Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[PMZ]

The Constitution defines the bylaws for our government. It restricts them from legislation in certain areas of life. Those are called our rights.

It also, according to how it's words have been interpreted, doesn't give you, or anyone else other than the Supreme Court, any responsibility or authority to impose on anyone what you'd like it to say.

That's why we're a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

And why each of us can vote for what we want. And a majority rules the government.

And a majority rules the government.

no it doesnt

I think the majority rule argument, pro or con, misses the point. You have to look at it from their point of view - what is the alternative? Minority rule? I don't think that's what you're advocating, is it?

The thing is, even most staunch conservatives would prefer majority rule to an autocratic dictatorship. The question isn't whether government should follow the will of the majority when making decisions; the question is what sort of decisions should government be making in the first place, and that's where the Constitutional definition of government's scope and power is fundamental.

What most of us reacting to the 'we the people' sloganeering are bristling against isn't the idea that government should follow the preferences of the majority, but rather a fear of unlimited government. Because, often those trumpeting the 'will of the people' take the view that anything and everything the majority wants should be catered to by government.

This is why the exclusive/inclusive argument over Constitutional limits on government is so important. By the prevailing liberal view, the federal government can do anything and everything not expressly prohibited by the Bill of Rights in the name of majority rule. Conservatives, and moreso libertarians, want a tighter restriction that says government can only do the things authorized by the enumerated powers. These are radically different views, and central to our current political divide.

Well thought out and presented.

The counter argument is:

We live under the rule of law based on our Constitution. Any position otherwise must assume an interpretation of the Constitution that is different than those given the responsibility to interpret it have concluded.

So the government that we have is the one that the majority must want.

The position that it's too big or over reaching is not based on any evidence as it is competitive with all other alternatives. Otherwise people would be moving out instead of in. Free choice.

That doesn't invalidate the idea that there could not be improvements made. Only that they have to be argued on substance which ''too big'' lacks.

 

[Bern80]

And a majority rules the government.

no it doesnt

I think the majority rule argument, pro or con, misses the point. You have to look at it from their point of view - what is the alternative? Minority rule? I don't think that's what you're advocating, is it?

The thing is, even most staunch conservatives would prefer majority rule to an autocratic dictatorship. The question isn't whether government should follow the will of the majority when making decisions; the question is what sort of decisions should government be making in the first place, and that's where the Constitutional definition of government's scope and power is fundamental.

What most of us reacting to the 'we the people' sloganeering are bristling against isn't the idea that government should follow the preferences of the majority, but rather a fear of unlimited government. Because, often those trumpeting the 'will of the people' take the view that anything and everything the majority wants should be catered to by government.

This is why the exclusive/inclusive argument over Constitutional limits on government is so important. By the prevailing liberal view, the federal government can do anything and everything not expressly prohibited by the Bill of Rights in the name of majority rule. Conservatives, and moreso libertarians, want a tighter restriction that says government can only do the things authorized by the enumerated powers. These are radically different views, and central to our current political divide.

Well thought out and presented.

The counter argument is:

We live under the rule of law based on our Constitution. Any position otherwise must assume an interpretation of the Constitution that is different than those given the responsibility to interpret it have concluded.

So the government that we have is the one that the majority must want.

The position that it's too big or over reaching is not based on any evidence as it is competitive with all other alternatives. Otherwise people would be moving out instead of in. Free choice.

That doesn't invalidate the idea that there could not be improvements made. Only that they have to be argued on substance which ''too big'' lacks.

Actually 'too big' can be substatiated quite easily. Is the federal government engaged in activity beyond the scope and duties outlined to it by the constitution? The answer to that is an obvious yes. The rule of law you speak of in the constitution is not directed toward the citizenry. It doesn't say these are the rules by which the citizens must live by. It says these are the rules by which the government must live by.

 

[PMZ]

U

I think the majority rule argument, pro or con, misses the point. You have to look at it from their point of view - what is the alternative? Minority rule? I don't think that's what you're advocating, is it?

The thing is, even most staunch conservatives would prefer majority rule to an autocratic dictatorship. The question isn't whether government should follow the will of the majority when making decisions; the question is what sort of decisions should government be making in the first place, and that's where the Constitutional definition of government's scope and power is fundamental.

What most of us reacting to the 'we the people' sloganeering are bristling against isn't the idea that government should follow the preferences of the majority, but rather a fear of unlimited government. Because, often those trumpeting the 'will of the people' take the view that anything and everything the majority wants should be catered to by government.

This is why the exclusive/inclusive argument over Constitutional limits on government is so important. By the prevailing liberal view, the federal government can do anything and everything not expressly prohibited by the Bill of Rights in the name of majority rule. Conservatives, and moreso libertarians, want a tighter restriction that says government can only do the things authorized by the enumerated powers. These are radically different views, and central to our current political divide.

Well thought out and presented.

The counter argument is:

We live under the rule of law based on our Constitution. Any position otherwise must assume an interpretation of the Constitution that is different than those given the responsibility to interpret it have concluded.

So the government that we have is the one that the majority must want.

The position that it's too big or over reaching is not based on any evidence as it is competitive with all other alternatives. Otherwise people would be moving out instead of in. Free choice.

That doesn't invalidate the idea that there could not be improvements made. Only that they have to be argued on substance which ''too big'' lacks.

Actually 'too big' can be substatiated quite easily. Is the federal government engaged in activity beyond the scope and duties outlined to it by the constitution? The answer to that is an obvious yes. The rule of law you speak of in the constitution is not directed toward the citizenry. It doesn't say these are the rules by which the citizens must live by. It says these are the rules by which the government must live by.

"Actually 'too big' can be substatiated quite easily. Is the federal government engaged in activity beyond the scope and duties outlined to it by the constitution?"

The answer to this is obviously no.

The words of the Constitution imply it's interpretation and enforcement. That's the process that we've always followed.

One of the reasons that it has stood the test of time is that we don't let every nutball coming down the street tell us what he would like it to say.

 

[Bern80]

U

Well thought out and presented.

The counter argument is:

We live under the rule of law based on our Constitution. Any position otherwise must assume an interpretation of the Constitution that is different than those given the responsibility to interpret it have concluded.

So the government that we have is the one that the majority must want.

The position that it's too big or over reaching is not based on any evidence as it is competitive with all other alternatives. Otherwise people would be moving out instead of in. Free choice.

That doesn't invalidate the idea that there could not be improvements made. Only that they have to be argued on substance which ''too big'' lacks.

Actually 'too big' can be substatiated quite easily. Is the federal government engaged in activity beyond the scope and duties outlined to it by the constitution? The answer to that is an obvious yes. The rule of law you speak of in the constitution is not directed toward the citizenry. It doesn't say these are the rules by which the citizens must live by. It says these are the rules by which the government must live by.

"Actually 'too big' can be substatiated quite easily. Is the federal government engaged in activity beyond the scope and duties outlined to it by the constitution?"

The answer to this is obviously no.

The words of the Constitution imply it's interpretation and enforcement. That's the process that we've always followed.

One of the reasons that it has stood the test of time is that we don't let every nutball coming down the street tell us what he would like it to say.

Does the constitution grant the federal government the authority to make people purchase things from other private parties?

Does allow the federal governmet to establish a department of education?

Look at how it says government can collect taxes and start looking at all the tax laws that don't fit that criteria.

 

[PMZ]

U

Actually 'too big' can be substatiated quite easily. Is the federal government engaged in activity beyond the scope and duties outlined to it by the constitution? The answer to that is an obvious yes. The rule of law you speak of in the constitution is not directed toward the citizenry. It doesn't say these are the rules by which the citizens must live by. It says these are the rules by which the government must live by.

"Actually 'too big' can be substatiated quite easily. Is the federal government engaged in activity beyond the scope and duties outlined to it by the constitution?"

The answer to this is obviously no.

The words of the Constitution imply it's interpretation and enforcement. That's the process that we've always followed.

One of the reasons that it has stood the test of time is that we don't let every nutball coming down the street tell us what he would like it to say.

Does the constitution grant the federal government the authority to make people purchase things from other private parties?

The recent SCOTUS ruling is yes.

 

[Spoonman]

sure, obamacare could be fixed - if we want to go back to the drawing board

 

[Bern80]

U

"Actually 'too big' can be substatiated quite easily. Is the federal government engaged in activity beyond the scope and duties outlined to it by the constitution?"

The answer to this is obviously no.

The words of the Constitution imply it's interpretation and enforcement. That's the process that we've always followed.

One of the reasons that it has stood the test of time is that we don't let every nutball coming down the street tell us what he would like it to say.

Does the constitution grant the federal government the authority to make people purchase things from other private parties?

The recent SCOTUS ruling is yes.

Actually they didn't even really debate that point. What was argued was whether the penalty is a tax or a fine. The reality is PMZ, is that you keep resorting to SCOTUS as your essentially one word response because it happens to be convenient for you where Obamacare is concerned. When there is law you find unconstitutional that SCOTUS doesn't rule as such you may gain some objectivity as I have that even they can misinterpret the constitution and/or more beholden to political ideology than the constitution. It should be much simpler to select SC judges instead of the massive debates we always have over them. Here's the constitution. Here's what it says government can do. Rule accordingly. Under that objective standard it should be a relatively clean, debate free process. But it's not. Liberals try to insert judges who take a 'broader' view of the constitution. Broad is putting it mildly because some liberals readily admit we shouldn't have to follow the constitution as it doesn't fit with the times and other such nonsense.

 

[PMZ]

Health care insurance and delivery needs fixing. Not Obamacare which is neither. It's useful regulation of the insurance market which is notoriously in restraint of trade. Uncompetitive.

 

[Bern80]

Health care insurance and delivery needs fixing. Not Obamacare which is neither. It's useful regulation of the insurance market which is notoriously in restraint of trade. Uncompetitive.

Regualted how? Obama has tried his way in the form of essentially saying I know better than you what you need coverage for so here's what you must buy? He's regulated it such that people can't be charged more for the same policy based on their health which has driven up the cost of premiums for the young and healthy. Pre tell what regulations should be put on insurance companies that would actually bring the cost of premiums down?

 

[Spoonman]

Health care insurance and delivery needs fixing. Not Obamacare which is neither. It's useful regulation of the insurance market which is notoriously in restraint of trade. Uncompetitive.

so please explain why it is making prices rise?

 

[Spoonman]

one thing i'm starting to notice, whe nit comes to obamacare, liberals can't even put up a good line of bullshit.

 

[PMZ]

Health care insurance and delivery needs fixing. Not Obamacare which is neither. It's useful regulation of the insurance market which is notoriously in restraint of trade. Uncompetitive.

Regualted how? Obama has tried his way in the form of essentially saying I know better than you what you need coverage for so here's what you must buy? He's regulated it such that people can't be charged more for the same policy based on their health which has driven up the cost of premiums for the young and healthy. Pre tell what regulations should be put on insurance companies that would actually bring the cost of premiums down?

The quickest to bring premiums down is allow inadequate coverage. That way people with those policies could pawn off their costs on those with adequate coverage.

Obamacare aims at reducing total cost though.

 

[PMZ]

one thing i'm starting to notice, whe nit comes to obamacare, liberals can't even put up a good line of bullshit.

Conservatives, on the other hand merely repeat Fox News professional propaganda.

 

[Spoonman]

Health care insurance and delivery needs fixing. Not Obamacare which is neither. It's useful regulation of the insurance market which is notoriously in restraint of trade. Uncompetitive.

Regualted how? Obama has tried his way in the form of essentially saying I know better than you what you need coverage for so here's what you must buy? He's regulated it such that people can't be charged more for the same policy based on their health which has driven up the cost of premiums for the young and healthy. Pre tell what regulations should be put on insurance companies that would actually bring the cost of premiums down?

The quickest to bring premiums down is allow inadequate coverage. That way people with those policies could pawn off their costs on those with adequate coverage.

Obamacare aims at reducing total cost though.

if thats the case i think their scope is a little out of adjustment, infact i think they are aiming blindly

 

[PMZ]

Health care insurance and delivery needs fixing. Not Obamacare which is neither. It's useful regulation of the insurance market which is notoriously in restraint of trade. Uncompetitive.

so please explain why it is making prices rise?

Make more money regardless of the cost to others.

 

[PMZ]

Regualted how? Obama has tried his way in the form of essentially saying I know better than you what you need coverage for so here's what you must buy? He's regulated it such that people can't be charged more for the same policy based on their health which has driven up the cost of premiums for the young and healthy. Pre tell what regulations should be put on insurance companies that would actually bring the cost of premiums down?

The quickest to bring premiums down is allow inadequate coverage. That way people with those policies could pawn off their costs on those with adequate coverage.

Obamacare aims at reducing total cost though.

if thats the case i think their scope is a little out of adjustment, infact i think they are aiming blindly

Obviously you do. The rest of us insist on evidence though.

 

[Spoonman]

The quickest to bring premiums down is allow inadequate coverage. That way people with those policies could pawn off their costs on those with adequate coverage.

Obamacare aims at reducing total cost though.

if thats the case i think their scope is a little out of adjustment, infact i think they are aiming blindly

Obviously you do. The rest of us insist on evidence though.

log onto the website, if you can. check out the plans, check out the coverage, check out the deductables.

 

[PMZ]

if thats the case i think their scope is a little out of adjustment, infact i think they are aiming blindly

Obviously you do. The rest of us insist on evidence though.

log onto the website, if you can. check out the plans, check out the coverage, check out the deductables.

That's how I would do it if I needed to. In fact that's exactly how I picked my Medicare Advantage Plan.

The Internet can be a powerful consumer tool if you find objective sources.

 

[Spoonman]

Obviously you do. The rest of us insist on evidence though.

log onto the website, if you can. check out the plans, check out the coverage, check out the deductables.

That's how I would do it if I needed to. In fact that's exactly how I picked my Medicare Advantage Plan.

The Internet can be a powerful consumer tool if you find objective sources.

i've been on it. i've seen the options. thats what you call evidence. they need to readjust their scopes

 

[Bern80]

Health care insurance and delivery needs fixing. Not Obamacare which is neither. It's useful regulation of the insurance market which is notoriously in restraint of trade. Uncompetitive.

Regualted how? Obama has tried his way in the form of essentially saying I know better than you what you need coverage for so here's what you must buy? He's regulated it such that people can't be charged more for the same policy based on their health which has driven up the cost of premiums for the young and healthy. Pre tell what regulations should be put on insurance companies that would actually bring the cost of premiums down?

The quickest to bring premiums down is allow inadequate coverage. That way people with those policies could pawn off their costs on those with adequate coverage.

Obamacare aims at reducing total cost though.

It can 'aim' at it all it wants. Nothing about basic economics says that's going to happen with the policies put in place. And who are you or the president to determine what constitutes adequate coverage for me?