It's almost June - countdown to the Supreme Court decision on ACA

[MuadDib]

Nonsense. We live in a republican form of government, and that government uses regulatory agencies created by the Representatives of We the People. Want it changed? Get a majority.

That's not necessary. The Rule of Law is embodied by Constitutional limitations on government that prevent the majoritarian dominance you prefer. We have some hope yet that the Court will protect individual rights and uphold those limitations, setting clear boundaries on the majority's ability to dictate to the minority.

So you wish to use SCOTUS to legislate on your behalf.

I don't.

That is why Madison wrote in The Federalist, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." In other words, the officials in each branch of government must take pride in their office and be proactive in doing their jobs. If they don't, then the other branches will begin to do their jobs for them. For instance, if the legislature fails to act, then the judicial or executive branches may begin to do legislative things.

Roe v Wade is a prime example. When abortion rights became a hot button issue, Congress failed to either legalize abortion or specifically designate abortion rights to the states (which is where it should have been), so SCOTUS made that decision for them.

 

[Conservative]

The Swiss have had an individual mandate for 20 years, and it works quite well.

16 years... 1996. You should educate yourself on the Swiss system before you comment how wonderful it is, Chris.

http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Faculty/Jost%20The%20Experience%20of%20Switzerland%20and%20the%20Netherlands.pdf

These advocates, however, misunderstand or misrepresent the actual nature of the Swiss and Dutch health care systems. Moreover, when one examines the Swiss and Dutch systems more carefully, it becomes apparent that they are not the best models for the reform of our own health care system.

It is true that in both the Swiss and Dutch systems individuals are legally required
to purchase health insurance in a competitive market. But, these countries do not require
their residents to purchase American-style private insurance. Health insurance in
Switzerland is provided through a social insurance, not private insurance, program, just as it is in Germany, France, Belgium or Austria. Basic health insurance can only be sold by social insurers or by private insurers who agree to function as social insurers. Health insurance, that is to say, is considered to be a social service, like Social Security or
Medicare in the United States, not a commodity. Basic health insurance cannot be sold
by for profit companies.

In Switzerland doctor’s fees are set through a national fee schedule, with monetary point values set at the cantonal level. Hospital fees and maximum allowable drug prices are regulated as well.

In the Netherlands over 99% of the population was covered in 2006 when the current approach was established, while in Switzerland 96-98% of the population was insured when their current system was adopted in 1996. Both countries are now, however, facing the problem of how to handle those individuals who fail to comply with the mandate and pay their premiums. In both countries, these persons are mostly indigent and often recent immigrants. In the Netherlands, the number of these persons is about the same as the number of the number of those who were uninsured under the old system. Paradoxically, however, while the uninsured under the prior system tended to be wealthy people who chose not to purchase insurance, the people most at risk now are poorer people who cannot afford it, but who were covered under the old system. Merely imposing an individual mandate does not ensure that people will actually become insured, especially when they cannot afford insurance.

Second, neither system has proved adept at controlling costs. Switzerland is
second only to the United States among OECD countries in percent of GDP spent on
health care. Switzerland is also second only to the United States in excess annual health
care spending growth per capita since 1985.

 

[dblack]

And with that agreement comes that promise that their powers will be constrained to an explicit scope and reach. That is merely your intepretation. We will stay with SCOTUS, not you.

It's not just my interpretation. It's the well-documented view of thinkers and leaders in our country since the start. In any case, the understanding of a contract is what matters. It's debatable who's interpretation is valid, but if we don't agree on the terms, a contract is moot.

And that may be where we find ourselves. If the portion of the nation ready to give up on limited government reaches a significant majority, we'll be in for rocky times ahead.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Average age of the Swiss is about five years older than Americans, which will count for some of the difference. List of countries by median age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interestingly, of the almost twenty countries with older average ages than the Swiss. the great majority have national health care with less pressure on the GDP.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And with that agreement comes that promise that their powers will be constrained to an explicit scope and reach. That is merely your intepretation. We will stay with SCOTUS, not you.

It's not just my interpretation. It's the well-documented view of thinkers and leaders in our country since the start. In any case, the understanding of a contract is what matters. It's debatable who's interpretation is valid, but if we don't agree on the terms, a contract is moot. . . . .

Hmm . . . you sound like the secesh before 1861. No, a small minority has no right to abrogate constitutional, electoral process. You are in the system, so you better build an electoral or judicial majority.

 

[dblack]

Hmm . . . you sound like the secesh before 1861. No, a small minority has no right to abrogate constitutional, electoral process. You are in the system, so you better build an electoral or judicial majority.

I'm not talking about abrogating constitutional electoral process. I'm talking about limited government, which is designed to protect the rights of the people against overreaching government - majoritarian or otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hmm . . . you sound like the secesh before 1861. No, a small minority has no right to abrogate constitutional, electoral process. You are in the system, so you better build an electoral or judicial majority.

I'm not talking about abrogating constitutional electoral process. I'm talking about limited government, which is designed to protect the rights of the people against overreaching government - majoritarian or otherwise.

That is your opinion. The only way is through an electoral or judicial majority. Don't think you are going to change the system any other way.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hmm . . . you sound like the secesh before 1861. No, a small minority has no right to abrogate constitutional, electoral process. You are in the system, so you better build an electoral or judicial majority.

I'm not talking about abrogating constitutional electoral process. I'm talking about limited government, which is designed to protect the rights of the people against overreaching government - majoritarian or otherwise.

That is your opinion. The only way is through an electoral or judicial majority. Don't think you are going to change the system any other way.

And that is your opinion we all have them But some of us base our opinions on facts you jokey base yours on what?

 

[dblack]

Hmm . . . you sound like the secesh before 1861. No, a small minority has no right to abrogate constitutional, electoral process. You are in the system, so you better build an electoral or judicial majority.

I'm not talking about abrogating constitutional electoral process. I'm talking about limited government, which is designed to protect the rights of the people against overreaching government - majoritarian or otherwise.

That is your opinion. The only way is through an electoral or judicial majority. Don't think you are going to change the system any other way.

That's the majoritarian viewpoint. Again, if that view prevails, issues of electoral or judicial authority are moot. At that point, the minority is fundamentally disenfranchised and has no incentive to remain bound by the social contract. Then it comes to boots on the ground and who is most determined. Hopefully all that can be avoided.

 

[Amelia]

What has Obama done wrong in your eyes?

He won't answer your question....

Toldja...

Fakey never answers a direct question....

If I shared as much of Obama's world view as Jake does, Obama would have my vote.

Sharing Obama's domestic vision but switching to a Republican president with a Republican congress?

Um, sure, that makes sense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm not talking about abrogating constitutional electoral process. I'm talking about limited government, which is designed to protect the rights of the people against overreaching government - majoritarian or otherwise.

That is your opinion. The only way is through an electoral or judicial majority. Don't think you are going to change the system any other way.

That's the majoritarian viewpoint. Again, if that view prevails, issues of electoral or judicial authority are moot. At that point, the minority is fundamentally disenfranchised and has no incentive to remain bound by the social contract. Then it comes to boots on the ground and who is most determined. Hopefully all that can be avoided.

Take it up with the Founders who created it that way, not your way. For your sake, you better hope you can avoid "all that".

 

[JakeStarkey]

He won't answer your question....

Toldja...

Fakey never answers a direct question....

If I shared as much of Obama's world view as Jake does, Obama would have my vote. haring Obama's domestic vision but switching to a Republican president with a Republican congress? Um, sure, that makes sense.

What a bunch of would be liberals. Make up silly questions, run around in circles flapping their hands, and pretending their way is mainstream.

Vote Romney.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Toldja...

Fakey never answers a direct question....

If I shared as much of Obama's world view as Jake does, Obama would have my vote. haring Obama's domestic vision but switching to a Republican president with a Republican congress? Um, sure, that makes sense.

What a bunch of would be liberals. Make up silly questions, run around in circles flapping their hands, and pretending their way is mainstream.

Vote Romney.

Jake your confused because you don't have a clue too what you are talking about.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake your confused because you don't have a clue too what you are talking about.

You are projecting again.

 

[dblack]

Take it up with the Founders who created it that way, not your way. For your sake, you better hope you can avoid "all that".

I don't think the Founders created it "that way" at all. I'll take it up with those claiming otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Take it up with the Founders who created it that way, not your way. For your sake, you better hope you can avoid "all that".

I don't think the Founders created it "that way" at all. I'll take it up with those claiming otherwise.

Then build either an electoral majority or a SCOTUS majority. Those are the only two ways the Founders would have you do it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Jake your confused because you don't have a clue too what you are talking about.

You are projecting again.

That was a weak retort. You can';t argue with the truth can you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake your confused because you don't have a clue too what you are talking about.

You are projecting again.

That was a weak retort. You can';t argue with the truth can you?

Because your comment was so weak, bigrebnc, nothing more was needed.

 

[Amelia]

lol

 

[JakeStarkey]