CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[dblack]

No contradiction. It is simply stating the truth, a truth that should be obvious to everybody by now from countless editorials, commentary, and straight news reporting from Obama's admission that he said stuff people believed that turned out to not be the case to the whole Jonathan Gruber scandal to the obvious affect on the U.S. economy to what many of us are reporting on how it has affected us directly.

Now you may believe it was all worth it and it has been all or mostly a good thing and the U.S. government should have the power to pass legislation of this type that affects everybody in the country. If so, you will not be among those who would agree to a new and improved constitutional clause that would ensure that the federal government could never do something like that to us again.

The contradiction was stark, and obvious.

The statements about the ACA during the extensive debates and negotiations were for the most part true, and the ACA was implemented with no appreciable effect on the economy; if there was anything it was the screeching emerging from reactionary circles about "part time jobs", "hours reduced to 30 all over the country", "tens of millions losing their health insurance", which all turned out to be wrong, or at least overwrought. If anything the economy was picking up since the enactment.

So much for the facts.

As to concepts, I have asserted before that you are entirely comfortable with people going without health insurance, and thus live a far more precarious existence, and face bankruptcy when falling seriously ill, which pre-ACA they did in droves, which you denied. The ACA has extended health insurance to millions, and above you express your wish it hadn't been done. That seems to prove my point.

Why is that important, conceptually? Obviously, living a precarious existence has a deleterious effect on those living in such circumstances, such as living in constant fear of falling ill, or delaying treatment only to become more seriously ill, and that isn't even beginning to describe children growing up that way. Hardly anyone burdened like that would reach anything like their true potential, and the impact on children is particularly stark. As is commonly known, the Founders had an expression for one of these unalienable rights, that is, the pursuit of happiness, which hardly gets a mention, much less impacts policy considerations, amongst right-wingers. That right, obviously, doesn't mean government is there to make everyone happy; it means that government is to create certain preconditions and structures that further and stabilise the pursuit of happiness.

I'd say, those who believe that the Founders' thinking and perceptions, with all their limitations, given the time they lived in, should be imposed on those living now express scathing disregard for the Founders' wisdom, as these certainly did not believe their insights should govern the Republic for the rest of her existence, or even a century. Historically exceedingly well informed, they knew full well that societies change over time, different needs and necessities arise, and they most assuredly wanted governments to be responsive to the needs of those they govern. It is, in conclusion, an unspeakable atrocity to impose that narrow-minded view of the Founders' stance on those now living, and every attempt to do so should be exposed as that which it is: An attempt to deprive many of those now living of the fruits of their labor, of the stability, and the means to pursue happiness in a 21st century society, of which the Founders couldn't even dream, in effect turning a boneheaded interpretation of the Founders' intent against one of their pre-eminent insights in furtherance of a plutocracy in which the less fortunate are out there in the cold to fight for themselves. As in, "ensure that the federal government could never do something like that [extending health insurance to millions of Americans] to us again."

More with the euphemisms? Let's clear things up by replacing the phrase ("extending" health insurance to millions of Americans) with something closer to the truth: Forcing millions of Americans to buy insurance they don't want.

 

[dblack]

But it does establish that the OP has no interest in a compromise change to the Constitution. She just wants it done her way and no one else is allowed to dare offer any criticism or suggestions of their own that don't fit into her Libertarian Utopia.

I fear, I have to disagree with that, in that Foxfyre's willingness to compromise hasn't been seriously tested. Moreover, there's no fault in hoping that Constitutional change happens in one's own preferred way.

On the other hand, since Foxfyre would like to shift Constitutional standards into a direction that would be the very opposite of what should happen in my - and, I trust, in your - view, I'll have to restate that the document should much rather remain as is than being subjected to change of any kind.

Can you even imagine what sitting across a deeply torn and divided-amongst-TeaPartiers, Neo-Cons, Theo-Cons, and Wall Street henchmen-Republican party would entail? That would be where every remotely decent idea would go to die.

Even if things weren't settled in they way I'd prefer, I'd rather have a Constitution that was clear and understood by all. If we want government to provide us with health care, for example, let's enumerate it as a genuine responsibility of government and get on with it. The middle ground is what's killing us. Waffling back and forth between a state-run economy and a free market simply offers greater opportunity for the unscrupulous to screw us all.

 

[Foxfyre]

But it does establish that the OP has no interest in a compromise change to the Constitution. She just wants it done her way and no one else is allowed to dare offer any criticism or suggestions of their own that don't fit into her Libertarian Utopia.

I fear, I have to disagree with that, in that Foxfyre's willingness to compromise hasn't been seriously tested. Moreover, there's no fault in hoping that Constitutional change happens in one's own preferred way.

On the other hand, since Foxfyre would like to shift Constitutional standards into a direction that would be the very opposite of what should happen in my - and, I trust, in your - view, I'll have to restate that the document should much rather remain as is than being subjected to change of any kind.

Can you even imagine what sitting across a deeply torn and divided-amongst-TeaPartiers, Neo-Cons, Theo-Cons, and Wall Street henchmen-Republican party would entail? That would be where every remotely decent idea would go to die.

So let's explore that a bit. Should we put you down for one who would withdraw from a hypothetical constitutional convention because you don't want some groups or types to have any input into it or any say on what they would like to see included? Is that what you are saying here?

I wonder if we would have any constitution at all if the federalists and anti-federalists had taken that attitude in the 18th century? If the northerners had demanded that nothing be done because the slave states might have an opinion? if the southerners had refused to participate because the uppity self-righteous northerners didn't like some of their attitudes about things?

 

[Derideo_Te]

But it does establish that the OP has no interest in a compromise change to the Constitution. She just wants it done her way and no one else is allowed to dare offer any criticism or suggestions of their own that don't fit into her Libertarian Utopia.

I fear, I have to disagree with that, in that Foxfyre's willingness to compromise hasn't been seriously tested. Moreover, there's no fault in hoping that Constitutional change happens in one's own preferred way.

On the other hand, since Foxfyre would like to shift Constitutional standards into a direction that would be the very opposite of what should happen in my - and, I trust, in your - view, I'll have to restate that the document should much rather remain as is than being subjected to change of any kind.

Can you even imagine what sitting across a deeply torn and divided-amongst-TeaPartiers, Neo-Cons, Theo-Cons, and Wall Street henchmen-Republican party would entail? That would be where every remotely decent idea would go to die.

Let me clarify one aspect here. While you have not been here long enough to have tested the OP's intransigence others of us have been down this road before albeit on different topics.

As for the rest, yes, you are correct that it beggars the imagination to have to even make a serious attempt with the likes of those who have no ability whatsoever to compromise either their beliefs or their greed.

So the current Constitution has my full support and hopefully with the demographic changes underway we might have the opportunity to regain a semblance of normality once the current cast of characters you listed above are no longer with us.

 

[Olde Europe]

More with the euphemisms? Let's clear things up by replacing the phrase ("extending" health insurance to millions of Americans) with something closer to the truth: Forcing millions of Americans to buy insurance they don't want.

Could you provide us with a link detailing the proportion of new ACA sign-ups who were "forced" to do so? Thanks in advance.

_______________________________________________

Even if things weren't settled in they way I'd prefer, I'd rather have a Constitution that was clear and understood by all. If we want government to provide us with health care, for example, let's enumerate it as a genuine responsibility of government and get on with it. The middle ground is what's killing us. Waffling back and forth between a state-run economy and a free market simply offers greater opportunity for the unscrupulous to screw us all.

Yeah, if things could be a simple as that, as if there were a two-bit choice between one and the other, and if it weren't so that in just about everything you find both the public and the private sector intermingling to - as much as possible - combine the strengths of both. Your misunderstanding of the ACA as government provided healthcare is noted, in passing.

 

[Olde Europe]

So let's explore that a bit. Should we put you down for one who is withdrawing from our hypothetical constitutional convention here because you don't want some groups or types to have any input into it or any say on what they would like to see included? Is that what you are saying here?

I wonder if we would have any constitution at all if the federalists and anti-federalists had taken that attitude in the 18th century? If the northerners had demanded that nothing be done because the slave states might have an opinion? if the southerners had refused to participate because the uppity self-righteous northerners didn't like some of their attitudes about things?

I would, at this time, certainly not hope a Constitutional Convention would be called, as one of the two major parties has gone patently insane.

It may well be that the Constitution has come to be because of a unique historical moment that brought together foreign threats, increasingly obvious internal failure, and some eminently capable men giving it their best for the commonweal so as to overcome, at least mitigate, the internal divisions. At this time I see no such moment that would bring together such lucky circumstances, and one needs to recall that even back then, those very circumstances you describe inevitably saddled the U.S. with her twin birth defects, that is, racism and plutocracy. Rather, at this time I see political turmoil mostly driven by the most toxic resentment that guarantees to make matters much, much worse, and that most assuredly I do not want that to show up in any Constitutional document.

 

[Foxfyre]

More with the euphemisms? Let's clear things up by replacing the phrase ("extending" health insurance to millions of Americans) with something closer to the truth: Forcing millions of Americans to buy insurance they don't want.

Could you provide us with a link detailing the proportion of new ACA sign-ups who were "forced" to do so? Thanks in advance.

_______________________________________________

Even if things weren't settled in they way I'd prefer, I'd rather have a Constitution that was clear and understood by all. If we want government to provide us with health care, for example, let's enumerate it as a genuine responsibility of government and get on with it. The middle ground is what's killing us. Waffling back and forth between a state-run economy and a free market simply offers greater opportunity for the unscrupulous to screw us all.

Yeah, if things could be a simple as that, as if there were a two-bit choice between one and the other, and if it weren't so that in just about everything you find both the public and the private sector intermingling to - as much as possible - combine the strengths of both. Your misunderstanding of the ACA as government provided healthcare is noted, in passing.

Are you seriously trying to say that millions did not lose their insurance coverage as a result of Obamacare? That these same millions are not required by Obamacare to buy insurance somewhere? Insurance of a type that is approved by the ACA whether or not that is what they want to buy? That you really demand a link to support that after all that has been reported in the newspapers, on the internet, and on television etc. for all these years? If you are not saying that, please clarify.

Dblack did not say that ACA is government provided healthcare. He made a statement that if we want the government to provide healthcare, let's put it in the constitution in a clear, unmistakable way.

A little precision here please to represent what is actually said.

And you are right that I have an opinion and will insist on expressing it however much others try to change, distort, or insult it. If you see that as me wanting things the way I want it and that is somehow different that anybody else arguing for it to be the way they want it, so be it.

I have not complained that others have different opinions. My only quarrel is with those who want to use this as a vehicle to attack and accuse and blame me and/or others instead of focusing on those components that we do or do not want to include in a new and improved constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

So let's explore that a bit. Should we put you down for one who is withdrawing from our hypothetical constitutional convention here because you don't want some groups or types to have any input into it or any say on what they would like to see included? Is that what you are saying here?

I wonder if we would have any constitution at all if the federalists and anti-federalists had taken that attitude in the 18th century? If the northerners had demanded that nothing be done because the slave states might have an opinion? if the southerners had refused to participate because the uppity self-righteous northerners didn't like some of their attitudes about things?

I would, at this time, certainly not hope a Constitutional Convention would be called, as one of the two major parties has gone patently insane.

It may well be that the Constitution has come to be because of a unique historical moment that brought together foreign threats, increasingly obvious internal failure, and some eminently capable men giving it their best for the commonweal so as to overcome, at least mitigate, the internal divisions. At this time I see no such moment that would bring together such lucky circumstances, and one needs to recall that even back then, those very circumstances you describe inevitably saddled the U.S. with her twin birth defects, that is, racism and plutocracy. Rather, at this time I see political turmoil mostly driven by the most toxic resentment that guarantees to make matters much, much worse, and that most assuredly I do not want that to show up in any Constitutional document.

So to clarify--and correct me if I am wrong--you are arguing for the status quo rather than risk the 'insane' party having any input?

Do you distrust the ability of your preferred group to make and defend competent arguments for improvement and think those you fear would make a more persuasive case? Or do you honestly believe everything is fine as it is and we don't need to do anything?

I honestly am not trying to mischaracterize your words here and I hope you will clarify if I am interpreting what you are saying wrongly.

 

[dblack]

More with the euphemisms? Let's clear things up by replacing the phrase ("extending" health insurance to millions of Americans) with something closer to the truth: Forcing millions of Americans to buy insurance they don't want.

Could you provide us with a link detailing the proportion of new ACA sign-ups who were "forced" to do so? Thanks in advance.

Google "individual mandate". Read a bit and we can discuss it.

Even if things weren't settled in they way I'd prefer, I'd rather have a Constitution that was clear and understood by all. If we want government to provide us with health care, for example, let's enumerate it as a genuine responsibility of government and get on with it. The middle ground is what's killing us. Waffling back and forth between a state-run economy and a free market simply offers greater opportunity for the unscrupulous to screw us all.

Yeah, if things could be a simple as that, as if there were a two-bit choice between one and the other, and if it weren't so that in just about everything you find both the public and the private sector intermingling to - as much as possible - combine the strengths of both.

That may be the intent. But the result is the worst of both. Private greed and state corruption.

Your misunderstanding of the ACA as government provided healthcare is noted, in passing.

It's noted ignorantly, however, because I don't understand ACA as "government provided healthcare". It's just forcing people into the insurance market to keep the industry afloat.

 

[dblack]

So let's explore that a bit. Should we put you down for one who is withdrawing from our hypothetical constitutional convention here because you don't want some groups or types to have any input into it or any say on what they would like to see included? Is that what you are saying here?

I wonder if we would have any constitution at all if the federalists and anti-federalists had taken that attitude in the 18th century? If the northerners had demanded that nothing be done because the slave states might have an opinion? if the southerners had refused to participate because the uppity self-righteous northerners didn't like some of their attitudes about things?

I would, at this time, certainly not hope a Constitutional Convention would be called, as one of the two major parties has gone patently insane.

It may well be that the Constitution has come to be because of a unique historical moment that brought together foreign threats, increasingly obvious internal failure, and some eminently capable men giving it their best for the commonweal so as to overcome, at least mitigate, the internal divisions. At this time I see no such moment that would bring together such lucky circumstances, and one needs to recall that even back then, those very circumstances you describe inevitably saddled the U.S. with her twin birth defects, that is, racism and plutocracy. Rather, at this time I see political turmoil mostly driven by the most toxic resentment that guarantees to make matters much, much worse, and that most assuredly I do not want that to show up in any Constitutional document.

So to clarify--and correct me if I am wrong--you are arguing for the status quo rather than risk the 'insane' party having any input?

Do you distrust the ability of your preferred group to make and defend competent arguments for improvement and think those you fear would make a more persuasive case? Or do you honestly believe everything is fine as it is and we don't need to do anything?

I honestly am not trying to mischaracterize your words here and I hope you will clarify if I am interpreting what you are saying wrongly.

It sounds to me like straight up corporatism. I'd like a clarification as well.

 

[Foxfyre]

So let's explore that a bit. Should we put you down for one who is withdrawing from our hypothetical constitutional convention here because you don't want some groups or types to have any input into it or any say on what they would like to see included? Is that what you are saying here?

I wonder if we would have any constitution at all if the federalists and anti-federalists had taken that attitude in the 18th century? If the northerners had demanded that nothing be done because the slave states might have an opinion? if the southerners had refused to participate because the uppity self-righteous northerners didn't like some of their attitudes about things?

I would, at this time, certainly not hope a Constitutional Convention would be called, as one of the two major parties has gone patently insane.

It may well be that the Constitution has come to be because of a unique historical moment that brought together foreign threats, increasingly obvious internal failure, and some eminently capable men giving it their best for the commonweal so as to overcome, at least mitigate, the internal divisions. At this time I see no such moment that would bring together such lucky circumstances, and one needs to recall that even back then, those very circumstances you describe inevitably saddled the U.S. with her twin birth defects, that is, racism and plutocracy. Rather, at this time I see political turmoil mostly driven by the most toxic resentment that guarantees to make matters much, much worse, and that most assuredly I do not want that to show up in any Constitutional document.

So to clarify--and correct me if I am wrong--you are arguing for the status quo rather than risk the 'insane' party having any input?

Do you distrust the ability of your preferred group to make and defend competent arguments for improvement and think those you fear would make a more persuasive case? Or do you honestly believe everything is fine as it is and we don't need to do anything?

I honestly am not trying to mischaracterize your words here and I hope you will clarify if I am interpreting what you are saying wrongly.

It sounds to me like straight up corporatism. I'd like a clarification as well.

Well I'm not quite arriving at that point with OE yet--I believe PratchettFan is the only one who has vigorously argued for corporatism - see his Post #623--and the primary basis of his argument, I believe, was that the federal government is less corrupt than state and local governments and therefore the state and local governments should be dissolved and/or made wholly subordinate to the federal government in all matters. This of course is 180 degree antithesis of what the Founders wanted the original constitution to accomplish.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So who does the government steal from when the rich are no longer able to be the engine of economic growth and there are too few resources to steal?

that's not a great argument since the rich have more wealth than ever to steal nowadays. Of course this is not to say that it is right to steal from anyone ever.

Its an excellent argument for those of us who know you don't make the poor richer by making the rich less rich, and in fact when the government presumes to make the rich less rich or unrich, they invariably hurt the poor.

And I don't care how rich the rich are. There is no such thing as a bottomless well and if the government presume to see the rich as one, they will only drive the rich and/or their resources elsewhere leaving the poor with much fewer resources than before.

None of the above is based on any factual data. Instead that is all based upon the Libertarian canard that "taxes are stealing".

dear, in a free country people should be free to spend their own money, not have it stolen and wasted by liberal elites in Washington. Now you know why the Constitution did not provide for an income tax. They did not want the govt to have that much control of people who were supposed to be free of nasty liberal govt.

 

[Olde Europe]

something closer to the truth: Forcing millions of Americans to buy insurance they don't want.

Could you provide us with a link detailing the proportion of new ACA sign-ups who were "forced" to do so? Thanks in advance.

<Non-pertinent, insulting statement deleted>

So, no link then? Color me surprised.

____________________________________________

Are you seriously trying to say that millions did not lose their insurance coverage as a result of Obamacare?

Is that a serious statement? Or just you in another round of repeating right-wing propaganda?

Do you distrust the ability of your preferred group to make and defend competent arguments for improvement and think those you fear would make a more persuasive case?

I am wholly convinced that my "preferred group" has all the ability that would be required to convince reasonable, informed people of the need for improvement, and the direction it should take.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's noted ignorantly, however, because I don't understand ACA as "government provided healthcare". It's just forcing people into the insurance market to keep the industry afloat.

dear, they force you to buy the insurance, they dictate what is covered by the insurance, and they manage the methods of providing the health care. This is modern soviet Obamalibcommie care. Republican capitalilsm would reduce the cost of health care by 80% and add 10-20 years to our life spans.

 

[dblack]

something closer to the truth: Forcing millions of Americans to buy insurance they don't want.

Could you provide us with a link detailing the proportion of new ACA sign-ups who were "forced" to do so? Thanks in advance.

<Non-pertinent, insulting statement deleted>

So, no link then? Color me surprised.[/q

something closer to the truth: Forcing millions of Americans to buy insurance they don't want.

Could you provide us with a link detailing the proportion of new ACA sign-ups who were "forced" to do so? Thanks in advance.

<Non-pertinent, insulting statement deleted>

So, no link then? Color me surprised.

No, I'll color you willfully ignorant - not an insult, just an observation. I indicated the aspect of ACA that forces people to buy health insurance - the individual mandate. If you're unaware of that provision, and unwilling to educate yourself about it, a "link" won't help you much.

 

[Olde Europe]

No, I'll color you willfully ignorant - not an insult, just an observation. I indicated the aspect of ACA that forces people to buy health insurance - the individual mandate. If you're unaware of that provision, and unwilling to educate yourself about it, a "link" won't help you much.

Still no link, instead I am treated to another round of insulting statements that are standard fare for those unable to support their assertions. Folks willing to buy insurance cannot in any reasonable understanding be forced to do what they are willing to do, and that was exactly the distinction you carefully avoided.

Moreover, no one is "forced" to buy insurance. They could just pay the penalty, as, I assume, you know.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No, I'll color you willfully ignorant - not an insult, just an observation. I indicated the aspect of ACA that forces people to buy health insurance - the individual mandate. If you're unaware of that provision, and unwilling to educate yourself about it, a "link" won't help you much.

Still no link, instead I am treated to another round of insulting statements that are standard fare for those unable to support their assertions. Folks willing to buy insurance cannot in any reasonable understanding be forced to do what they are willing to do, and that was exactly the distinction you carefully avoided.

Moreover, no one is "forced" to buy insurance. They could just pay the penalty, as, I assume, you know.

penalty goes up and up in effect forcing you to buy Obamalibcommie care

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Folks willing to buy insurance cannot in any reasonable understanding be forced to do what they are willing to do, and that was exactly the distinction you carefully avoided.

we are, in effect, forced to buy Obamalibcommie care and thus forced
to pay for maternity care even if we are male, for example.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, I'll color you willfully ignorant - not an insult, just an observation. I indicated the aspect of ACA that forces people to buy health insurance - the individual mandate. If you're unaware of that provision, and unwilling to educate yourself about it, a "link" won't help you much.

Still no link, instead I am treated to another round of insulting statements that are standard fare for those unable to support their assertions. Folks willing to buy insurance cannot in any reasonable understanding be forced to do what they are willing to do, and that was exactly the distinction you carefully avoided.

Moreover, no one is "forced" to buy insurance. They could just pay the penalty, as, I assume, you know.

You say it is insulting to say that millions have been forced into insurance policies they did not want? You say it is insulting to say that millions did lose insurance coverage they were perfectly happy with because of Obamacare?

But you don't think it is insulting when you say people like me are unfit to participate in the constitutional convention while people like you are the only ones qualified to write a new constitution?

 

[dblack]

No, I'll color you willfully ignorant - not an insult, just an observation. I indicated the aspect of ACA that forces people to buy health insurance - the individual mandate. If you're unaware of that provision, and unwilling to educate yourself about it, a "link" won't help you much.

Still no link, instead I am treated to another round of insulting statements that are standard fare for those unable to support their assertions. Folks willing to buy insurance cannot in any reasonable understanding be forced to do what they are willing to do, and that was exactly the distinction you carefully avoided.

Moreover, no one is "forced" to buy insurance. They could just pay the penalty, as, I assume, you know.

Yeah. I figured you'd end up here. By this specious reasoning, no one is forced to follow any law - they simply have to deal with whatever penalties result from non-compliance. Is this like "some are more equal than others"? Or more of an "ignorance is strength" motif?