Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I believe a free people will choose to not allow willful pollution of everybody else's air, water, and soil at will, but unless such crosses state lines, that is the business of the people to enforce and should not be the prerogative of the federal government.
I think you are missing the point altogether. Whether intentionally or you are unable to grasp it, I don't know, but you obviously are arguing something different than I am arguing. And your question is simply too silly to take seriously.
Rest assured, if I am in fact missing your point, it isn't deliberate. For to me the right to pollute at liberty, and the "the unalienable right to breathe" pose a contradiction that I don't know how to resolve. Moreover, since there's no reasonable grounds to assume that unalienable rights ought to be disregarded in one state, whilst protected in another, why, in fact, unalienable right should be subject to different levels of protection, I see no reason to leave that to the States or to local communities.
So again if you have people who want a Mayberry USA with strict moralistic standards of 'decency' and 'goodness' expected and enforced, those people should have that. And if people want a wide open Deadwood with little or no law and order at all, those people should have that. And neither should be any business of the federal government.
What happens if...
1) ... it turns out that there are communities / States that are roughly equally divided between "Mayberry" and "Deadwood" Americans?
2) ... it turns out that the "Mayberry" Americans start to burn witches? ... and the "Deadwood" Americans make their living by secretly offering child prostitutes to the "Mayberry" Americans?
3) ... it happens that "Mayberry" and "Deadwood" Americans go to war with each other over the "right" way to organise their communities?
The point has always been that our unalienable rights are secured and with that done, THEN we are at liberty to live our lives and form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have. Hopefully all thinking people will have laws to prevent witch burning and child prostitution, but this is not the prerogative of the federal government if we wish for liberty to be the goal. I believe a free people will choose to not allow willful pollution of everybody else's air, water, and soil at will, but unless such crosses state lines, that is the business of the people to enforce and should not be the prerogative of the federal government. A federal government given such power to do what most of us would think of as good will also have power to do what most of us would think of as evil.
So, I want the central government to have authority for only such laws and regulation as is necessary for us to function as one country, to secure our right of self determination (i.e. our unalienable rights), and prevent the states from doing economic or material violence to each other. And then the federal government must strictly keep hands off and allow us to govern ourselves as we see fit.
As the growing obesity (and diabetes) epidemic requires a contribution by others (in the form of rising, unnecessary health care costs to be covered by all), isn't it entirely sensible to insist that kids aren't being set on that path by the school cafeteria?
As the growing obesity (and diabetes) epidemic requires a contribution by others (in the form of rising, unnecessary health care costs to be covered by all), isn't it entirely sensible to insist that kids aren't being set on that path by the school cafeteria?
Yep. Under such conditions it's "entirely sensible" to dictate any and all personal health habits that might result in additional health care costs. That's exactly why making government responsible for our health care is so insidious. Is that really where we want to go?
As the growing obesity (and diabetes) epidemic requires a contribution by others (in the form of rising, unnecessary health care costs to be covered by all), isn't it entirely sensible to insist that kids aren't being set on that path by the school cafeteria?
Yep. Under such conditions it's "entirely sensible" to dictate any and all personal health habits that might result in additional health care costs. That's exactly why making government responsible for our health care is so insidious. Is that really where we want to go?
The alternative is cost prohibitive.
As the growing obesity (and diabetes) epidemic requires a contribution by others (in the form of rising, unnecessary health care costs to be covered by all), isn't it entirely sensible to insist that kids aren't being set on that path by the school cafeteria?
Yep. Under such conditions it's "entirely sensible" to dictate any and all personal health habits that might result in additional health care costs. That's exactly why making government responsible for our health care is so insidious. Is that really where we want to go?
The alternative is cost prohibitive.
THE alternative? Which one?
As the growing obesity (and diabetes) epidemic requires a contribution by others (in the form of rising, unnecessary health care costs to be covered by all), isn't it entirely sensible to insist that kids aren't being set on that path by the school cafeteria?
Yep. Under such conditions it's "entirely sensible" to dictate any and all personal health habits that might result in additional health care costs. That's exactly why making government responsible for our health care is so insidious. Is that really where we want to go?
The alternative is cost prohibitive.
THE alternative? Which one?
How many have there been?
We currently have the ACA which is based on the Heritage model.
Before that we had HMO's that would gouge you and then deny you healthcare because you had exceeded some arbitrary limit or had a pre-existing condition. There were 48 million who couldn't even afford to be gouged and we were paying for their ER visits instead. That was unsustainable fiscally and it was harming corporations and the economy.
As the growing obesity (and diabetes) epidemic requires a contribution by others (in the form of rising, unnecessary health care costs to be covered by all), isn't it entirely sensible to insist that kids aren't being set on that path by the school cafeteria?
Yep. Under such conditions it's "entirely sensible" to dictate any and all personal health habits that might result in additional health care costs. That's exactly why making government responsible for our health care is so insidious. Is that really where we want to go?
The alternative is cost prohibitive.
THE alternative? Which one?
How many have there been?
We currently have the ACA which is based on the Heritage model.
Before that we had HMO's that would gouge you and then deny you healthcare because you had exceeded some arbitrary limit or had a pre-existing condition. There were 48 million who couldn't even afford to be gouged and we were paying for their ER visits instead. That was unsustainable fiscally and it was harming corporations and the economy.
Huh? Your original answer sounded like you can only conceive of one alternative. Is that true? And if so, which one is it?
I think you are missing the point altogether. Whether intentionally or you are unable to grasp it, I don't know, but you obviously are arguing something different than I am arguing. And your question is simply too silly to take seriously.
Rest assured, if I am in fact missing your point, it isn't deliberate. For to me the right to pollute at liberty, and the "the unalienable right to breathe" pose a contradiction that I don't know how to resolve. Moreover, since there's no reasonable grounds to assume that unalienable rights ought to be disregarded in one state, whilst protected in another, why, in fact, unalienable right should be subject to different levels of protection, I see no reason to leave that to the States or to local communities.
So again if you have people who want a Mayberry USA with strict moralistic standards of 'decency' and 'goodness' expected and enforced, those people should have that. And if people want a wide open Deadwood with little or no law and order at all, those people should have that. And neither should be any business of the federal government.
What happens if...
1) ... it turns out that there are communities / States that are roughly equally divided between "Mayberry" and "Deadwood" Americans?
2) ... it turns out that the "Mayberry" Americans start to burn witches? ... and the "Deadwood" Americans make their living by secretly offering child prostitutes to the "Mayberry" Americans?
3) ... it happens that "Mayberry" and "Deadwood" Americans go to war with each other over the "right" way to organise their communities?
The point has always been that our unalienable rights are secured and with that done, THEN we are at liberty to live our lives and form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have. Hopefully all thinking people will have laws to prevent witch burning and child prostitution, but this is not the prerogative of the federal government if we wish for liberty to be the goal. I believe a free people will choose to not allow willful pollution of everybody else's air, water, and soil at will, but unless such crosses state lines, that is the business of the people to enforce and should not be the prerogative of the federal government. A federal government given such power to do what most of us would think of as good will also have power to do what most of us would think of as evil.
So, I want the central government to have authority for only such laws and regulation as is necessary for us to function as one country, to secure our right of self determination (i.e. our unalienable rights), and prevent the states from doing economic or material violence to each other. And then the federal government must strictly keep hands off and allow us to govern ourselves as we see fit.
That's right, pollution won't enter into a free person's district out of respect. The chinese don't know this yet. Link below
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/w...orts-pollution-to-western-us-study-finds.html
For those who insist on thinking this thread is somehow about the ACA being based on the heritage model and who have said that several times now, I wish they would educate themselves on that. Here's a couple of good places to start:
Obama says Heritage Foundation is source of health exchange idea PolitiFact
Is the ACA the GOP health care plan from 1993 PunditFact
HINT: The fact that there are some similarities in the two plans in no way suggests that the ACA was BASED on GOP proposals and/or the Heritage plan--if it had been, we would be in a hell of a lot less mess than we are. Nobody at Heritage would have condoned the wholesale socialist dictates of an ACA as it exists. And nobody in the GOP voted for it.
And my emphasis with this thread is at least in part to express my deepest conviction that if we are to retain any semblance of liberty in this country, we must find a way to ensure that no legislation like the ACA can ever be passed again.
Which part of what I posted did you have a problem understanding?
Which part of what I posted did you have a problem understanding?
This part: "The"
Do you really think there's only one alternative?
Which part of what I posted did you have a problem understanding?
This part: "The"
Do you really think there's only one alternative?
I am a realist and a pragmatist. As long as there is a profit to be made and Citizens United allows those corporations to purchase the outcome of elections the most cost effective single payer option is a non starter. That just leaves us with the ACA and the horror that preceded it. What else do you have in the way of alternatives?
For those who insist on thinking this thread is somehow about the ACA being based on the heritage model and who have said that several times now, I wish they would educate themselves on that. Here's a couple of good places to start:
Obama says Heritage Foundation is source of health exchange idea PolitiFact
Is the ACA the GOP health care plan from 1993 PunditFact
HINT: The fact that there are some similarities in the two plans in no way suggests that the ACA was BASED on GOP proposals and/or the Heritage plan--if it had been, we would be in a hell of a lot less mess than we are. Nobody at Heritage would have condoned the wholesale socialist dictates of an ACA as it exists. And nobody in the GOP voted for it.
And my emphasis with this thread is at least in part to express my deepest conviction that if we are to retain any semblance of liberty in this country, we must find a way to ensure that no legislation like the ACA can ever be passed again.
And yet both links just provided by the OP agree that the ACA is based upon the Heritage plan.
Oh, and the Heritage plan included the tax penalty for non participation and there are no "wholesale socialist dictates" in the ACA either.
For those who insist on thinking this thread is somehow about the ACA being based on the heritage model and who have said that several times now, I wish they would educate themselves on that. Here's a couple of good places to start:
Obama says Heritage Foundation is source of health exchange idea PolitiFact
Is the ACA the GOP health care plan from 1993 PunditFact
HINT: The fact that there are some similarities in the two plans in no way suggests that the ACA was BASED on GOP proposals and/or the Heritage plan--if it had been, we would be in a hell of a lot less mess than we are. Nobody at Heritage would have condoned the wholesale socialist dictates of an ACA as it exists. And nobody in the GOP voted for it.
And my emphasis with this thread is at least in part to express my deepest conviction that if we are to retain any semblance of liberty in this country, we must find a way to ensure that no legislation like the ACA can ever be passed again.
And yet both links just provided by the OP agree that the ACA is based upon the Heritage plan.
Oh, and the Heritage plan included the tax penalty for non participation and there are no "wholesale socialist dictates" in the ACA either.
And how fucked up is that? We vote for Democrats and get a corporatist, Republican health care law. I don't know how supporters of this shit can sleep at night.
And how fucked up is that? We vote for Democrats and get a corporatist, Republican health care law. I don't know how supporters of this shit can sleep at night.
Which part of what I posted did you have a problem understanding?
This part: "The"
Do you really think there's only one alternative?
I am a realist and a pragmatist. As long as there is a profit to be made and Citizens United allows those corporations to purchase the outcome of elections the most cost effective single payer option is a non starter. That just leaves us with the ACA and the horror that preceded it. What else do you have in the way of alternatives?
Well that's just boneheaded. There are endless alternatives to ACA. Even doing nothing would have been far, far better.
For those who insist on thinking this thread is somehow about the ACA being based on the heritage model and who have said that several times now, I wish they would educate themselves on that. Here's a couple of good places to start:
Obama says Heritage Foundation is source of health exchange idea PolitiFact
Is the ACA the GOP health care plan from 1993 PunditFact
HINT: The fact that there are some similarities in the two plans in no way suggests that the ACA was BASED on GOP proposals and/or the Heritage plan--if it had been, we would be in a hell of a lot less mess than we are. Nobody at Heritage would have condoned the wholesale socialist dictates of an ACA as it exists. And nobody in the GOP voted for it.
And my emphasis with this thread is at least in part to express my deepest conviction that if we are to retain any semblance of liberty in this country, we must find a way to ensure that no legislation like the ACA can ever be passed again.
And yet both links just provided by the OP agree that the ACA is based upon the Heritage plan.
Oh, and the Heritage plan included the tax penalty for non participation and there are no "wholesale socialist dictates" in the ACA either.
And how fucked up is that? We vote for Democrats and get a corporatist, Republican health care law. I don't know how supporters of this shit can sleep at night.
For those who insist on thinking this thread is somehow about the ACA being based on the heritage model and who have said that several times now, I wish they would educate themselves on that. Here's a couple of good places to start:
Obama says Heritage Foundation is source of health exchange idea PolitiFact
Is the ACA the GOP health care plan from 1993 PunditFact
HINT: The fact that there are some similarities in the two plans in no way suggests that the ACA was BASED on GOP proposals and/or the Heritage plan--if it had been, we would be in a hell of a lot less mess than we are. Nobody at Heritage would have condoned the wholesale socialist dictates of an ACA as it exists. And nobody in the GOP voted for it.
And my emphasis with this thread is at least in part to express my deepest conviction that if we are to retain any semblance of liberty in this country, we must find a way to ensure that no legislation like the ACA can ever be passed again.
And yet both links just provided by the OP agree that the ACA is based upon the Heritage plan.
Oh, and the Heritage plan included the tax penalty for non participation and there are no "wholesale socialist dictates" in the ACA either.
And how fucked up is that? We vote for Democrats and get a corporatist, Republican health care law. I don't know how supporters of this shit can sleep at night.
Well it would be more fucked up if it WAS based on the Heritage or Republican plan, but it was not. It shares some concepts with both, but is based on neither. But then I don't expect those who insist on that dishonest talking point to be able to understand why or perhaps they might stop saying that. But of course if they believe their side is incapable of coming up with a concept on their own, maybe it makes sense to them that the GOP or a libertarian think tank like the Heritage Foundation would have to invent a concept that a Barack Obama would grab and present as his own, until it became poltically necessary to blame it on the GOP.
Somewhere I have that original healthcare proposal Heritage put out but it must be on a different computer. I don't suppose we could persuade our friend here who is constantly screaming for us to post links to post that one? Here is what they are proposing now:
After Obamacare Repeal Moving to Patient-Centered Market-Based Health Care
Edit:
Here is some background on other silly claims that Heritage and the GOP were the 'brains' behind the ACA,
From Heritage lectures, this one was offered by Stuart Butler PhD. It is noted that it was NOT endorsed by the Heritage Foundation but rather was offered as information and for consideration and discussion. In fact on the preface, Heritage explicitly does not endorse the document. Therefore to call it the 'Heritage Plan" is dishonest.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/..._affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf
Cato even more emphatically criticized the 1994 Nickles/Stearnes bill that Obama and the leftists like to point to as evidence that the idea wasn't their idea but was rather the GOP's idea. And as Politifact admits in their article previously linked, this concept also was never taken really seriously by much of anybody.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/..._the_market_choice_for_health_care_reform.pdf
The fact is some very bad ideas and some very bad legislation has been passed by both Democrats and Republicans over the years and I'm not defending bad ideas from the GOP or the right any more than I will condone bad ideas from the Democrats or the left.
The purpose of this thread is not to lay blame and point fingers and self righteously absolve 'our side' from culpability in bad consequences, but is rather to suggest ways to improve the Constitution to prevent such bad legislation and resulting consequences in the future.
Is anybody up to that? Or shall we continue with the 'your side is just as much or more to blame as our side' or the 'my side is better than your side' argument?
