it under the consitution and so did the states.  You might recall that states had power over abortion until 1972...about 100 years after the end of the war.  I realize your math skills suck as bad as your reading comprehension....so take my word for it.  And, as I handed you your ass with the Slaughterhouse cases that came right after the war that again affirmed states powers...in spite of past liberals slobbering over the 14th amendment.  If you could read, you'd see that the federal government had a defined set of duties for which they were fully powerful.  That was never a problem.  Get it straight.



Syphon said:


> here is why it is the most important for one last time.
> 
> Madison begins by stating that a "well contructed union" will be able to break apart the violence of factions. He states this is the vice that democratic government have fallen prey to. Democracies are not stable and that the source of this instability is a self interested majority:
> 
> if we wanted all the states to have more power than the fed, we would not be the United States of America, we would be the States of America and each state would govern itself as such. this was what the south wanted and is one of the main reasons they lost the war. if you want to go back to those days go ahead and try, but it has already been established through many avenues that a strong federal government is required in order to have a stable union.



Oh shock....you like making stuff up to argue against ?  The reason they lost the war was because they were an agricultural group and the north was industrialized....an side bar into your stupidity.

A need for strong enforcent power of government was demonstrated by....by....come on now.....can you say Shay's Rebellion....that's right.  But as Madison pointed out repeatedly.  They fed has powers (go back and read 45) over a set of defined responsibilities (health care was not one of them) and the rest was with the states.  Didn't read the 10th amendment did you (and if you did, you certainly didn't address it).  Prior to that bastard FDR trying to pack the SCOTUS, it was knocking out all of his social programs as out of scope or in other words....unconsitutional.  You might read up on the court packing scheme...might be a freshmen textbook.

So strong only means strong in it's scope....end of discussion.  That does not mean health care.  That is, of course, why the states are challenging it and why the SCOTUS should knock it down.



Syphon said:


> you have failed to show that fed 10 is not considered the most important federalist paper.



You've certainly demonstrated that you don't know much about anything.  You made the claim it was the most important.  You have not backed up that claim.



Syphon said:


> you have failed to show that Madison did not believe in having a strong federal government,



The only think I failed in was thinking you could read.  With Federalist 39, 44, 45, 46 which have been quoted to you showing where Madison clearly felt States would have power in a vast number of areas (undefined as compared to the fed which only had defined scope and powers to execute that scope) kicking your ass....it is clear you can't read.



Syphon said:


> you have failed to show have any real intelligence. all you have done is show little snippits of the other federalist papers and shout SEE, SEE, i told you so like a child. no one is buying your little games and shows anymore.



Which is just your way of saying...."mommy, mommy....he's kicking my ass and the only way I can fight back is to lay on the floor and cry because I certainly can't argue against what Madion wrote.

Not that you've addressed any of the papers I shared.  Not that you've posted the section in 10 that supports your argument.  In fact, it is hyersterical that you would make any comment about someone else's I.Q. given you've yet to prove you even have one.

Come back when you're ass has healed...junior.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> [
> 
> Yanked that out fo your butt, eh?



No, it's a direct quote from your link - which you clearly didn't read.



> They clearly compare health across similar socioeconomic planes and blacks have worse health.  That is the only salient thing.



No, it's not.  You said this:



> Really? Blacks make up 12% of the population. How many aer in Europe?
> Hispanics make up 16%
> Asians make up 5%
> That's over a third of the population that is not from the European gene pool.



Making it obvious you believe it's the gene pool.  The study you linked to makes no such claim - and in fact does quite the opposite.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Your cognitive ability is about on a par with the rest of you.  Were you dropped as a baby?
I do not believe it is the gene pool.  You introduced the idea of genetics, not me.  I merely pointed out the facts.
But it is odd that people in the same demographic group have disparate health profiles.  What do you attribute that to?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> No, it's not. Germany, for instance, has a mixture of public and private that seems to work better than ours does.   Germany has also had universal coverage since 1888, and it's survived Kaisers and Nazis and Wars, but it's still afloat.



Barely, asswipe.
Germany passes unpopular healthcare reform | Reuters


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's not. Germany, for instance, has a mixture of public and private that seems to work better than ours does.   Germany has also had universal coverage since 1888, and it's survived Kaisers and Nazis and Wars, but it's still afloat.
> ...



Just think, if the price of providing health care in Germany increases by more than a half of current expenditures, it will rival the US system!



			
				your link said:
			
		

> It employs 4.3 million people and accounts for 11 percent of economic output.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


----------



## starcraftzzz (Mar 20, 2012)

Study: Repealing The Mandate Will Increase Premiums By 25 Percent | ThinkProgress
^Repealing the health care mandate would increase health premiums by 25%


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 20, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > That's because of market forces drives cost down (not to mention affordability).  We NEED to go to a system that allows competitive pricing.
> ...


Bullshit.  They sure as hell do price them.  I have done so myself for my wife's dental work.  The funny part of trying to do so was that more than half of the offices COULD NOT EVEN GIVE ME A PRICE.  Their reason?  They did not know what to charge someone without insurance.  That is how fucking asinine our system is, companies don't even know their own damn prices.  Of the prices we did get, there was a range of 200 to 1000 dollars!  

Also, what people want is meaningless.  If you want the best then you better be willing to pay the price for it.  That is how it works.  If you can't afford it, you sure as hell are going to go to Discount Colonoscopies.  Why do you think it should be different?  Let me give you some reality: *you can't elevate the quality of service to 'the best' by making a process 'free' or available to anyone.  That lowers the best quality services to the lowest common denominator, not raises the lowest quality to the highest.*


> > The problem with "Pay as you go" health coverage is that people will neglect that cold until it turns into Pneumonia.   They'll hobble around on that broken ankle hoping it will get better on its own.
> 
> 
> Some will, yes.  And many others will not.  Some do that now.  What is the difference?  There is none.  There are more things required to drive costs down and there are going to be problems with all of them but pay as you go for minor incidents is by far the best that I can see with the least in consequences.


Well, there's a major difference. A part of the reason the current system is nearly in collapse is because people are going to Emergency rooms to treat ailments that could have been treated for one tenth the cost as a family practioner- if they had one.   They welch on those bills and the cost is spread to the rest of us.  

The fact that we demand hospitals treat first and worry about payment later is part of the problem.  Because, eventually, those costs get spread around.  
[/quote]
That is another problem altogether though and I think a rational solution is to create a midpoint in the level of service.  Emergency rooms are massively overpriced in large part because the way they operate.  I do not see why there cannot be an urgent care facility that is manned by nurses and one single doctor that can care for 90 percent of the people that go to emergency rooms.  If you have a fever, you should not be in the emergency room yet the majority of people that go there have little to no need of emergency services and are there for things like fevers or broken bones.


> > I don't think you are correct here.  I am on the complete other side of this issue and while I am a small government guy, the beast we have created with employer HC needs to be killed.  The only way I see that happening is making it ILLEGAL for employers to offer HC plans.  That's right, it should be illegal.  You are creating an inherent problem in the system when you separate the customer from the product.  With healthcare, insurance does this.  By having the employer involved it simply adds another layer to the problem.  In essence, you have the user (you) covered by an insurance company that is beholden to the employer's desires paying for a product the employer never uses.  You are completely removed from the process AND your doctor.
> >
> > The system would not collapse.  Quite the contrary, insurance companies would actually have to cater to the users of their service rather than some vaunted third party.  It would also address the problems that occur when you lose your job and suddenly your insurance is gone.
> 
> ...


That is why we have regulations because it should be illegal to cut someone from a policy because they are utilizing it.  I never said the insurance market should be unregulated.  Try and keep up here.


> > IAW: have you ever had to deal with healthcare in one of these 'better' countries.  I have been through the German HC system and can say, without a single doubt, our system is FAR better.  Many of the things you note in your last post about those countries that have single payer systems are not so cut and dry as you made them out to be.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. Germany, for instance, has a mixture of public and private that seems to work better than ours does.   Germany has also had universal coverage since 1888, and it's survived Kaisers and Nazis and Wars, but it's still afloat.


Yes, it's better there because.....

I have utilized their medical system extensively and found it far better here for many reasons.  The left rails on quality of American care and yet fails to give anything to actually back this up.  Most of the arguments I have seen have nothing to do with our medical system but rather our lifestyle.  The only thing you can point to is bankruptcy and preventative care (something can be addressed without all the bullshit we are doing atm) but as far as the actual care received, that's another story.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
> ...



The Robert's Court, the activitst Court the conservative movement wanted and GWB provided to repeal Roe, Miranda, Social Security and Medicare and in time make our nation into the plutocracy conservatives want.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Just embrace your racism already. It's what you are, we all know it, you know it. Why spend the energy pretending you're not what you are.

Rabbi - "Black people are inferior in many ways to other races, but don't call me racist"


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



RDD: "I can't argue.  I can't write coherent sentences.  And I get all my news from Bill Maher.  But don't call me a moron."


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



How would repealing Miranda create a plutocracy?
I realize your statement doesn't have to make sense.  It is merely an expression of hatred.  Don't bother explaining it.  It is what it is.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 21, 2012)

Rabbi is 110% confirmed Racist. He's stated tons of racist stuff on here over time - such as blacks cannot be effective leaders, etc.

Epitome of douche towel.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...


----------



## G.T. (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> You cannot refute any of that and instead call me a racist. Which is pretty stupid.
> I believe you are the racist.  You cannot deal with the fact of black people and want to pretend they are white.



You're a Rac ist based on your history here.

If you don't like it, think before you talk if you were really trying to hide it.

Tell us all again how blacks cannot be good leaders - shoot, go for it, post it up.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



I disagree with the premise because it's pure fantasy thinking. It has never happened in the past, so why would it happen now?


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Balancing the budget doesn't require gutting the safety net. Balancing the budget while increasing military spending and giving massive tax cuts to the rich does.


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



If that shows Germany's system is unworkable, how can he believes America's works?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's not. Germany, for instance, has a mixture of public and private that seems to work better than ours does.   Germany has also had universal coverage since 1888, and it's survived Kaisers and Nazis and Wars, but it's still afloat.
> ...



Did you actually read the article, clown-boy? 

They aren't switching to a new system, they are raising the costs of the current one.  And Merkel will probably get tossed out on her can next election... and good riddance.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

G.T. said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > You cannot refute any of that and instead call me a racist. Which is pretty stupid.
> ...



Please quote where I said blacks cannot be good leaders.
You cannot.  It is your misinterpretation, and probably projection on your part.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



How does increasing military spending gut the safety net?  Was the safety net gutted under Reagan, who increased military spending?  Or was it gutted under Clinton, who instituted welfare reform and decreased military spending?
I realize these are hard questions because you never thought about it before.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



It shows Germany's system is unworkable otherwise they wouldnt be trying to change it.
Or did you miss that part?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



THey are desperately trying to make it work because they have the same experience as anyone when you give stuff away for free: soaring demand and costs and inadequate revenue.
Or did you miss Econ 101?  Oh yeah, that's a college class.


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



It's not the individual item (increasing military spending) that requires gutting the safety net. It's doing that while cutting taxes and balancing the budget.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Lol.


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



If Germany's system, at 11% of GDP, is unworkable, how can you claim the American system is just fine, noting it consumes an even larger share of output?


----------



## 8537 (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Actually you brought up demographics of Europe vs America.
> You really need to get better at this debate stuff.




ahem....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4987296-post52.html


			
				you said:
			
		

> The US is exceptional in its demographics and its geography.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Yet they spend 11% of GDP while we spend about 18%.


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Don't ruin his lecture. He took Econ 101, and is therefore all-knowing.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I've seen nor read a single shred of evidence to indicate Rabbi ever took Econ 101.


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

8537 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



I can believe it took it. You know how people who took 101 and stopped there are. I'm not saying he passed the class...


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 21, 2012)

I'm more interested in what at least five people think about the issue after next week.


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> I'm more interested in what at least five people think about the issue after next week.



I feel like we should start a prediction thread.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 21, 2012)

8537 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



In all fairness, he had a black professor, and we all know blacks can't be good teachers.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



It was my signature. It was Rdd's signature. You know it, we know it. You're a racist scummer. 

But here's some fun "the rabbi" quotes for y'all to enjoy:

"The organized black community wil continue to become increasingly irrelevant. But they want poverty as it gives them something to do."

"Tipsy is right: the stats for family life for blacks in the 1950s was much better. They were also making greater economic gains than they have in the last 30 years.
But you are a leftist racist who wants to keep them ******* down in the ghetto voting D."

 "And I never argued slavery was right. I only challenged others to argue it was wrong. And no one could do it."


"But you never sat in a public high school classroom with blacks, which is what USArmy is talking about. As odious as the guy is, desegregation was not the panacaea it was promised to be."

"for some reason blacks cannot seem to produce prosperity in any political capacity"


"That's what happens when blacks run things.
Anyway, who cares? What difference does this make? Are they filing bankruptcy? Are they asking for a bailout from the Feds?
Thread fail. Can you name one city, one state or one country run by blacks that is doing well?"


"We have black unemployment much higher than white unemployment. The rate among black teens is about 40%, about like Palestinians.
ANd yet the black community continues to support Barack Obama, even though his policies have caused disproportionate hardship among the very people he claims to be for.
How can we explain this?"



THERE'S HUNDREDS MORE.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



I went from majoring in Mathematics to majoring in economics thanks to econ 101; Macroeconomics...and 102; Microeconomics.

Syracuse University; The Maxwell School of Citizenship had an excellent program back in my day.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 21, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



How could they be?

Afterall, their minds are busy all day long thinking of ways to rob the local liquor store....and when they arent doing that, their minds are racing thinking of excuses to call in sick on Friday and the following monday.

Oh yeah...and they spend a good part of the day looking for ways to create racism where it doesnt exist.

Now...how can someone with such a busy agenda be a good teacher?


----------



## 8537 (Mar 21, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...


You're an Orangeman?  I always knew there was something slightly wrong with you


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 21, 2012)

8537 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



One of the few schools with a mascot name that, when pluralized, does not end with an "s".

Orangmen (Syracuse)
Redmen (St. Johns)
Green Wave (Tulane)
The Irish (Notre Dame)
Flying Dutchmen (Hofstra)...I think they are now known as the Pride

I think there is one other....cant recall it.


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Harvard Crimson.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 21, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



The Stanford Cardinal
The Fighting Illini
The UMass Minutemen
<I'm a sucker for this kind of trivia>


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 21, 2012)

8537 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Rumor has it the Fighting Illini will be changing their mascot....

"The Obama"


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



on the same note...
Alabama Crimson Tide


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



It isn't the percentage of GDP that makes it unworkable.
But nice try.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Actually you brought up demographics of Europe vs America.
> ...



Post #42:


> So in countries that have more government "interference", we should see more expensive health care costs?
> 
> Hmm...let's look around and see if that's the case, shall we?
> __________________


You are a tool and a half.  You don't even know what you are posting anymore.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

8537 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



You would have had to take the class yourself to recognize it.
You clearly didnt.  I doubt you went to college as you cannot maintain a coherent thought.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I'm more interested in what at least five people think about the issue after next week.
> ...



Probably a narrow ruling against forced citizen participation in a government program by all citizens.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 21, 2012)

Overturning the mandate is not significant, except that it would all but guarantee that the GOP would never get anywhere trying to repeal the rest of Obamacare.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Overturning the mandate is not significant, except that it would all but guarantee that the GOP would never get anywhere trying to repeal the rest of Obamacare.


they should pass a law that hospitals can deny care if a person cant pay. then lets see how much those on the right are against the free market.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


you mean like taxes, medicare, medicaid and SS?


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Let's have some fun with it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...reme-court-prediction-thread.html#post4994398


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



You can differentiate all of those because the government provides them directly, they're not private goods.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



I had a class about it at the local juco once.  Oh, and I had home ec in high school


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Not all citizens are required to pay taxes or even file a return.  Fail

Medicaid is only available to the poor.  Fail

Many citizens are not part of Social Security.  Fail

Medicaid is probably the closest to a violation.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


they dont administer medicare directly, its administered through private doctors, the government just pays for it. same with medicaid. 

if the government had hospitals such the VA, then you could say that it was administered directly.

give me an example of a product or service that every person will use in their lifetime that can actually prevent them from dying and then we can talk...


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


everyone pays taxes. taxes are not only federal, but state and local. unless you live off the land in a tent on public land, you will pay some form of taxes in your life time. so fail for you

every citizen with a SS card has access to SS. so fail for you

medicaid is a great example, since i have to pay for even though i will never use it. so why arent you railing again paying for that?


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



They do administer Medicare directly. It is a government program that makes payments to providers. You're not being forced to sign up for a policy with Aetna or BCBS. That may be one of the most interesting parts of this debate. Conservatives would win a short-term battle by striking down the individual mandate, but they'd lose the war. It means their plans for reforming Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional, while the only path left for those wanting health care reform is single-payer (which, from the example of the VA and Medicare, we already know is constitutional).


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Yes, about what I thought.  Congrats.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



State and local taxes aren't an issue.  And people who rent do not file and pay real estate taxes.
Fail on you.
Not every citizen has a SS card. 
Not every citizen who does pays into the system.
Fail on you.
I pay taxes to support the patent office even though I'll never file for a patent. S o what?


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Nope, farmers are exempt from sales tax.  All taxes have exceptions.


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



So does the individual mandate.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


this is all easily solvable. if you dont wanna buy health insurance, then pass a law that lets people sign a waiver, the consequence is that if you need medical care, no matter how urgent or life threatening your situation is, you have to prepay for all services. 

car accident, hope you can pay
heart attack, hope you can pay
stroke, hope you can pay

and if you cant, well then you dont get any treatment. oh well too bad


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



So you're claiming it is a tax?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Why should you haev to pre-pay for every service?  It will be between the patient and the provider.  Kind of like how it should always be.


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Yes, I would argue that it is a tax. In terms of impact, it's no different than levying a poll tax (in the British sense of the term) and then providing a tax credit to those having health insurance.


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Except that it's a tax collected by insurance companies.


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Because the alternative is that you'd get to shift the cost on to everyone else.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


if its truly the free market, you should have to pay for only the services you receive, so since i dont want to pay for anything you ever get from the doctor, then you should have to pay full price for all your services.

since its already been proven that people dont pay for services they receive, this solves all problems.


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

dblack said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Nope. If you don't have insurance, the government gets the revenue from the tax.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Pres Obama disagrees with you.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg-ofjXrXio]George and Obama debate health care taxes - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



It has not been proven.  Except by you, who doubtless shafts anyone and everyone.


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I don't care about political rhetoric. I care about legal realities.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 21, 2012)

I think it has probably been proven that progressives don't pay bills....

But thank goodness, progressives aren't all "people".


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



It has. The value of unpaid hospital bills is equal to 2% of the entire sector.

Up to $49 billion unpaid by uninsured for hospitalizations - USATODAY.com


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I think it has probably been proven that progressives don't pay bills....
> 
> But thank goodness, progressives aren't all "people".



Which is why the reddest areas of the country are also the most dependent on food stamps, SSI, and Medicaid.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



OK.
The Federal Government lacks the Constitutional authority to lay such a tax.  Article I Section 9


> No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


The only exception is the income tax, which this is not.
QED.  The individual mandate is unconstitutional.  Since there was no severability clause in the law the rest of the law will be found unconstitutional as well.
Obamacare is dead.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



That actually proves the opposite.


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



1 out of every 50 dollars spend on health care are uninsured people sticking the public with the bill. That's a pretty sizable amount.


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Doesn't justify chaining us to the insurance industry by force of law.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I think it has probably been proven that progressives don't pay bills....
> ...


 
Meme. Means nothing, just another progressive slogan.


----------



## Polk (Mar 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Of course it means something. It's pretty hypocritical to decry all of these programs, while collecting the benefits.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



lol.  Translation: hummunna hummunna hummunna.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


So that's 49 dollars that are not stuck.
The claim was "people don't pay their bills."  This disproves it.

I see no rebuttal to my showing that Obamacare's penalty as a tax is a fail.  And as a penalty it is also a fail.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



What makes it hypocritical?  Did you oppose the war in Iraq?  Did you continue to pay taxes which also funded the war?  That would make you a hypocrite.
Opposing a program while benefitting from it is not hypocrisy.  Another lib myth down the crapper.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 21, 2012)

Polk said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Link.  Paying a penalty tax to the IRS hardly qualifies.


----------



## Listening (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> this is all easily solvable. if you dont wanna buy health insurance, then pass a law that lets people sign a waiver, the consequence is that if you need medical care, no matter how urgent or life threatening your situation is, you have to prepay for all services.
> 
> car accident, hope you can pay
> heart attack, hope you can pay
> ...



Smartest thing you've said yet.

Putting aside the sarcasm......there are some potentially good systems that would allow people to taylor their willingness to take risks (with their fortunes) that the market could satisfy.

My current HSA now has a balance that would probably handle a heart attack even if I didn't have insurance (average cost).

And we all get to chose....the American way.....

Most, including myself, won't go without.  But it won't be forced on me.

What the market has not been allowed to do (but it is changing) is get health insurance to those who want it at prices they can afford.

Obamacare isn't necessary.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

Listening said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > this is all easily solvable. if you dont wanna buy health insurance, then pass a law that lets people sign a waiver, the consequence is that if you need medical care, no matter how urgent or life threatening your situation is, you have to prepay for all services.
> ...


so your actually advocating for a system in which people are left to die because they are poor? great, the right finally shows their true colors. 

$11,000 hospital bill from the emergency department
$11,000 hospital bill from the emergency department

Physical assessment by the emergency resident physician came quickly followed by an EKG, chest x-ray, CT scan of the chest (&#8220;they said I might have had a blood clot&#8221, and lab, specifically including cardiac enzymes. Mike said his only complaint was it took over five hours before he heard any news.
&#8220;Everything looks good,&#8221; said the resident. &#8220;Let me run all this past my attending and see if we can get you home.&#8221; Mike said by then his pain had been gone for hours and he relaxed by receiving the go.
When the resident returned, however, Mike said he knew something was wrong.
&#8220;Sorry Mike, but my attending thinks you need to stay for a chest pain evaluation, &#8220; stated the resident with no hint of emotion. &#8220;Your first cardiac enzyme was normal, but he thinks you need another evaluation in six hours followed by a stress test, &#8220; he continued.



hope your sitting on $11k if you have to go to the emergency room.

or you could just file bankruptcy
Medical Bills Cause Most Bankruptcies - NYTimes.com

or you could just be one of the 45,000 people who die due to lack of health insurance
Harvard study finds nearly 45,000 excess deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage | Physicians for a National Health Program

A study published online today estimates nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

but its ok, because those who cant afford health care are shit out of luck anyways.... let em all die right????

who provides you with that HSA and health insurance your company? how much is your actual out of pocket each month? non employer health insurance averages $300-400 a month for a healthy young adult.


----------



## Listening (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



O.K. This ranks with some of the more stupid things you've posted.

First, the right has never avoided this so there is no showing of true colors.  Personal Responsibility means you get it lined up or you pay the consequences.  End of discussion.  Yes, I have 11K to pay for that and a lot more.  But I buy insurance so I am not going to pay for it.  I have a neighbor (a lib) who does not buy insurance and pretty much knows he can screw the system so he spends it on a boat. 

Next, unless things have changed, most of those so called medical bankruptcies are for amounts less than 12,000.  That is the cost of a good used car.  But people figure that they don't have to pay it so they wiggle out of it.  A 100K bill, I could understand (boy, I'll bet that insurance looks a whole lot better than the boat when that happens....what about that woman from Ohio who took family vacations and then griped when she could not afford chemo because she could not afford insurance.....????  There is a sucker born every minute).  If you want to let people get out from under such small medical bills, be my guest.

Finally, I got a copy of the Harvard Study and wiped my ass with it.  First, the assumptions are incredibly specious and the entire study came under fire when it came out.  It is basically bogus.  Second, start providing names.  You figure the study was done a decade ago which means you have 500,000 people who have died since then.  Surely you morons can produce some names.  Whenever I challenge anyone to produce a list of 1000 names (out of 500K....can't be that hard), it does not happen.  We shut this one down a long time ago, junior...try to keep up.  And finally, from purely a statistical standpoint....45,000 against the number of people who likely die in this country each year almost becomes statistical noise.  That you would quote the study shows you are still using fifth grade books (and BTW: you whined about my posting parts of Federalist Papers...you never posted one sorry assed piece of 10 and stood behind it so STFU....but I digress).

Yes, you populist lefties are so easy to trash.

You got creamed again Junior.

This is fun.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 22, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Polk has left the building.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Listening said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


so youre apparently smarter than researchers at Harvard now........
best statement youve ever made.. 

you really think a study is gonna release personal information??? ok you release all your personal information to the public then. dumbshit

your a bigger idiot than you even realize..
hows it feel to get pwned over and over again? speaking of getting creamed.... you have a little something left on your chin....


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 22, 2012)

So, let's suppose Romney is elected and with the magic of his pen repeals "Obamacare".  Under which provision of the Constitution does Romney have such authority?

Next, what's next?  Will Romney deregulate the health care industry?  What will those with a previous condition do if they lose their job because of a chronic disease and can't afford to pay cobra premiums?  

No doubt they will go to the local county/public hospital  and lose everything they worked for as medical bills and interest on those bills grows and grows.

And what of preventative care?  Will prevention be ignored as too costly for many Americans, and what then?  Ignoring symptoms and regular check ups when early detection has a clear cost-benefit?

I don't expect any answers, callous conservatives don't really care about others, it's all about personal responsibility.  Simple answer to complex issues is so simple.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> So, let's suppose Romney is elected and with the magic of his pen repeals "Obamacare".  Under which provision of the Constitution does Romney have such authority?
> 
> Next, what's next?  Will Romney deregulate the health care industry?  What will those with a previous condition do if they lose their job because of a chronic disease and can't afford to pay cobra premiums?
> 
> ...


why dont yoiu expand the questioning?

What if that individual DOES lose his job due to a chronic condition and cant afford to keep up with his mortgage payments?

Or cant pay to feed his family?

Or cant pay to clothe his family?

You see....you all want to make it about healthcare....but it isnt. It is about people doing what they need to do to prepare for the worst case scenario.

So lets say healthcare continues as Obama wants...

The man gets medical care....but loses his house.

Should we also have the tax payer pay his mortgage?

Clothe his family?

Sorry bud...it is not that we are callous.....it is that we are realists.

If people prepared for the worst, they will survive through the worst.

I did not buy my first house until I had 2 years worth of mortgage payements saved up.....

How did I do it on my small income at the time? My wife and I lived in a small basement studio apartment...did without a car...and I held down a night job along with my day venture....

Likewise, I did not buy anything but necessities for the first few years I LIVED in my first house...so I can save up even more.

Now, I was lucky...I did not get sick...I did not lose my company.....so with all I kept putting away, I was ablue to retire at the age of 54.

You think about what people can do FOR themselves.....but arent willing to


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 22, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> So, let's suppose Romney is elected and with the magic of his pen repeals "Obamacare".  Under which provision of the Constitution does Romney have such authority?
> 
> Next, what's next?  Will Romney deregulate the health care industry?  What will those with a previous condition do if they lose their job because of a chronic disease and can't afford to pay cobra premiums?
> 
> ...



The same authority that allowed obama to put a morotorium on drilling........


Romney hasn't said what is next yet.  Since you are making assumptions I will too.  I assume he will pas some small, targeted bills, aimed at helping extend coverage at costs lower income people can afford while NOT overstepping the limits placed on the federal govt by the constitution, like the Affordable Care Act does.

I doubt it, sounds like a bunch of hyperbole from you there 

People already did preventive care before obama was president, while obama is president, and will do so after obama is gone......we don't need Obamacare to have people practice preventative medicine.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > So, let's suppose Romney is elected and with the magic of his pen repeals "Obamacare".  Under which provision of the Constitution does Romney have such authority?
> ...


a man can live without a house, however a man can not live with a heart or lungs.

a man can grow food, but a man cant grow a health care tree

a man can make his own clothes, but a man cant make his own antibiotics

wanna try that argument again?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > So, let's suppose Romney is elected and with the magic of his pen repeals "Obamacare".  Under which provision of the Constitution does Romney have such authority?
> ...


have you actually looked at the GOP plan on GOP.gov? its a rehash of the health care law sans the mandate. 

so what exactly is wrong with the health care law again that needs requires it to be fully repealed?

if people did proper preventative care, we wouldnt have an obesity problem in this country


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



you really think Romney is Mr. GOP?   You don't know romney if you think he is Mr GOP or a shill for the republican party.  I do know romney a bit...he was my gov, i voted for him before....you are off base with worrying about the GOP plan under romney.

See my sig line for more details on that


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



A man can purchase health insurance....thats what it is there for.
If it means he cant have 2 cars, or a 3 bedroom home, or a 3 bedroom apartment for the first few years of his adult life, so be it.

But the man can purchase health insurance.

I did....and I was bagging groceries at a local supermarket in addition to starting my own company..and my wife working....and handling my administrative work for my venture at night while I was bagging groceries....

I did without a car...livbed in a basement apartment...my TV was a black and White Zenith form the 60's....and I used every dam coupon we could find for food.

I did what I had to do.

As for your piss ass argument.....you seemed to have left out the part where the guy can buy health insurance.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


Romeny is a self professed republican. he is even letting the GOP primary pull him farther and farther to the right in order to pander to the religious right and TP voters. if Romney ran as independent, id be more inclined to agree with you, but since he is actively campaigning to represent the GOP that makes him a republican....


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > So, let's suppose Romney is elected and with the magic of his pen repeals "Obamacare".  Under which provision of the Constitution does Romney have such authority?
> ...



Thanks for sharing your 'logic':

Slippery slope

Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there's really not enough evidence for that assumption. The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the "slippery slope," we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can't stop partway down the hill.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 22, 2012)

2/3 say ditch individual health care mandate 

Yep and go to a single payor universal system.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



no evidence?

Are you not paying attention?

Evidence...

The Affordable Healthcare law has a mandate that any American who is breathing MUST either pourchase health insurance ORT havew health insurence purchased on ones behalf. *This is a first in Amereican History*...a government mandate that one MUST buy something even if one does not want to.

And yes...we cried "slippery slope" and folks like you ridiculed us.

So what comes out 2 years later?

For the first timeA NEW government mandate that says a business owner MUST OFFER a service even if that business owner does not want to....*This is a first in American History*

Yep....no longer a slippery slope.....the first mandate opened the door and government is grabbing


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


your argument assumes that everyone without health insurance has the means to do so.

how do you suggest a man making $45,000 supporting a family of 4 come up with $1000 a month to pay for insurance for his family?
Average family health insurance policy: $13,375, up 5% - USATODAY.com

lets assume hes in the 15% tax bracket for arguments sake, that means he takes home $3,187 per month. 

Mortgage / Rent - $1200
Food - $1000
Utilities - $100

hmmmm without any retirement, gas, car, insurance, clothes or anything else that means he has $887 left to spend each month. you wanna take the majority of what he has left to provide for his family and put it into health insurance.


----------



## deaddogseye (Mar 22, 2012)

Clementine said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



They are not supposed to be but I think often they are. Of course this depends in part of the individuals comprising the court at a given point in time. But  i think there is little question the Supreme Court (or more precisely stated, certain members of it)  factors in just how much the public will tolerate in some of their more sensitive decisions. 

this of course brings up the whole problem with the judiciary making law - and dont get me wrong, sometimes it is unavaoidable. It is completely undemocratic for as few a 5 out of touch unelected old priveleged people who are accountable to no one to be making these decisions  -regardless of whether you happen to love or hate what they are doing at the given moment. There is a very substantial argument that this particular issue (the individual mandate) should be left to the political process because although it is couched as a constitutional issue it may well be perceived by some of them as less fundamentally so than say something involving restrictions on pure political speech for example. Certailny this will be the first issue the court considers and the answer to that will determine if they even get to the commerce clause issue. 

Just remember if 5 old out of touch unelected and unacountable old geezers can give you something you really like, the next 5 can take it away and there is almost nothing you can do about it.

Is that any way to run a Democracy? The problem is what is the alternative?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


so you really believe that people do not want health care?

can you back that statement up?


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Really?

Are you new to the entire healthcare debate?

If I had known this, I wouldnt have even responded to you to begin with.

How can you attempt to debate a topic you are poorly infiormed about?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 22, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > So, let's suppose Romney is elected and with the magic of his pen repeals "Obamacare".  Under which provision of the Constitution does Romney have such authority?
> ...


Wrong again.  People who can't afford or don't buy insurance, or lose their coverage ignore symptoms and regular check ups.  Then, when the inevitable happens the cost skyrockets

If Romney is elected I suspect he will do nothing about "Obamacare".  Not simply because he can't, but because in his heart he knows it's the right thing to do.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



it seems the point I made went completely over your head.

You cite a guy with a 45K salary with 4 kids, a 1200 rent/mortgage, a car, etc.

at 25 years old, I started my own company...with no money... a service company...
My fiance at the time ands I took a small studio apartrment at a cost of 300 a month...We did not have a car...and we did not even talk about children...

I worked nights to supplement my income.....my wife worked days..and at nights she handled my administrative stuff for my new venture so I can go bag groceries.

We did not buy a TV.

Our entertainment was walks along the beach....our nights out were drinks with friends at friends homes or ours. We struggled...not to survivie....we struggled so we can have down the road.

We did not buy our first home until we had 2 years of mortgage payments saved up.
We3 did not buy a car until we had 6 months of car payments saved up.

We did not have children until we were able to afford them.

In the meantime, my healthcvare costs (insurance) was a monthly cost incorporated into my lifesatyle...it was like rent..and food...and clothes....

And when I started to make more?

We had kids.

Bought a TV

Bought a car....


It is not rocket science.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Paying for health insurance IS providing for his family.

Should a man have a family if he can not afford to feed them?

The answer is no.

Should a man have a family if he can not afford to keep them healthy?

The answer is no.

It is tryuly about personal responsibility. You ridicule that statement....but that is becuase you cant get a grasp of what it means...which is evident of ther "pity" you show for a man with 4 kids, a mortgage yet making only 45K a year with no health insurance.

He was not a very respoinsible person.

You pity the irresponsible and ridicule the responsible.

I find that pathetic thinking.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2012)

Responsibility and hard work are foreign concepts the many on the left.

I work 54 hours a week at my main job that has benefits and also own a landscape business.  Two jobs.  Gasp!


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


a family of 4 (for you slow people that 2 adults and 2 kids) making $45k is the average american jackass. that average american is not 25 without any an children


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Yeah, but that was your situation. How long ago were you 25 years old? What kind of apartment do you think someone is getting for $300/month now? You act like everyone should follow the route you took. We both that's not even in the realm of possibility. We're talking about the real world now and people do have kids, people do have rent to pay, people do need a car to get to work, people do work hard, and people still make little money for their efforts. This is the real world and just because someone doesn't do everything perfect, they shouldn't be made an example of and left out in the cold.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


so a family of 4 making $45k a year (which is the average american household) is not responsible enough to have children now......

fantastic argument.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



You were lucky.  Lucky in the respect you didn't break a leg, requiring surgery and a week in the hospital.  Lucky that you didn't get cancer, have a heart attack or develop diabetes and not know it.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...




So someone who has kids and then loses his job but decided to takes whatever he can get so that at least he is making something is irresponsible? You don't think that scenario doesn't play out all over this country? You're being awfully idealistic and short sighted.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 22, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Responsibility and hard work are foreign concepts the many on the left.
> 
> I work 54 hours a week at my main job that has benefits and also own a landscape business.  Two jobs.  Gasp!



So how long until you made your first million dollars?


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



resorting to name calling.

Im ok with that.

Anyway....yes, I know that is the average American....

That is the point.

Americans have become irresponsible.

An income of 45K is not enough to have a house, 2 kids, 2 cars, 3 TV's, and 2 nights out a week.

And by the way...

If wife makes 30K and husband makes 30K...that is already 60K.

Now....before you jump down my throat....

10 an hour is 21K a year....so both are at 10 an hour to start, they are already making 42K a year......but not ready to have kids.

You are way too narrow minded to grasp the concept of personal respoinsibility.

It is people like you that is wronmg with America.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



I had health insurance.

I sacrificed several years of a nice place to live with new TVs and a car...but I ALWAYS had health  insurance.

If I needed to be in the hospital for a week, I would have cashed in on my disibility insurance.

You diont want Americans to earn...you weant them to coast.

Whatever works for you.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


who says every family has 2 incomes? ohhh that right you do, so since you say it, that makes it true...... 

so youre blaming the american working family for wages being low and stagnant..... guess the right has finally shown its true colors.

yup im whats wrong with america, i since i believe health care is a right, and every american deserves to have access to affordable health care. unlike you, who thinks that access to health care should only be afforded to those with the most money.

im rooted right in here reality with the facts and statistics to back it up. it is you who is living in the fantasy world of rainbows and unicorns.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Spin...dont know why you do that...but there is a lot I am seeing I did noty see in the past......my fault....

I did not say that......

Taking whatever he can get is being RESPONSIBLE.

Having kids and a mortgage and 2 cars and 3 TV's  before he had enough saved up in case he lost his job....THAT was irresponsible.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Open up your mind....

I did not say they do.

What I am saying is they CAN....AND SHOULD...before they have kids and a house and all the other things I WANTED but was smart enough to hold off on.

It is about making smart decisions early on.

Yep...too narrow minded for me.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


you still havent answered in what year you were 25 that allowed you to pay $300 a month in rent.. 1975?

how do you expect americans to earn with wages being flat? you cant change the facts that the average american family is a family of 4 making $45k.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Responsibility and hard work are foreign concepts the many on the left.
> ...



Why is that suppose to be the goal?


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Never ever ever said that. You must have a reading comprehension issue.

If your salary is too low to have children and a ahouse and all the other things you want....dont have them.

End of conversation....cant deal with your childish debate style


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


so now your pigeon holing the average american into the box that having kids and a mortgage and 2 cars and 3 TV's, without $45k in the bank is irresponsible?

you probably dont have $45k in the bank, guess that makes your irresponsible.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



And now a straw man.  No one cares what you did (or pretend to have done). This is the internet where anyone can be anything they want to be.  Life is much different and your story is just that, a story.  Even if true, it proves nothing.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


your name speaks volumes, you really do have your head in a jar


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



I am retired at the age of 54.

I was homeless 31 years ago.

I never said they should have 45K in the bank.

You have a reading comprehension issue.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2012)

Since the "average" American is as likely to be unmarried as married, the family of four scenario is bogus.  Look up average American, not American family.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Why does everyone making 45k a year have 2 cars and three tvs? Is your entire argument based upon that? Pretty shaky if you ask me. 

What exactly did I spin? You're being ridiculous now, pigeon-holing everyone who is lower middle class as buying luxury goods at the expense of basic needs. Does it happen? Sure it does. But is it everyone doing that or even a majority? I think we both know that's not the case. 

I wish you wouldn't make your entire viewpoint based upon the worse examples you can find and then generalize about the rest of the population, simply because it helps state your case in a nice clean package. Unfortunately the picturing you're painting isn't whats happening in the real world.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



tell the truth man...

Your post is saying this...

I dont want to hear how it can be done any other way than the way I think it should be done.

So I will assume you are a liar.

Quite childish of you.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



whatever.

Dont bother respoinding to me anymore.

You proved to me what you are all about a few weeks back.

I was disappointed....saddened to be honest.

Put me on ignoire if you wish. I am OK with it.

Cya.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


so youre 54 which mean you were 25 in 1983.

so tell everyone what the cost of living was in 1983.... how much was food, rent, even health insurance??

ohhh thats right it was $45..... not $450 like today....
A Look at Employers' Costs of Providing health Benefits

you said a responsible adult would not have kids unless that had enough money in the bank to support them of they lost their job. well $45k would be one years salary. thats not exactly a fantasy number. what is your magic number then. $5k? $10k, $25K? what number does an american need to have in their bank account to make them responsible enough to have a family? because apparently you have all the answers and live in the world of rainbows and unicorns.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 22, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Because you are trying to make it seem that all it takes is hard work and everyone can be as successful as they want. So, since you told us how hard you work, you must be a millionaire by now. No?


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You seem to be capable of looking at success merely in terms of money.  Is that the only measure?  Cannot hard work be its own reward?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Since the "average" American is as likely to be unmarried as married, the family of four scenario is bogus.  Look up average American, not American family.


the average family takes into account people both with and without families.

thats why its called an "average"
some people have 1 kid, some of 5, some have none. some are married, some are single.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


so being successful has nothing to do with how much money you make?

if that is the case, they why do you have 2 jobs and work over 54 hours a week? if money isnt a measure of success what are you doing? torturing yourself?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



What? Seriously? What's your problem? Retirement has turned you in to an asshole. I'm trying to have a conversation with you and you don't even respond with an intelligent response anymore. 

If that's how you want it though, have it your way. I'll be here when you de-grouch yourself.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Your strawman production is remarkable.  Do you consider that hard work?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 22, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Sure it can, tell that to the people who think that those who make $45k don't deserve to have a family.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


funny thing is fox news did exactly that. they called out the poor because 99.6% have "refigerators"

99.6% have refrigerators
97.7% have televisions
97.7% have stoves and ovens
81.4% have microwaves
78.3% have air conditioning

99.6 % of the Poor in America Have REFRIGERATORS!?!!??!! | The Culture Zone

in the words of Bill O&#8217;Reilly, &#8220;So how can you be so poor and have all this stuff?&#8221;


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



it is not just about hard work.

It is about doing without when you are younger.

Nowasyas, our younger generation wants a career, a house, an ipod, and much more......not thinking about saving for their future.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



I did without a TV
I did without air conditioning
I did without a microwave.

And I never considered myself poor.

I considered myself on the rise.

And it worked.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I'd respond, but you told me to ignore you. Let me know when it's ok to reply to you.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


if youre not making a high wage and taking him good pay, then i call it a fools errand.

i can be more productive in 40 hours than you can in 54.... does that mean i work harder? nope it means i work smarter....


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



If a person's needs are met, are they poor?  If a person's wants are met are they rich?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


there are plenty of people from "your generation" who rely solely on SS and Medicare. 

apparently those people didnt work hard or save for the future either....


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Since you know little of my situation, that would be a pure fabrication on your part.

For instance, what do you produce?

(besides strawman agruments I mean)


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


as much as you dont want to admit it, you were poor at that time. no one ever wants to admit they are poor, but that doesnt change the fact that at that point in time you actually were. you also admitted to being homeless 31 years ago, does that mean you werent poor then either?


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



your last three interactions with me including a few weeks back AND yesterday...and today....have been the type I would expect form some of the dicks on here....ridicule; twisting what I say....you kjnow...the shit I refuse to engage in.

Actually, noit at all a grouch. Enjoying life to the fullest....lol....placed 4 people on jobs last week..>AND DID NOT CHARGE A FEE....becuase I have the resources, and people need jobs.

It is fun to work for free....no stress...no pressure.

Life is good.

Just dont appreciate your approach.

Go for it though if you enjoy it....I dont so I just wont deal with it.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


i produce control buildings for the utility industry that provide and distribute electricity to the world. 

what do you produce? law cuttings.....


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



I did not say I was not poor. I said I did not consider myself poor. WHen you condiser yourself poor, it can stunt your growth. When others refer to you as poor, it can have an adverse affect on your growth.

The point Oreilly made was that those that CONSIDER THEMSLEVES poor....or that many call the poor........had more than I did.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



What did I twist? I asked if you considered the fact that everyone making 45k who has a family might not have reached that point in the manner which you are depicting. If that's what you consider spin then you're not open to having an actual conversation. 

And I apologized yesterday for misinterpreting the conversation. I said I was wrong about that. Maybe you're not a grouch but you're oversensitive lately at the very least.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


just because you wont admit to yourself that you werent poor, doesnt change that fact. what are you gonna claim next? that living in a tent doesnt mean your homeless because the tent is in fact your home???


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



During the 54 hours, I sell new and used vehicles.  In my landscape business I create landscapes, some of which have been decribed as art by clients.

Your union then.  Working hard?  Seriously?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


nope non union, profitable for 17 years, high reputation, high wage..

so just because i have a high paying, good job in the manufacturing industry im automatically union? 
man the right is full of idiots...

wow, selling cars must take a highly specialized degree.... i mean working 54 hours a week selling cars is mind numbing work........ doesnt exactly take a degree in electrical engineering to figure that out.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



why must you spin? Where did I say being homeless is not being homeless.

The point Oreilly was making is valid.

Those that are poor, dont live like they are poor. If they gave up some non essentials early on such as TV's and microwaves, they may be poor, but they would have more to avoid being destitute.

Like I did.

Me and my wife were making enough to NOT be poor....but we opted to live poor so we can have mnore down the road.

Like my older son.

He wanted to have a nice apaprtment, a car, and entertainment money....on a salary of 42K.

He asked me to cover his cable annd electric bill....I told him to get rid of his car....that would cover it.

He did.....6 months later, he got a raise and bought a smaller, older car. A year later he got another raise and is now saving good money. He can be unemployed for 6 months and not have to worry....not even taking into consideration unemployment he would be getting.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



No, I simply created a strawman for you, like you do all the time.  See how that works?  The funny part is you fell for it and then had the hypocracy to berate it AND turn around with another strawman.

I have held a series 7 brokerage license, builder's license, teaching certificate.  Bachelors of Science from a major university.  I am quite certain you could not successfully complete a sales transaction with your knowledge.  I have done considerable work with electrical wiring.

Your full of insults and strawmen.  Clearly the signs of a weak mind.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


actually my sales transaction vary from $100k to several million dollars. so thanks for that fail....

if you were really a successful salesperson, why arent you still selling financial products? or being a teaching? but nope... youre selling cars....... whats the most expensive car youve sold? $50k.. maybe......

and you consider yourself a success??? thats a strawman argument if ive ever heard one.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


your son isint exactly considered "poor" 

$42k for a single male, is not $45k for a family of 4.. he is very much middle class.

you consider a $25 microwave a luxury item?
you consider a $50 tv a luxury item?
you consider a refrigerator a luxury items?
you consider a stove and oven a luxury item?

a luxury item would be a big screen, a luxury item would be cell phone, a luxury item would be name brand clothing, a luxury item would be eating out all the time.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



I used my son as an example of someone who felt someone else should bear the burden of his expenses...me.

So I pointed out to him that he did not need my help....he could just live a little tighter.

To this day, he thanks me for that. It openend his eyes to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

I said NON ESSENTIAL....not luxury.

And I go back to what I said a while ago...

if a man, or a couple, is making 45K then they should not have children yet....they should not own yet....they shopuld live poor by design so they can acheieve what they want in the future.....

But without kids, 2 people can live fine with 45K....or live poor and be able to buy a house 3 years later...that will be their choice.

I lived in a basement of someone.....for 300 a month...so I can save.....you reallyt think I loved living in a basement?

But it allowed me to acheive what I have acheived.

Let me put it to you this way euinstein....

Go talk to your parents...your grandparents.....ask them how they did it without free healthcare, HARP loans, and all of the other things people like you claim is ESSENTIAL for people to survive.

Their answer?

We did without things like mutiple TV's and microwaves, and cell phones, and video games....Sure...we didnt have them invented yet....but we would have done without them if we needed to.....we spent on essentials only...so we could save and acheive the American Dream.

Why?

Healthcare, a roof, clothing and food comes first.....ALWAYS.

Now...healthcare is a burden many dont want to have to worry about.

Thats it for me.

You debate like a child....it is not my style.....I have no interest in debating with you anymore.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

so if your children are a reflection of yourself, do we attribute bad parenting to the fact that he wanted someone else to pay for his needs? or are you simply writing that one off on "society"?

guess stove and oven to make food is now non essential, or that microwave to make food is non essential, or that refrigerator to store food is non essential. you just destroyed your own argument.

so how much does a family need to make in order to have a "responsible" family in your eyes? $100k? $200k?

so you lived in someone's basement. does everyone have that option? so quit trying to say just because you did it, everyone should do it. youre extremely judgement for someone who is 54. youre also very intolerant seeing as the fact that you tell people how to live their lives instead of giving them the choice and how to do that themselves. 

so now health care is "free"..... when did this magical system come to fruition? i never claimed health care should be free, i never mentioned HARP loans, so now whos creating the strawman argument? 

cell phones and video games didnt exist when you were a kid, so nice failed argument again.

"Now...healthcare is a burden many dont want to have to worry about."

great argument for universal health care and you didnt even see it.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 22, 2012)

"so if your children are a reflection of yourself"...

It's always best to start out with a logical fallacy, which in this case is also a point that hasn't been made, nor agreed upon, by any of the parties involved.

It's sort of like "In a world where ducks are congressmen and stars come down from the sky to eat dinner with us....blah blah blah."

Well ducks aren't congressmen, and stars don't visit us, so the rest is just incoherent blather. Well, it's all incoherent blather, but you get the point.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "so if your children are a reflection of yourself"...
> 
> It's always best to start out with a logical fallacy, which in this case is also a point that hasn't been made, nor agreed upon, by any of the parties involved.
> 
> ...


so you dont believe that they way your children turn out is not a reflection of how you raised them?

good to know....


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



First your an electrical engineer, now you sell electrical equipment.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "so if your children are a reflection of yourself"...
> ...



Are you really that stupid or just a troll?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


seeing that the control buildings need to be sold to a customer, and i deal with both the design, construction and sales of those buildings.... yes i help sell electrical equipment with an engineering degree

thanks for showing you know nothing about how the business world works.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 22, 2012)

The thread states, "2/3 say ditch individual health care mandate".  Pissing contests aside, what would replace the individual mandate?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


really did that last post escape your feeble little mind?

yes children are a reflection of how their parents raise them. small minds like yourself obviously can not comprehend this.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> The thread states, "2/3 say ditch individual health care mandate".  Pissing contests aside, what would replace the individual mandate?



nothing.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 22, 2012)

dblack said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The thread states, "2/3 say ditch individual health care mandate".  Pissing contests aside, what would replace the individual mandate?
> ...



Concise, not clear or elaborating.  Are you suggesting 'The Market' is self regulating and the government needs to get out of the way?  Or, nothing, as in Romney and the other detractors haven't thought that far ahead?


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Either or. I do think markets self regulate, when we let them, but 'nothing' in the sense of "haven't thought that far ahead" is better than leaving the impending mandate in place. The notion that we must 'replace' it with something assumes the mandate is better than nothing. It think it is worse than nothing.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

dblack said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


how did self regulation of derivatives on wall street work out? 
how did self regulation of the mortgage industry work out?


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



I don't know that it's ever been tried. For as long as I can remember there's been lots of regulation around those things. It's shitty regulation, granted, designed to insulate the purveyors of crap rather than consumers. But then that's how most overreaching regulator schemes pan out. 

Also, before you go there - self regulating markets don't require anarchy, and basic laws regarding transparency and accountability are essential to any market. Hopeful you get that, but I have my doubts.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 22, 2012)

dblack said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Has there ever existed a "self regulating market"?  

I suppose a cartel might qualify and become the norm without government interference.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 22, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



All markets are self regulating.  Until gov't steps in.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



those markets were heavily regulated.  How did that work out?

Actually apart from the heavy regulation they worked out exactly they were supposed to.  People who took enormous risks figured out that "risk" means you can lose lots of money.  Smart people made money, stupid people lost money.  Politicians used the opportunity to reward friends and hurt enemies.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


derivative were not regulated
mortgages were deregulated.

nice fail


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> so if your children are a reflection of yourself, do we attribute bad parenting to the fact that he wanted someone else to pay for his needs? or are you simply writing that one off on "society"?
> 
> guess stove and oven to make food is now non essential, or that microwave to make food is non essential, or that refrigerator to store food is non essential. you just destroyed your own argument.
> 
> ...



I am going to respond to you and I ask that you stoip INTENTIONALLY taking what I say out of context and, instead, try to understand what I am saying.

Point one....no, it is not bad parenting. If it were bad parenting, I would have paid his electric bill and cable bill for him as opposed to suggesting he sell his car. Instead, I see it as a political thing. We have politiicans ouit there saying those that did not read contracts and signed anyway are victims. 30 years ago, you were deemed irresponsible for doing that. Nowadays, we hear politicians saying that those that lied on their mortgage applications about income are victims. 30 years ago, those people were cited as criminlas seeing as the application is deemed as an affidavit.

Point two..I never said a stove and a refirgerator are non essentials. I said TV's and microwaves are. And yes, a microwave is a convcenience, but not essential.

Point three....how much one needs to be able to start a family is a figure that is non definable. It is idfferent for each family. For example, when we decided to have a child, we agreed that while we were tryiung to concneive and for the 9 months after conception, we would not spend any extra money above and beyond our needs. No vacations, no dinners out...nothing above and beyond....like my parents did. That way we could save even more "just in case"....

Point four...yes...everyone has the option to live in a basement. I did not know the person..I saw an ad....it was 285 a month for a basement studio apartment. We would have liked better...and could have afforded better....but we deemed it best to minimize our comfort so we could build for our future.

*Point 5...and this one deserves to be bolded. HOW FUCKING DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF TELLING OTHERS HOW THEY SHOULD LIVE THEIR LIVES. I NEVER DID IT AND NEVER WILL DO IT. We are in a debate and I am offering my opinion...and I am using my history to back it up.*

I never said cell phoines were around when I was a kid.,..but video games were....atari and beta max...but that is irrelevant...When I was a kid we had a great time without cells and video games....bnut nowadays, all need to have them for a great time...but that is irrelevant.

Now for the finale....why do I see you as one who debates as a child?

Becuase you have YET to ask me anything about how I did it...yoiu have not attmepted to see the virtue in what I am saying....for if you truly wanted to see and understand the other side, you would have asked me things such as.."what kind of business can you start with little or no money"...and you would have asked me..."what made you hgomeless and what was your turning point"

I have MANY TIMES OJN HERE said "interesting"...or..."I see your point" to those I debate.

You?

Childishly spin what I say.....put words in my mouth....and tell me I am wrong.

Grow up and we can have fun...and learn...continue debating as a know it all, and I have no interest.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > so if your children are a reflection of yourself, do we attribute bad parenting to the fact that he wanted someone else to pay for his needs? or are you simply writing that one off on "society"?
> ...


oh i can readily admit i dont know it all, i just know a hell of a lot more than you do.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


wrong.

Most industries in a "pure competition" free market are oligopolies.

And one of the virtues of an oligopoly is they tend to be self regulating.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



wow....thats the best you got?

It must be tough being you. Dumb as nails and arrogant....all at the same time.

That is a recipe for failure...

And, of course, you will blame the successful when you fail.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


im already successful at a very young age, and yes it is tough living the life i live.... real tough


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



hey...good for you. Really...

Sold my first company at 28.....5 years earlier...to the month...I was living under a boardwalk.

Work hard, make some sacrifices....and one can be successful


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 22, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> though I have some question over whether or not we should have laws leveled against us if the majority doesn't want it.



The majority doesn't make law. I am sure black America is happy for that. At the time the civil rights laws were put in force the majority was not about to help them. I'm sure the mixed marriage couples are happy as well because the majority of America was against that as well.
It's really a good thing the majority doesn't always get it's way.


----------



## Jarhead (Mar 22, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > though I have some question over whether or not we should have laws leveled against us if the majority doesn't want it.
> ...



I could not agree more.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > though I have some question over whether or not we should have laws leveled against us if the majority doesn't want it.
> ...



Well said. It's this principle that is our last hope against PPACA.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



I see. Just plug your ears and chant to yourself. No, there were plenty of regulations around them. They were just manipulated by the lobbyists to be meaningless - as most 'regulations' eventually are. You seem to be under this silly delusion that "regulations" mean we're all safe and sound. Depends on the regulations. When they are neutered by lobbyists and compliant politicians they are worse than no regulations at all. When that happens, the regulatory structure provides the illusion of security, and people are suckered into risky schemes they might otherwise be wary of.

Government should make sure people aren't lying, cheating and stealing - and let investors and securities firms decide for themselves how much risk they want to assume. It's when the corporatists try to secure their profits by manipulating government policy that things turn to shit. And your blind cheerleading for 'regulation' is exactly how they accomplish it. Wake up man. You're a complete dupe to the people you imagine you're fighting.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

dblack said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


derivatives were not regulated

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ce-on-derivatives-and-i-was-wrong-to-take-it/

STANFORD Magazine: March/April 2009 > Features > Brooksley Born


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


Banks and brokerage houses are certainly regulated.
Mortgages were not deregulated.
And you missed the other points.
Gross and blatant FAIL.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> derivatives were not regulated
> 
> Clinton: I Was Wrong to Listen to Wrong Advice Against Regulating Derivatives* - ABC News
> 
> STANFORD Magazine: March/April 2009 > Features > Brooksley Born



From your article:



> &#8220;On derivatives, yeah I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take [their advice] because the argument on derivatives was that these things are expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of investors will buy them and they don&#8217;t need any *extra protection, and any extra transparency*. The money they&#8217;re putting up guarantees them transparency,&#8221; Clinton told me.



... so clearly, there was regulation in place. Clinton and others are now bemoaning the fact that they didn't add _extra_ regulations. They listened to the lobbyists (you know, the same ones who finance their campaigns) and believed them when they told them it was all good.

Now try to pay attention here, because you're going to miss the point - I'm almost certain of it. When the regulatory state assumes responsibility for deciding for investors whether a given investment is too risky or not, it destroys accountability. They basically tell investors (and dealers for that matter) "it's okay, we'll go over all this and make sure your investments are safe - just don't worry your little heads about it". 

This does two things. First, it causes investors to invest less prudently; they're assuming _someone_, some astute regulator _somewhere_, has looked things over and deemed them safe and sound. Second, it moves responsibility for when things do go wrong from the people involved in the transaction, to the regulators responsible for the safety of the transaction. This creates a relatively credible demand for bailouts. From the point of view of the investors, they were conned by the regulators who told them everything was on the up and up.

Going back to Clinton's regrets, from the point of view that the state should be in charge of what everyone can and cannot trade, he's right. They should have added extra regulations. But that point of view, that government should be making all these decisions for us is a fantasy. Time and time again it's been shown that centrally planned, centrally controlled economies don't work. There's no substitute for motivated investors looking out for themselves. The whole point of "regulation" is to create world where people don't have to look out for themselves, and that's why it fails.


----------



## Listening (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



And you make the Special Olympics look like Mensa.

While you might want to sit down to hear this, the study has been shown by those who are not out stumping for Obama to be a pile of what your parents served you for dinner (for being such an asshole).

This is just a smattering of what is out there.

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/does-lack-of-insurance-cause-premature-death-probably-not/

But you keep eating that brown stuff and believing what makes you more able to play with yourself at night.

Now, if you go back and read my post, jackass, I said that you (an informed and highly intellectual member of the left...........sorry) should have no problem finding these people.  In ten years the study predicts 450,000 deaths.  You should hav no problem finding 1,000 people.  Their relatives would be hollaring to the world.

But you can't produce them.  Your vaunted study tells you just where to go to look for them too.

So, why don't you get off your butt-plug and do some research and show us the names.

Otherwise, keep eating the main course.


----------



## Listening (Mar 22, 2012)

dblack said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > derivatives were not regulated
> ...



You better be careful.  Asswipe Syphon has a fifth grade history book and no debating skills.  He's a killer when it comes to argument.  I only showed him four different Federalist Papers that support Madison's approach the position of the states.  He keeps making reference to one (and a fifth grade history book) to show his position of an all powerful fed, but has never posted any of it to show just what his tiny little mind is thinking.

I'm telling you.  There may have been bigger dickheads on this board, but I can't think of any.


----------



## Listening (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Yes.  And I am Bill Gates.  

The only thing you are successful at is looking stupid (er....well....maybe that is what you making reference to).


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


that fifth grade text book is still way too sophisticated for you understand too.....


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



yeah.  right.
Here I am.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BesDjUjbodk]Stewie&#39;s U.G.L.Y. Song - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



I doubt you can even change batteries in a flashlight.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Listening said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


bwhahahaha you counter a Harvard Study with a blog.......


----------



## Listening (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> that fifth grade text book is still way too sophisticated for you understand too.....



Still waiting for that argument out of Federalist #10 there Mr. Success.

You are the Black Knight of the board (via Monty Python)....all beat to hell and still talking.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2012)

Harvard?  That place that turned out a president who can't understand the Constitution?  Gee, I'm impressed.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Harvard?  That place that turned out a president who can't understand the Constitution?  Gee, I'm impressed.


you must be one of those people who thinks going to college is only for snobs.....


----------



## Listening (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> bwhahahaha you counter a Harvard Study with a blog.......



Yes, the blog looked at several other studies and drew some very good comparisons.

Not that you would know how to decipher something like that....unless your fifth grade spelling book is pretty good.

You're a moron with no brain of your own.

Someone says Harvard and you start drooling like a dog.

Harvard Business School gave us Bush II.

Harvard Law School gave us Obama.

Keep drooling.....asshole.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Listening said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > that fifth grade text book is still way too sophisticated for you understand too.....
> ...


still waiting for you to be smarter than a 5th grader...






Listening is thiiiiiiissssss stupid!!!!!!


----------



## Listening (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Harvard?  That place that turned out a president who can't understand the Constitution?  Gee, I'm impressed.
> ...



It is unfortunate that you didn't make it through High School....on your own.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Listening said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > bwhahahaha you counter a Harvard Study with a blog.......
> ...


a blog.... bwhahahahaha what are you gonna post next??? pretty picture you drew in photoshop...

this gets better and better...... i could write a book on how stupid you are..


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Listening said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


its unfortunate you didnt make it out of 5th grade.....


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Harvard?  That place that turned out a president who can't understand the Constitution?  Gee, I'm impressed.
> ...



When you get through high school, maybe you can tell us about your experiences with college compared to ours.


----------



## Listening (Mar 22, 2012)

```

```



Syphon said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Wow...

Must be tough to admit that someone who didn't make it through the fifth grade mopped up the place with you when discussing the USC and Federalist Papers.  

Still waiting for those sections from Federalist 10, Mr. Success.

Or might it be that they don't exist.


----------



## Listening (Mar 22, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



His experience will be having his underwear getting pulled over his head by the football team.

He'll be a natural target.

I hope he rushes......

I'd pay to see him at the top of a flagpole hanging by his belt.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Listening said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...


ha! so you admit it! you actually didnt make it though the 5th grade......


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


you dont have to lie, you didnt go to college. its ok........ i need someone to pump my gas anyways....


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 22, 2012)

Yawn.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Too stupid for self serve I see.


----------



## Listening (Mar 22, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 23, 2012)

My last post struck a nerve huh Syphon?


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 23, 2012)

Electrical control buildings sounds a lot more impressive than generator sales.  lol


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 23, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Electrical control buildings sounds a lot more impressive than generator sales.  lol



You sell used cars, please get down off that high horse.


----------



## Polk (Mar 23, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



You're making an incorrect assumption: that a tax needs to have a large impact to be constitutional.


----------



## Polk (Mar 23, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



I'm not here every moment of the day. 

To address your statement, there wouldn't need to be an exception, since a poll/head tax is exactly what the Constitution allows.


----------



## Polk (Mar 23, 2012)

dblack said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



A significant decline in the amount of regulation was followed up by widespread malfeasance. It seems pretty bizarre to claim that dropped regulations to zero would instantly cause people to become self-policing. This whole "markets will sort themselves out" thing assumes people have perfect information and that fraud isn't a problem.


----------



## Polk (Mar 23, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Are you kidding? Most industries, in the absence of regulation, are monopolies.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2012)

Polk said:


> Are you kidding? Most industries, in the absence of regulation, are monopolies.



In the absence of laws, maybe. But then there's always the equivocation on the term in these discussions. In reality, unless a business resorts to violence (in which case they're simply criminals and all bets are off) it's pretty tough to maintain a persistent monopoly. Monopolies are almost always built on top of a pervasive 'regulatory' environment where the state performs the thuggery for them.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2012)

Polk said:


> A significant decline in the amount of regulation was followed up by widespread malfeasance. It seems pretty bizarre to claim that dropped regulations to zero would instantly cause people to become self-policing. This whole "markets will sort themselves out" thing assumes people have perfect information and that fraud isn't a problem.



Yeah.. well, again the equivocation on the terms "laws" and "regulations" makes these discussions problematic. The difference, in my view, is that laws are rules enforced to prevent theft, fraud, etc and make a free market possible. Regulations, on the other hand, are measures intended to give government the power to manipulate market activities, proscribing or 'incentivizing' this or that activity. Fans of "regulation" tend to have the annoying habit of accusing anyone opposed to that kind of interference of calling for lawlessness - which is nothing more than a strawman.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 23, 2012)

Acts of Congress are laws; Regulations are issued by Federal agencies to implement the authority of law.   Regulations can be changed at whim; statutory law can't be changed without an Act of Congress.


----------



## Polk (Mar 23, 2012)

dblack said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Are you kidding? Most industries, in the absence of regulation, are monopolies.
> ...



That's not even remotely necessary. Unless an industry has very low barriers to entry, dominant firms can just undercut all possible competitors until they drive them out of business.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Acts of Congress are laws; Regulations are issued by Federal agencies to implement the authority of law.   Regulations can be changed at whim; statutory law can't be changed without an Act of Congress.



That's certainly a more factual description. I was trying to capture the sort of policies that people refer to when they're calling for more, or less, "regulation". But your clarification highlights a really important, and I think dangerous, feature of regulations. They're essentially rule by decree of authority and as such very tempting targets for aggressive lobbying.


----------



## Polk (Mar 23, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Acts of Congress are laws; Regulations are issued by Federal agencies to implement the authority of law.   Regulations can be changed at whim; statutory law can't be changed without an Act of Congress.



While that's a popular public perception of regulation, it's not really true. The process of creating and/or amending a regulation is subject to a lot of controls.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 23, 2012)

Polk said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



A perfect example is Wall-Mart; moving into a small town creates ghost town main streets.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 23, 2012)

Polk said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Acts of Congress are laws; Regulations are issued by Federal agencies to implement the authority of law.   Regulations can be changed at whim; statutory law can't be changed without an Act of Congress.
> ...



Regulations are promulgated by Federal Agencies consistent with the law.  I don't understand what you're suggesting?  What controls?


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> A perfect example is Wall-Mart; moving into a small town creates ghost town main streets.



That is a perfect example. Wal-Mart lobbies aggressively for preferential treatment from state and local governments. And they get it.


----------



## Polk (Mar 23, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



I was responding to your comment that changes can be made at whim. Creation and amendment must meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and further analysis pertaining to cost-benefit falls under the purview of OIRA.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 23, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Where does the Constitution permit a poll tax?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 23, 2012)

Polk said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


You mean like IBM did with computers?
Oh, wait.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 23, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



That phase can pass though.  Specialty shops have sprung up in our town.  Customer service is the way to beat Walmart.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


only if people are willing pay a 10-20% increase in price. which right now many people still are not.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Some are, some aren't.  But WalMart is struggling and small shops are thriving. WalMart is not the be all and end all of retailing.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


if people are thats great. i personaly despise walmart and never shop there.


----------



## Polk (Mar 23, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Poll tax is the sense used here (aka, a head tax)? Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 states that it is only sort of direct tax that's not forbidden by that restriction.


----------



## Polk (Mar 23, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



We were talking about a market with no regulation of industry. IBM couldn't attempt it because it is illegal to do that. It was the main mechanism of the Sherman Antitrust Act.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 23, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Geezus.
You're done.  Stick a fork in you.  If you dont understand the Constitution then there is no discussion.


----------



## Polk (Mar 23, 2012)

The Constitution specifically states that a head tax is constitutional.

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 23, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Constitution specifically states that a head tax is constitutional.
> 
> "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."



You're compounding your obvious stupidity and ignorance.  No wonder you're a Democrat.


----------



## Polk (Mar 23, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution specifically states that a head tax is constitutional.
> ...



If what I said was stupid and ignorant, you'd provide your explanation of what that language means. Instead you jump up and down and start name calling, because you know darn well it means exactly what I said and you'd burn in hell before admitting that.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


he's too stupid to know he's wrong


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 24, 2012)

Syphon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


 That is not really true with Wal-Mart.  In many instances, one can actually INCREASE business that it moves into because it consolidates many customers into a single area.  The key with Wal-Mart is that smaller shops can no longer survive if they are fleecing their customers, providing a crap product or are unwilling to adapt to the new situation.  I find it funny that so many demonize Wal-Mart because of their supposed anti-business nature when they do nothing of the sort in small towns.  Everywhere I have been, there have been many small businesses surviving quite well around Wal-Mart.  NONE of them sold cheap crap products.  As the last poster pointed out, customer service is one way of competing (and handily beating) them is through customer service.  Another is through selection as Wal-Mart has tons of cheap, plastic crap but they have very little that is non generic or quality constructed.  Another is through specialization.  Sure, Wal-Mart has a sporting goods section but few fisherman will go there if there is a tackle and bait next door.


In the end, regulation only serves to drive the mom and pop shops out of business and encourages Wal-Mart to be the only store in town because they can afford the cost of complying with regulations where mom and pop cannot.  The idea that regulation helps the small guy compete is nuts.  All it does is ensure the big guys have no real competition.  In a free market with less regulation, the very nature of a large business and the bureaucracy that goes with it can make smaller businesses far more competitive.  Technology certainly lessens this gap but unnecessary regulation only ensures that the only edge the smaller businesses have is moot.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 24, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Constitution specifically states that a head tax is constitutional.
> 
> "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."


I might haves missed your explanation of this earlier but what is your contention with this point and how are you applying it to an actual governmental action.  I ask because I do not want to mistake what you are actually trying to say.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I'd also like to point out, again, that the success of Wal-Mart is evidence _against_ regulation as a means of protecting 'the little guy', not an argument for more of it. The ad-hoc nature of the regulatory state always ends up favoring the interests of those with the most 'focused political influence' (money). Wal-Mart has built it's national dominance in large part on its success at bargaining with local and state governments for subsidies (http://www.livingeconomies.org/sites/default/files/file/wmtstudy.pdf). 

Under corporatism, individuals and minorities nearly always lose. And a pervasive regulatory regime is the meat and potatoes of corporatism.


----------



## Polk (Mar 24, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution specifically states that a head tax is constitutional.
> ...



We were talking about the constitutionality of a head tax, since the mandate structure is, at core, a poorly structured head tax.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2012)

Polk said:


> We were talking about the constitutionality of a head tax, since the mandate structure is, at core, a poorly structured head tax.



No, it's not. It's only a "tax" on people who don't buy government approved insurance. Which violates the key justification for why a head tax is constitutional (ie it applies equally to all citizens).

*the word tax is in quotes here because Congress, and the president deliberately avoided calling it a tax - the President adamantly denied it. So at the very least, regardless of the equivalency, the law was passed on false claims, given that it would have enjoyed even less public support had it been understood widely to be a large tax increase.


----------



## Polk (Mar 24, 2012)

It doesn't matter what people called it, what matters is what it actually is. You could say that it's a tax that only applies to people who don't buy insurance, but it's equally accurate to say it is a tax that applies to everyone which you then get a credit for it you purchase insurance.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2012)

Polk said:


> It doesn't matter what people called it, what matters is what it actually is. You could say that it's a tax that only applies to people who don't buy insurance, but it's equally accurate to say it is a tax that applies to everyone which you then get a credit for it you purchase insurance.



Either way, it's an unapportioned tax and not Constitutional.

And it does matter what people called it. If a bill is voted on, and passed, based on a lie - it's fraud and should be struck down based on that alone.


----------



## Polk (Mar 24, 2012)

There is no fraud. Members know what they're voting on when they vote on a proposal.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2012)

Polk said:


> There is no fraud. Members know what they're voting on when they vote on a proposal.



That's a laughable claim to begin with, though granted they _should_. But the salient point is that if you're saying it's a tax then the public, who Congress is tasked with representing, was deliberately deceived by lawmakers.


----------



## Polk (Mar 24, 2012)

I could have phrased that better. We credit them with legal knowledge, which is what's relevant here.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 24, 2012)

Polk said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Thanks, I should have been more precise.  I used "whim" inappropriately.  I also neglected to offer the USSC can find a law or regulation unconstitutional.


----------



## starcraftzzz (Mar 24, 2012)

dblack said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter what people called it, what matters is what it actually is. You could say that it's a tax that only applies to people who don't buy insurance, but it's equally accurate to say it is a tax that applies to everyone which you then get a credit for it you purchase insurance.
> ...


Only a extremists dumbass thinks taxes are not Constitutional


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Only extremely dumb asses would read "all taxes are unconstitutional" into my statement. Unapportioned direct taxes are unconstitutional. That's why the federal income tax required a special exemption - accomplished via the sixteenth amendment. This is not a controversial view.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 25, 2012)

dblack said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > We were talking about the constitutionality of a head tax, since the mandate structure is, at core, a poorly structured head tax.
> ...





"The power to tax is the power to destroy"


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 25, 2012)

Polk said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



It does not resemble a head tax at all as it is only levied if you do not purchase a specific product.  That is actually called a fine.  They may want to call it a tax in order to make such a thing look constitutional but it is not one.


----------



## MeBelle (Mar 25, 2012)

dblack said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > A perfect example is Wall-Mart; moving into a small town creates ghost town main streets.
> ...



Well, not really.
Walmart has a new model of smaller stores. 
One has recently moved into the city I live in, taking over a previous location which had been a staple for the city for years, yet had been vacant for three years. The loss of the previous store was due to regulation. Walmart fills the gap  and serves the part of the city that was 'left behind'.

This Walmart received no preferential treatment from our state or local government. I would know.


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2012)

MeBelle60 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Well, I guess that's good to hear. But if the previous store was lost due to regulation (regulation which apparently didn't impact Wal-Mart as much) doesn't that prove the point from the other direction? 

To be clear, I'm not on the 'demonize Wal-Mart' bandwagon. They're just working withing the laws our governments create. The point is that pervasive regulatory government leads to the negative results people usually complain about regarding Wal-Mart's national dominance. It sets up a 'game' of sorts that businesses have to play to survive - and the larger companies that can hire more lawyers and lobby government more effectively almost always win.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 25, 2012)

dblack said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



And to add to that, it is cheaper for Wal-Mart to comply with a regulation where that cost can be spread over millions of customers and thousands of stores than a local store that must pay for the entire thing with the few customers and products that they have.

The point being here that even if the regulation was not preferential, was not better for Wal-Mart than other stores or a regulation that Wal-Mart had nothing to do with through lobbying or other means, they STILL benefit from the end result.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 29, 2012)

2/3's also view it as unconstitutional...i hope 2/3 (well 5/9's) of the S.C. thinks the same thing .


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 29, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> 2/3's also view it as unconstitutional...i hope 2/3 (well 5/8's) of the S.C. thinks the same thing .



How about 5/9s Plymco?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 29, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > 2/3's also view it as unconstitutional...i hope 2/3 (well 5/8's) of the S.C. thinks the same thing .
> ...



lol thats what i meant just was typing away and didn't proofread.....basically 1/9, kennedy.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 29, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Phew!  That's a relief.  I thought someone had turned gravely ill.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 29, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



don't make me have bad thoughts about some of those justices


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 29, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



I have broad shoulders for your blame.  Enjoy your evil intentions.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 29, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Well if hell is real my thoughts just bought me a ticket


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 29, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



I'm going the Mega Millions route.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 30, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



540billion.

I have 4 quickpicks from 4 different stores, maybe i'll win a free ticket  

what was this thread about again?


----------

