Page 2 of 3 [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Friskeygirl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,865

22 Mar 2010, 2:51 pm

Well this is good news, I don't understand why so many people whine and complain about this, it seem only the raving lunatic conservatives
teabaggers are making the most noise, I always thought tea bagging was a sexual practice done by gay men and frat boys.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Mar 2010, 3:46 pm

Friskeygirl wrote:
Well this is good news, I don't understand why so many people whine and complain about this, it seem only the raving lunatic conservatives
teabaggers are making the most noise, I always thought tea bagging was a sexual practice done by gay men and frat boys.


The U.S. government is not fit to run a dog pound. Do you think they should be regulating health insurance?

ruveyn



Michael_Stuart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 500

22 Mar 2010, 3:52 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Friskeygirl wrote:
Well this is good news, I don't understand why so many people whine and complain about this, it seem only the raving lunatic conservatives
teabaggers are making the most noise, I always thought tea bagging was a sexual practice done by gay men and frat boys.


The U.S. government is not fit to run a dog pound. Do you think they should be regulating health insurance?

ruveyn


In that same vein, do you think government should be regulating the military, schools, law enforcement, pollution, traffic, drinking water and all of those other things they've been regulating (fairly) successfully for a long time now? Now I'm all for a smaller government but darn it, if the goverment's so incompetent then why is it that you and me are doing much better than we would without 'em?



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

22 Mar 2010, 4:09 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Mostly misinterpretation. The supreme courted usurped the power of judicial review in Marbury vs Madison. The Constitution granted so such power. No subsequent court has seen fit to set things right.

ruveyn


A resonable, if specious argument. Absent judicial review, there is no remedy for the citizen where the legislative branch oversteps its authority.

If you believe that Congress has acted unconstitutionally in enacting this legislation, then what is the mechanism within the four corners of the Constitution to invalidate that legislation? A Constitution is a valueless document if the organs that are created by that Constitution are free to ignore the limits placed upon them. Judicial review is a necessary component of a system of checks and balances.

Suppose that a citizen (or a state, for that matter) brings an application for a prerogative writ (most likely certiorari, but possibly mandamus or injunction), on the basis that a particular piece of legislation is ultra vires the authority of Congress as set out in the Constitution.

Is this a case? Most certainly, it is a dispute between a litigant and the United States, turning on a question of law.

Is the case in Law or in Equity? Yes, the prerogative writs are all legal remedies that existed at Common Law at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

Is the case one that arises from the Constitution? Yes, since the validity of the Act of Congress being impugned is directly related to the authority conferred upon the Congress by the Constitution.

These three affirmative answers, alone, are sufficient to bring the dispute within the Judial Power as enunciated in Article III, Section 2. Furthermore, it is trite law that if a dispute is within the jurisdiction of the Court, then so too, must the remedy.

I suppose that one might argue that it is open to the Executive Branch to refuse to enforce an Act of Congress that it supposes to be ultra vires the Constitution--but that is a vastly inferior approach, in my view, because there are no procedural safeguards, and no consistency of decision making within the Executive Branch. Furthermore, such an approach would give the Executive Branch license to wantonly ignore any restriction sought to be imposed upon it by the legislature.


_________________
--James


pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

22 Mar 2010, 6:30 pm

It's astounding to have watched the complacant acceptance of a government first overtly taking on the right to snoop in peoples' library records, then being found to have being conducting illegal wire-taps, mired and implicated in torture, holding people without recourse to a fair trial, special rendition flights, "bad intelligence" (also known as how to spin your country into a war and kill thousands of decent Americans),and even the ludicrous spectical of toddlers on no flight lists (undermining even the basic right of citizens of the US to move freely within the boundaries of the US), and then to see this reaction to an attempt to broaden access to health care. Wow, just wow.



Aspiewriter
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 322

22 Mar 2010, 6:51 pm

pandd wrote:
It's astounding to have watched the complacant acceptance of a government first overtly taking on the right to snoop in peoples' library records, then being found to have being conducting illegal wire-taps, mired and implicated in torture, holding people without recourse to a fair trial, special rendition flights, "bad intelligence" (also known as how to spin your country into a war and kill thousands of decent Americans),and even the ludicrous spectical of toddlers on no flight lists (undermining even the basic right of citizens of the US to move freely within the boundaries of the US), and then to see this reaction to an attempt to broaden access to health care. Wow, just wow.


Right.... To quote REM, "It's the end of the world as we know it."



Wedge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 984
Location: Rendezvous Point

22 Mar 2010, 7:04 pm

pandd wrote:
It's astounding to have watched the complacant acceptance of a government first overtly taking on the right to snoop in peoples' library records, then being found to have being conducting illegal wire-taps, mired and implicated in torture, holding people without recourse to a fair trial, special rendition flights, "bad intelligence" (also known as how to spin your country into a war and kill thousands of decent Americans),and even the ludicrous spectical of toddlers on no flight lists (undermining even the basic right of citizens of the US to move freely within the boundaries of the US), and then to see this reaction to an attempt to broaden access to health care. Wow, just wow.


That is the thing I don´t understand about conservatives. They don´t want gov. spending but they don´t bother about the Iraq and Afghanistan war. As if these wars didn´t cost a penny! (the Iraq war costed three trillion dollar).



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Mar 2010, 7:50 pm

Wedge wrote:

That is the thing I don´t understand about conservatives. They don´t want gov. spending but they don´t bother about the Iraq and Afghanistan war. As if these wars didn´t cost a penny! (the Iraq war costed three trillion dollar).


Logical consistency is not one of the virtues of the current Republican establishment.

ruveyn



Friskeygirl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,865

22 Mar 2010, 9:32 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Friskeygirl wrote:
Well this is good news, I don't understand why so many people whine and complain about this, it seem only the raving lunatic conservatives
teabaggers are making the most noise, I always thought tea bagging was a sexual practice done by gay men and frat boys.


The U.S. government is not fit to run a dog pound. Do you think they should be regulating health insurance?

ruveyn
, Well somebody has to do it because its a complete mess the why it is now, who do you suggest run it the insurance companies.



Zara
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,877
Location: Deep Dungeon, VA

22 Mar 2010, 10:19 pm

I am mildly pleased at the bill's passage.

I'm not thrilled since I don't think it does enough and still don't like the mandate but I suppose it is a start and it will help many people.
Probably won't do anything for me. I don't expect my rates or policy to be affected by anything in the bill. Although I suppose now if I got an official ASD diagnosis I wouldn't have to worry about it affecting my insurance now.

Anyways, time to get some snacks and watch the lawsuit war coming. :roll:


_________________
Current obsessions: Miatas, Investing
Currently playing: Amnesia: The Dark Descent
Currently watching: SRW OG2: The Inspectors

Come check out my photography!
http://dmausf.deviantart.com/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Mar 2010, 1:26 am

Friskeygirl wrote:
Well somebody has to do it because its a complete mess the why it is now, who do you suggest run it the insurance companies.


If we had a sufficiently competitive market we would not have most of the problems complained about. You will notice that food prices are reasonable. Why? Because of sufficient competition in the production and sale of food products.

Many of the problems with insurance were brought about by government mandates in first place. For example, law requiring employers to provide health insurance to their working staff. As soon as groups are formed with no regard to physical condition, pricing becomes distorted. Those who are most likely to require medical services should be paying the highest premiums. It is simple actuarial mathematics.

In auto insurance, those with the worst driving records pay the highest premiums. In life insurance, smokers pay higher premiums than non-smokers. Why is medical insurance any different?

The entire problem is the premise: That people have a right to medical care whether or not they can pay for it. That is nonsense. If you have the right to medical care, then someone has the duty to provide to you or pay for it if you can't. That is outright slavery.

To each according to what he produces. From each according to what he is payed.
ruveyn



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

27 Mar 2010, 10:35 am

ruveyn wrote:
If we had a sufficiently competitive market we would not have most of the problems complained about. You will notice that food prices are reasonable. Why? Because of sufficient competition in the production and sale of food products.

Many of the problems with insurance were brought about by government mandates in first place. For example, law requiring employers to provide health insurance to their working staff. As soon as groups are formed with no regard to physical condition, pricing becomes distorted. Those who are most likely to require medical services should be paying the highest premiums. It is simple actuarial mathematics.

In auto insurance, those with the worst driving records pay the highest premiums. In life insurance, smokers pay higher premiums than non-smokers. Why is medical insurance any different?

The entire problem is the premise: That people have a right to medical care whether or not they can pay for it. That is nonsense. If you have the right to medical care, then someone has the duty to provide to you or pay for it if you can't. That is outright slavery.

To each according to what he produces. From each according to what he is payed.
ruveyn


Actually, ruyven, I think you have cheap food because of oversupply. Food production in the US is largely in the hands of a very small number of producers. Only about two weeks ago, the AG and the Secretary of Agriculture were talking about antitrust investigation into agribusiness, and remarking on the small number of corporate hands on key elements of food production.

As for your free market approach to health care, I think that lies at the root of our philosophical disagreement. I come from a perspective that a person cannot be economically productive if that person is not assured food, clothing, shelter, education and medically necessary care. Most of the rest is probably optional extra that you can buy or not as your means dictate.

No one should be deprived of the basics on financial grounds, alone. And since there's no profit in running food banks, homeless shelters and providing health insurance to people who already have kidney problems, that's when the role of the State comes in. How large, and what form that public sector intervention takes is a matter for public policy debate, of course, but I believe, as a fundamental principle, that a just society assures these things to all of its members.


_________________
--James


t0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 726
Location: The 4 Corners of the 4th Dimension

27 Mar 2010, 10:41 am

ruveyn wrote:
If we had a sufficiently competitive market we would not have most of the problems complained about. You will notice that food prices are reasonable. Why? Because of sufficient competition in the production and sale of food products.


The government gives farmers subsidies every year - surely if this was a self-sufficient industry this wouldn't be the case.

Quote:
Many of the problems with insurance were brought about by government mandates in first place. For example, law requiring employers to provide health insurance to their working staff.


I run a corporation and the law requires no such thing. I can choose to give my employees medical coverage based on government standards, provide a middle solution like an employer match to a health account, or no coverage at all. We investigated the options and decided not to give any insurance or medical match due to expense.

Quote:
The entire problem is the premise: That people have a right to medical care whether or not they can pay for it. That is nonsense. If you have the right to medical care, then someone has the duty to provide to you or pay for it if you can't. That is outright slavery.


I believe you could apply the same logic to the military. If we as a country need to defend ourselves against an enemy, and each individual citizen can't afford to pay the military their equal share - that would seem to indicate by your logic that the military is an enslaved population. So perhaps the military should only protect the wealthy parts of the country and leave the rest unprotected.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

27 Mar 2010, 11:36 am

The problem I'm seeing with healthcare as it stands is greed: Too much money being charged in relation to the services provided, too many frivolous law suits, too many people overburdening it with petty illnesses and injuries that they could attend to themselves, etc..............
Greed is a moral deficiency and not something that can be legislated away. Greed will survive any legislation that you can throw at it.
Unfortunately we don't have what it takes to curb greed to a more acceptable level. Greed is a topic in itself.

As a nation we really can't afford the money it will take to institute the kind of healthcare that the oval office wants to shove down our throats. If anything during these times we need to trim the fat from social spending, not spend more. Well, I guess we can't trim too much fat because social spending is more fat than anything.

Aside from that, the idea of more government presence in our lives isn't welcome to a lot of people, to put it mildly.
The government doesn't do ANYTHING efficiently, anyway.

I don't know where this notion comes from that healthcare is a right. It's a technically a service and not a right.
By making services rights we are opening a Pandora's box.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

27 Mar 2010, 3:02 pm

In a country where you have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I suggest to you that barriers to access to health care can be seen as an infringement of the right to life, at least at some level.

As a nation, I wonder whether you can afford the consequences of failure on this issue. What are the costs to you of failing to extend medically necessary care to all of your citizens?


_________________
--James


ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

27 Mar 2010, 3:57 pm

visagrunt wrote:
In a country where you have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I suggest to you that barriers to access to health care can be seen as an infringement of the right to life, at least at some level.

As a nation, I wonder whether you can afford the consequences of failure on this issue. What are the costs to you of failing to extend medically necessary care to all of your citizens?


There is no right to a long life or for that matter a quality life, There is no infringement on the right to life.