CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Olde Europe]

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?

Yep, I fear that is insulting to intelligence, both yours and mine, and you have poof for that in the same extent dblack has, that is, none. You know probably as well as I do (even though the right-wing propaganda probably has hardly mentioned it) that existing plans were grandfathered in. If insurers no longer offered these plans, or made substantial changes, the new plans had to comply with the ACA's minimum standards. That's what the whole "millions lost health insurance" brouhaha amounted to: Insurer discontinuing plans, many of which were so crappy as to hardly qualify as insurance. Most of those who "lost" their insurance are now on ACA-compliant plans, and the overwhelming majority of them is happy with what they got.

I am not remotely qualified to write a new Constitution, and I most assuredly have never said anything like that.

What this short (I hope) intermezzo demonstrated is one of the main reasons why I hope no new Constitution will be written these days. Frankly, I am beginning to suspect that the writing of the U.S. Constitution was possible back then because the founders, and those who ratified the document, were able to agree, out of respect for reality and each other, on at least some basic facts pertaining to the situation in which they found themselves. Observing current-day political debates in the U.S., I am also beginning to suspect that the two main, and enormously inimical groups live in two entirely different universes. Political differences are hard enough to reconcile between members of the same universe. If one of the groups is "living" in a universe mostly consisting of their own propagandistic talking points, and is otherwise exhibiting a scathing disregard for reality, compromise on concepts fails on the fact-stage already, once the question is posed, "What kind of problem are we going to solve?" A Constitution written under these circumstances can't be anything other than a catastrophe.

 

[Olde Europe]

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

See, therein resides a very valuable Constitutional question, and thank you for that. Of course, maternity care was usually, around the world, shoved on women's shoulders, though males, or so the rumor goes, have something very causal to do with its necessity. But hey, since women for a long time didn't have the lobby to save them from having to shoulder that burden alone, theirs it was.

On the other hand, and taking a slightly wider angle, caring for the offspring, for any society's next generation could easily be named that society's most pre-eminent task, and obligation, and, quite naturally, that burden should be shared amongst all according to their abilities, and in the sense that this next generation has a good start into life, beginning with maternity care, continuing with a healthy environment in which to grow up, and certainly not ending with the best education any society can afford to provide.

Considering that, and comparing it with the current situation in the U.S., should lead to quite obvious conclusions as to that society's faults and failures, and also the fact that this society's educational needs aren't in any way comparable with those facing a largely agrarian society 250 years ago.

But yeah, requiring males to contribute to maternity care is undoubtedly preposterous, isn't it?

 

[dblack]

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

See, therein resides a very valuable Constitutional question, and thank you for that. Of course, maternity care was usually, around the world, shoved on women's shoulders, though males, or so the rumor goes, have something very causal to do with its necessity. But hey, since women for a long time didn't have the lobby to save them from having to shoulder that burden alone, theirs it was.

On the other hand, and taking a slightly wider angle, caring for the offspring, for any society's next generation could easily be named that society's most pre-eminent task, and obligation, and, quite naturally, that burden should be shared amongst all according to their abilities, and in the sense that this next generation has a good start into life, beginning with maternity care, continuing with a healthy environment in which to grow up, and certainly not ending with the best education any society can afford to provide.

Considering that, and comparing it with the current situation in the U.S., should lead to quite obvious conclusions as to that society's faults and failures, and also the fact that this society's educational needs aren't in any way comparable with those facing a largely agrarian society 250 years ago.

But yeah, requiring males to contribute to maternity care is undoubtedly preposterous, isn't it?

This highlights what you accurately identified earlier as the biggest problem in rewriting the Constitution. We simply have no consensus on the purpose of government. Clearly, you believe in government that runs society; that we should use majority rule democracy to decide what kind of society we want and then force the minority to conform to that vision.

Others of us believe government's primary purpose is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want through voluntary interaction. We want a government that respects real tolerance and diversity, not one that seeks to force conformity to a singular vision of the "right way to live".

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

See, therein resides a very valuable Constitutional question, and thank you for that. Of course, maternity care was usually, around the world, shoved on women's shoulders, though males, or so the rumor goes, have something very causal to do with its necessity. But hey, since women for a long time didn't have the lobby to save them from having to shoulder that burden alone, theirs it was.

On the other hand, and taking a slightly wider angle, caring for the offspring, for any society's next generation could easily be named that society's most pre-eminent task, and obligation, and, quite naturally, that burden should be shared amongst all according to their abilities, and in the sense that this next generation has a good start into life, beginning with maternity care, continuing with a healthy environment in which to grow up, and certainly not ending with the best education any society can afford to provide.

Considering that, and comparing it with the current situation in the U.S., should lead to quite obvious conclusions as to that society's faults and failures, and also the fact that this society's educational needs aren't in any way comparable with those facing a largely agrarian society 250 years ago.

But yeah, requiring males to contribute to maternity care is undoubtedly preposterous, isn't it?

This highlights what you accurately identified earlier as the biggest problem in rewriting the Constitution. We simply have no consensus on the purpose of government. Clearly, you believe in government that runs society; that we should use majority rule democracy to decide what kind of society we want and then force the minority to conform to that vision.

Others of us believe government's primary purpose is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want through voluntary interaction. We want a government that respects real tolerance and diversity, not one that seeks to force conformity to a singular vision of the "right way to live".

I don't believe you have ever thought through what you say you want. It may be a cliche, but be careful what you wish (or vote) for. I take pragmatic and proactive governance over government asleep at the switch and reactive. We had eight years of that under GWB and that didn't work out well.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

See, therein resides a very valuable Constitutional question, and thank you for that. Of course, maternity care was usually, around the world, shoved on women's shoulders, though males, or so the rumor goes, have something very causal to do with its necessity. But hey, since women for a long time didn't have the lobby to save them from having to shoulder that burden alone, theirs it was.

On the other hand, and taking a slightly wider angle, caring for the offspring, for any society's next generation could easily be named that society's most pre-eminent task, and obligation, and, quite naturally, that burden should be shared amongst all according to their abilities, and in the sense that this next generation has a good start into life, beginning with maternity care, continuing with a healthy environment in which to grow up, and certainly not ending with the best education any society can afford to provide.

Considering that, and comparing it with the current situation in the U.S., should lead to quite obvious conclusions as to that society's faults and failures, and also the fact that this society's educational needs aren't in any way comparable with those facing a largely agrarian society 250 years ago.

But yeah, requiring males to contribute to maternity care is undoubtedly preposterous, isn't it?

This highlights what you accurately identified earlier as the biggest problem in rewriting the Constitution. We simply have no consensus on the purpose of government. Clearly, you believe in government that runs society; that we should use majority rule democracy to decide what kind of society we want and then force the minority to conform to that vision.

Others of us believe government's primary purpose is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want through voluntary interaction. We want a government that respects real tolerance and diversity, not one that seeks to force conformity to a singular vision of the "right way to live".

I don't believe you have ever thought through what you say you want. It may be a cliche, but be careful what you wish (or vote) for. I take pragmatic and proactive governance over government asleep at the switch and reactive. We had eight years of that under GWB and that didn't work out well.

A pragmatic, proactive approach is always best – eschewing blind adherence to politically sanctioned doctrine and dogma.

 

[dblack]

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

See, therein resides a very valuable Constitutional question, and thank you for that. Of course, maternity care was usually, around the world, shoved on women's shoulders, though males, or so the rumor goes, have something very causal to do with its necessity. But hey, since women for a long time didn't have the lobby to save them from having to shoulder that burden alone, theirs it was.

On the other hand, and taking a slightly wider angle, caring for the offspring, for any society's next generation could easily be named that society's most pre-eminent task, and obligation, and, quite naturally, that burden should be shared amongst all according to their abilities, and in the sense that this next generation has a good start into life, beginning with maternity care, continuing with a healthy environment in which to grow up, and certainly not ending with the best education any society can afford to provide.

Considering that, and comparing it with the current situation in the U.S., should lead to quite obvious conclusions as to that society's faults and failures, and also the fact that this society's educational needs aren't in any way comparable with those facing a largely agrarian society 250 years ago.

But yeah, requiring males to contribute to maternity care is undoubtedly preposterous, isn't it?

This highlights what you accurately identified earlier as the biggest problem in rewriting the Constitution. We simply have no consensus on the purpose of government. Clearly, you believe in government that runs society; that we should use majority rule democracy to decide what kind of society we want and then force the minority to conform to that vision.

Others of us believe government's primary purpose is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want through voluntary interaction. We want a government that respects real tolerance and diversity, not one that seeks to force conformity to a singular vision of the "right way to live".

I don't believe you have ever thought through what you say you want. It may be a cliche, but be careful what you wish (or vote) for. I take pragmatic and proactive governance over government asleep at the switch and reactive. We had eight years of that under GWB and that didn't work out well.

The policies of the Bush administration bear no resemblance to the kind of government i'm advocating.

 

[Olde Europe]

This highlights what you accurately identified earlier as the biggest problem in rewriting the Constitution. We simply have no consensus on the purpose of government. Clearly, you believe in government that runs society; that we should use majority rule democracy to decide what kind of society we want and then force the minority to conform to that vision.

Others of us believe government's primary purpose is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want through voluntary interaction. We want a government that respects real tolerance and diversity, not one that seeks to force conformity to a singular vision of the "right way to live".

Yeah, because through "voluntary interaction" you create the infrastructure that would sustain a 21st century society. I want no government that "runs society", I want one that safeguards a society and provides the necessary structure so that it remains on a sustainable, humane path so that this generations and future ones can live a life as they please within the laws.

That which you describe, and which is very much the situation the U.S. is in, means that this generation will leave the next one a decrepit, way-behind infrastructure from education to bridges to crumbling school buildings because a selfish, short-termist generation of I, Me, Mine has decided that what's there for the taking should be taken and kept, and, excuse my French, Après moi, le déluge. That's no way to run a corporation, much less a way to run a country.

 

[dblack]

This highlights what you accurately identified earlier as the biggest problem in rewriting the Constitution. We simply have no consensus on the purpose of government. Clearly, you believe in government that runs society; that we should use majority rule democracy to decide what kind of society we want and then force the minority to conform to that vision.

Others of us believe government's primary purpose is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want through voluntary interaction. We want a government that respects real tolerance and diversity, not one that seeks to force conformity to a singular vision of the "right way to live".

Yeah, because through "voluntary interaction" you create the infrastructure that would sustain a 21st century society. I want no government that "runs society", I want one that safeguards a society and provides the necessary structure so that it remains on a sustainable, humane path so that this generations and future ones can live a life as they please within the laws.

That which you describe, and which is very much the situation the U.S. is in, means that this generation will leave the next one a decrepit, way-behind infrastructure from education to bridges to crumbling school buildings because a selfish, short-termist generation of I, Me, Mine has decided that what's there for the taking should be taken and kept, and, excuse my French, Après moi, le déluge. That's no way to run a corporation, much less a way to run a country.

Well, I think I've been clear: the last thing I want government to do is "run" the country like a corporation. Government should protect each individual's right to run our own lives as we see fit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This highlights what you accurately identified earlier as the biggest problem in rewriting the Constitution. We simply have no consensus on the purpose of government. Clearly, you believe in government that runs society; that we should use majority rule democracy to decide what kind of society we want and then force the minority to conform to that vision.

Others of us believe government's primary purpose is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want through voluntary interaction. We want a government that respects real tolerance and diversity, not one that seeks to force conformity to a singular vision of the "right way to live".

Yeah, because through "voluntary interaction" you create the infrastructure that would sustain a 21st century society. I want no government that "runs society", I want one that safeguards a society and provides the necessary structure so that it remains on a sustainable, humane path so that this generations and future ones can live a life as they please within the laws.

That which you describe, and which is very much the situation the U.S. is in, means that this generation will leave the next one a decrepit, way-behind infrastructure from education to bridges to crumbling school buildings because a selfish, short-termist generation of I, Me, Mine has decided that what's there for the taking should be taken and kept, and, excuse my French, Après moi, le déluge. That's no way to run a corporation, much less a way to run a country.

Spot on!

 

[Wry Catcher]

This highlights what you accurately identified earlier as the biggest problem in rewriting the Constitution. We simply have no consensus on the purpose of government. Clearly, you believe in government that runs society; that we should use majority rule democracy to decide what kind of society we want and then force the minority to conform to that vision.

Others of us believe government's primary purpose is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want through voluntary interaction. We want a government that respects real tolerance and diversity, not one that seeks to force conformity to a singular vision of the "right way to live".

Yeah, because through "voluntary interaction" you create the infrastructure that would sustain a 21st century society. I want no government that "runs society", I want one that safeguards a society and provides the necessary structure so that it remains on a sustainable, humane path so that this generations and future ones can live a life as they please within the laws.

That which you describe, and which is very much the situation the U.S. is in, means that this generation will leave the next one a decrepit, way-behind infrastructure from education to bridges to crumbling school buildings because a selfish, short-termist generation of I, Me, Mine has decided that what's there for the taking should be taken and kept, and, excuse my French, Après moi, le déluge. That's no way to run a corporation, much less a way to run a country.

Well, I think I've been clear: the last thing I want government to do is "run" the country like a corporation. Government should protect each individual's right to run our own lives as we see fit.

That's Utopian thinking ^^^; impractical, as well as far from anything a responsible adult would do in raising a child.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

It was conservatives who originated the "individual mandate" in the Heritage Foundation plan.

The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes

The healthcare industry doesn't require that anyone be "forced" to buy insurance in order to stay afloat. That is completely false. It was doing just fine raising prices exorbitantly before the ACA came along.

But if you want to keep down insurance costs you have to spread them over the largest possible pool. Same thing applies to vehicle, homeowner and life insurance.

Your lack of understanding of the basics of insurance means that you are erroneously placing the "blame" on Obama instead of dealing with the issue which was the cost of healthcare. The Heritage Foundation plan which became both RomneyCare and the ACA work because they include both an employer mandate and an individual mandate.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Others of us believe government's primary purpose is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want through voluntary interaction. We want a government that respects real tolerance and diversity, not one that seeks to force conformity to a singular vision of the "right way to live".

Your "freedom" doesn't include not paying your taxes, discrimination in the public domain and imposing your "morality" on others.

 

[dblack]

This highlights what you accurately identified earlier as the biggest problem in rewriting the Constitution. We simply have no consensus on the purpose of government. Clearly, you believe in government that runs society; that we should use majority rule democracy to decide what kind of society we want and then force the minority to conform to that vision.

Others of us believe government's primary purpose is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want through voluntary interaction. We want a government that respects real tolerance and diversity, not one that seeks to force conformity to a singular vision of the "right way to live".

Yeah, because through "voluntary interaction" you create the infrastructure that would sustain a 21st century society. I want no government that "runs society", I want one that safeguards a society and provides the necessary structure so that it remains on a sustainable, humane path so that this generations and future ones can live a life as they please within the laws.

That which you describe, and which is very much the situation the U.S. is in, means that this generation will leave the next one a decrepit, way-behind infrastructure from education to bridges to crumbling school buildings because a selfish, short-termist generation of I, Me, Mine has decided that what's there for the taking should be taken and kept, and, excuse my French, Après moi, le déluge. That's no way to run a corporation, much less a way to run a country.

Well, I think I've been clear: the last thing I want government to do is "run" the country like a corporation. Government should protect each individual's right to run our own lives as we see fit.

That's Utopian thinking ^^^; impractical, as well as far from anything a responsible adult would do in raising a child.

It's not though. Freedom is messy. And inevitably pragmatic. Because it acknowledges the way people really are. People aren't ants. We're surly, stubborn and diverse. Letting people think for themselves guarantees that some of us will fail, but in that failure, we'll learn.

Deluding ourselves with the belief that there is one right way to live, and setting government on the task of marching everyone down that road, IS utopian and, if history has taught us anything, ends badly.

 

[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.

It was conservatives who originated the "individual mandate" in the Heritage Foundation plan.

The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes

Yep. I saw it unfold.

The healthcare industry doesn't require that anyone be "forced" to buy insurance in order to stay afloat. That is completely false. It was doing just fine raising prices exorbitantly before the ACA came along.

Also agree. They don't need the mandate. But they want it. And Congress gave it to them.

But if you want to keep down insurance costs you have to spread them over the largest possible pool. Same thing applies to vehicle, homeowner and life insurance.

Your lack of understanding of the basics of insurance means that you are erroneously placing the "blame" on Obama instead of dealing with the issue which was the cost of healthcare. The Heritage Foundation plan which became both RomneyCare and the ACA work because they include both an employer mandate and an individual mandate.

I understand insurance fine. It's a hedge against risk and a luxury for those who can afford it. It's not a reasonable means of paying for the basic costs of living.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This highlights what you accurately identified earlier as the biggest problem in rewriting the Constitution. We simply have no consensus on the purpose of government. Clearly, you believe in government that runs society; that we should use majority rule democracy to decide what kind of society we want and then force the minority to conform to that vision.

Others of us believe government's primary purpose is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want through voluntary interaction. We want a government that respects real tolerance and diversity, not one that seeks to force conformity to a singular vision of the "right way to live".

Yeah, because through "voluntary interaction" you create the infrastructure that would sustain a 21st century society. I want no government that "runs society", I want one that safeguards a society and provides the necessary structure so that it remains on a sustainable, humane path so that this generations and future ones can live a life as they please within the laws.

That which you describe, and which is very much the situation the U.S. is in, means that this generation will leave the next one a decrepit, way-behind infrastructure from education to bridges to crumbling school buildings because a selfish, short-termist generation of I, Me, Mine has decided that what's there for the taking should be taken and kept, and, excuse my French, Après moi, le déluge. That's no way to run a corporation, much less a way to run a country.

Well, I think I've been clear: the last thing I want government to do is "run" the country like a corporation. Government should protect each individual's right to run our own lives as we see fit.

That's Utopian thinking ^^^; impractical, as well as far from anything a responsible adult would do in raising a child.

It's not though. Freedom is messy. And inevitably pragmatic. Because it acknowledges the way people really are. People aren't ants. We're surly, stubborn and diverse. Letting people think for themselves guarantees that some of us will fail, but in that failure, we'll learn.

Deluding ourselves with the belief that there is one right way to live, and setting government on the task of marching everyone down that road, IS utopian and, if history has taught us anything, ends badly.

Except that the current government is NOT doing as you allege however the Libertarian Uptopia that you espouse would impose your beliefs on everyone and force them to have to survive in a society that doesn't value the less fortunate.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

It was conservatives who originated the "individual mandate" in the Heritage Foundation plan.

The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes

Yep. I saw it unfold.

The healthcare industry doesn't require that anyone be "forced" to buy insurance in order to stay afloat. That is completely false. It was doing just fine raising prices exorbitantly before the ACA came along.

Also agree. They don't need the mandate. But they want it. And Congress gave it to them.

But if you want to keep down insurance costs you have to spread them over the largest possible pool. Same thing applies to vehicle, homeowner and life insurance.

Your lack of understanding of the basics of insurance means that you are erroneously placing the "blame" on Obama instead of dealing with the issue which was the cost of healthcare. The Heritage Foundation plan which became both RomneyCare and the ACA work because they include both an employer mandate and an individual mandate.

I understand insurance fine. It's a hedge against risk and a luxury for those who can afford it. It's not a reasonable means of paying for the basic costs of living.

Healthcare is a basic cost of living for everyone who doesn't live in a Libertarian bubble world.

 

[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.

It was conservatives who originated the "individual mandate" in the Heritage Foundation plan.

The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes

Yep. I saw it unfold.

The healthcare industry doesn't require that anyone be "forced" to buy insurance in order to stay afloat. That is completely false. It was doing just fine raising prices exorbitantly before the ACA came along.

Also agree. They don't need the mandate. But they want it. And Congress gave it to them.

But if you want to keep down insurance costs you have to spread them over the largest possible pool. Same thing applies to vehicle, homeowner and life insurance.

Your lack of understanding of the basics of insurance means that you are erroneously placing the "blame" on Obama instead of dealing with the issue which was the cost of healthcare. The Heritage Foundation plan which became both RomneyCare and the ACA work because they include both an employer mandate and an individual mandate.

I understand insurance fine. It's a hedge against risk and a luxury for those who can afford it. It's not a reasonable means of paying for the basic costs of living.

Healthcare is a basic cost of living for everyone who doesn't live in a Libertarian bubble world.

What??? I agree. And insurance is a dumb way to finance basic costs of living. Should we try to pay for food or housing with insurance as well?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

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.

It was conservatives who originated the "individual mandate" in the Heritage Foundation plan.

The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes

Yep. I saw it unfold.

The healthcare industry doesn't require that anyone be "forced" to buy insurance in order to stay afloat. That is completely false. It was doing just fine raising prices exorbitantly before the ACA came along.

Also agree. They don't need the mandate. But they want it. And Congress gave it to them.

But if you want to keep down insurance costs you have to spread them over the largest possible pool. Same thing applies to vehicle, homeowner and life insurance.

Your lack of understanding of the basics of insurance means that you are erroneously placing the "blame" on Obama instead of dealing with the issue which was the cost of healthcare. The Heritage Foundation plan which became both RomneyCare and the ACA work because they include both an employer mandate and an individual mandate.

I understand insurance fine. It's a hedge against risk and a luxury for those who can afford it. It's not a reasonable means of paying for the basic costs of living.

Healthcare is a basic cost of living for everyone who doesn't live in a Libertarian bubble world.

What??? I agree. And insurance is a dumb way to finance basic costs of living. Should we try to pay for food or housing with insurance as well?

You are talking about apples and oranges. You have car insurance for when you need it. Same thing applies to health insurance.

The smart way to finance healthcare costs is via single payer because it eliminates the massive overhead of insurance. However that was unacceptable to Republicans so we ended up with the employer and individual mandates instead. Complain to them if you don't like what we have, they came up with it as the alternative to single payer.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

It was conservatives who originated the "individual mandate" in the Heritage Foundation plan.

The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes

Yep. I saw it unfold.

The healthcare industry doesn't require that anyone be "forced" to buy insurance in order to stay afloat. That is completely false. It was doing just fine raising prices exorbitantly before the ACA came along.

Also agree. They don't need the mandate. But they want it. And Congress gave it to them.

But if you want to keep down insurance costs you have to spread them over the largest possible pool. Same thing applies to vehicle, homeowner and life insurance.

Your lack of understanding of the basics of insurance means that you are erroneously placing the "blame" on Obama instead of dealing with the issue which was the cost of healthcare. The Heritage Foundation plan which became both RomneyCare and the ACA work because they include both an employer mandate and an individual mandate.

I understand insurance fine. It's a hedge against risk and a luxury for those who can afford it. It's not a reasonable means of paying for the basic costs of living.

Healthcare is a basic cost of living for everyone who doesn't live in a Libertarian bubble world.

What??? I agree. And insurance is a dumb way to finance basic costs of living. Should we try to pay for food or housing with insurance as well?

Thank you for being one who is NOT trying to make your case via the ridiculous 'they did it too" or "your side did it first" argument. It seems there are some who just can't resist the temptation to dodge the real issue or justify their side's agenda or actions in that way.

Again it doesn't matter who thought up the ACA, who proposed the concept first, or the tortuous route it took to become reality. The issue now is whether something like that is a good and proper thing for the federal government to do or whether it isn't. From everything I have seen thus far, I believe the bad outweighs the good as is usually the case when the government forces a one-size-fits-all mandate about just about anything never intended via the original constitution.

For sure you cannot have both liberty and government mandates for how you are required to live your life.

And you bring up a very good point. The government doesn't mandate that we all have insurance to provide us with the more critical necessities of food, shelter, and clothing. So why a mandate that everybody have healthcare insurance? The relatively small number of uninsured could have been handled so much more simply, practically, and efficiently by simply setting up an assigned risk pool for that relatively small number of uninsured and encouraging folks to use it by allowing healthcare providers to charge those who utilized their services without having insurance. There was absolutely no justification for forcing everybody else into a system they would not have chosen for themselves.

We need to restore a Constitution that allows us liberty to make our own choices in such matters even when what we choose looks stupid and foolish to those who think they can order our lives better than we will do for ourselves.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This highlights what you accurately identified earlier as the biggest problem in rewriting the Constitution. We simply have no consensus on the purpose of government. Clearly, you believe in government that runs society; that we should use majority rule democracy to decide what kind of society we want and then force the minority to conform to that vision.

Others of us believe government's primary purpose is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want through voluntary interaction. We want a government that respects real tolerance and diversity, not one that seeks to force conformity to a singular vision of the "right way to live".

Yeah, because through "voluntary interaction" you create the infrastructure that would sustain a 21st century society. I want no government that "runs society", I want one that safeguards a society and provides the necessary structure so that it remains on a sustainable, humane path so that this generations and future ones can live a life as they please within the laws.

That which you describe, and which is very much the situation the U.S. is in, means that this generation will leave the next one a decrepit, way-behind infrastructure from education to bridges to crumbling school buildings because a selfish, short-termist generation of I, Me, Mine has decided that what's there for the taking should be taken and kept, and, excuse my French, Après moi, le déluge. That's no way to run a corporation, much less a way to run a country.

Well, I think I've been clear: the last thing I want government to do is "run" the country like a corporation. Government should protect each individual's right to run our own lives as we see fit.

That's Utopian thinking ^^^; impractical, as well as far from anything a responsible adult would do in raising a child.

It's not though. Freedom is messy. And inevitably pragmatic. Because it acknowledges the way people really are. People aren't ants. We're surly, stubborn and diverse. Letting people think for themselves guarantees that some of us will fail, but in that failure, we'll learn.

Deluding ourselves with the belief that there is one right way to live, and setting government on the task of marching everyone down that road, IS utopian and, if history has taught us anything, ends badly.

The simple answer is simple, if one feels paying for health insurance is an egregious assault on their freedom, then the alternative used by millions of other people world wide who lacked freedom is to go to another country.

There are plenty of people who have come to our shores from oppressive countries where in fact freedom was just another word. Asserting as you do that being required to pay for health insurance is an assault on your liberty is absurd. By relying on the community in which you reside to take care of you when you get hit by a bus or fall off a cliff is the antithesis of someone who is personally responsible.