federal government overstepping their role as per the US constitution.Spark wrote:
The latter ofc but I'm yet to actually hear any legal arguments either way over the constitutionality of this.
Ken agreed with me too so mehShocking wrote:
Corruption is criminal.Macbeth wrote:
I don't think they are "out to get me". I think they care more about themselves than they care about doing the right thing/best thing for country. Not every person goes out and does criminal things (what the fuck kind of analogy this is I don't know) but everyone is self motivated to a serious degree especially people in positions of power.
Debate team. Join a debate team and you will learn how to do exactly that.
You're painfully naive.
ditto & you are paranoid.
All politicians are power hungry and do not actually care about the issues they represent. Gotcha.
Read a psychology book sometime.
Psychology books tell you that everyone in politics is corrupt? Ok.Macbeth wrote:
Ken agreed with me too so meh
Read a psychology book sometime.
Aren't you a philosophy student? Subscribing to the extreme version of Hobbes' views on human nature, is, to me, terribly pessimistic and close-minded. But oh well, suit yourself. Why do you even bother voting?
inane little opines
He's a misanthrope. He will always see nothing but the worst in other humans.Shocking wrote:
Psychology books tell you that everyone in politics is corrupt? Ok.Macbeth wrote:
Ken agreed with me too so meh
Read a psychology book sometime.
Aren't you a philosophy student? Subscribing to the extreme version of Hobbes' views on human nature, is, to me, terribly pessimistic and close-minded. But oh well, suit yourself. Why do you even bother voting?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay has an inferiority complex along with daddy issues. He will always be trying to out do his father and change his childhood.
don't get banned again guiz
Not everyone but 99%, yes. I would say that percentage gets much lower as you move from federal -> state -> local.
It's nice to think politicians have the best interests of the citizens as a top priority, but in the US that just isn't true. Maybe its different in Europe.
I vote for people who I think are going to do a good job. None of the people I vote for ever get elected though
It's nice to think politicians have the best interests of the citizens as a top priority, but in the US that just isn't true. Maybe its different in Europe.
I vote for people who I think are going to do a good job. None of the people I vote for ever get elected though
And your views in here are more or less reinforcing that. Can't afford healthcare? Too bad. Made poor decisions with your money? Too bad. Reminds me of a certain former member.Jay wrote:
He's a misanthrope. He will always see nothing but the worst in other humans.Shocking wrote:
Psychology books tell you that everyone in politics is corrupt? Ok.Macbeth wrote:
Ken agreed with me too so meh
Read a psychology book sometime.
Aren't you a philosophy student? Subscribing to the extreme version of Hobbes' views on human nature, is, to me, terribly pessimistic and close-minded. But oh well, suit yourself. Why do you even bother voting?
Doesn't really sound like Kennedy's leaning towards not repealing it. I expect a 5-4 decision in which it's repealed and we probably won't see any comprehensive attempt at healthcare reform for probably another 20 years.
Based on what?
Based on the fact that:
1) They're practically using Obama's own arguments from the '08 campaign against him now.
2) Kennedy and Roberts have seemingly aligned with the "the gov't can regulate your muffler, but not force you to buy a car" argument.
3) When was the last real, clear comprehensive attempt at widespread reform before this? The 1993 Clinton attempt? Correct me if I'm wrong.
1) They're practically using Obama's own arguments from the '08 campaign against him now.
2) Kennedy and Roberts have seemingly aligned with the "the gov't can regulate your muffler, but not force you to buy a car" argument.
3) When was the last real, clear comprehensive attempt at widespread reform before this? The 1993 Clinton attempt? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Damn liberals always with the reforms.
I hated curves on tests in school too. I'm a strong believer in receiving what you earn.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
And your views in here are more or less reinforcing that. Can't afford healthcare? Too bad. Made poor decisions with your money? Too bad. Reminds me of a certain former member.Jay wrote:
He's a misanthrope. He will always see nothing but the worst in other humans.Shocking wrote:
Psychology books tell you that everyone in politics is corrupt? Ok.
Aren't you a philosophy student? Subscribing to the extreme version of Hobbes' views on human nature, is, to me, terribly pessimistic and close-minded. But oh well, suit yourself. Why do you even bother voting?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
This.Jay wrote:
You don't have to You convert when you're done.
Easier to work in SI, then put out the end results in US units (and metric in parenthesis).
Easier to work with, and no need to translate metric units for middle managers.
Yeah, that would have been a better solution, IMO.Dilbert_X wrote:
Compelling people to buy overpriced healthcare sucks ass, and may well be too far in US law.RAIMIUS wrote:
Interesting how the SCOTUS reviewing the legality of the law immediately turned into a thread on the practical effects of socialized medicine!
What do you think?
Does this law go too far in compelling people to buy healthcare? Do you think this is part of the "slippery slope" toward a limitless government, or do you think this is just a pragmatic step to address a unique situation?
The smart thing would have been to create a state-backed competitor to commercial healthcare, at a much lower rate and providing basic services.
Also, making healthcare plans more than single-state in scope might increase competition and reduce prices.
Obviously something should be done, as healthcare in the US is very costly and increasing. Yet, I don't think the government forcing people to buy private insurance is the correct (or constitutionally legal) way to go.
The "regulate mufflers, but not force people to buy cars" seems like a half-way decent analogy to me.
The commerce clause is already interpreted extremely broadly, but allowing congress to compel citizens to purchase goods because they are living is way too far, IMO. The Constitution was set up to create a government with limits (slightly broader than the Articles of Confederation, but certainly limited). If you look back at the debates back then, some didn't even want a Bill of Rights because they felt it would be redundant and might give the impression that anything not listed was a government power. The shear amount of governmental creep is incredible. Sure, some of it works decently, but we should be aware of the precedents and consequences of such actions.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2012-03-28 13:34:41)
I am no political scientist or anything but I have a feeling taking insurance away from 2.5 million people is not going to help Mitt Romney in the next election. I could be wrong. Maybe 2.5 million people would be much happier with their FREEDOMAn Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be "extraordinary" for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents' insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, "2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls," said Edwin Kneedler.
The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.
But the court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.
Hey at least doctors aren't slaves.Macbeth wrote:
I am no political scientist or anything but I have a feeling taking insurance away from 2.5 million people is not going to help Mitt Romney in the next election. I could be wrong. Maybe 2.5 million people would be much happier with their FREEDOMAn Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be "extraordinary" for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents' insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, "2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls," said Edwin Kneedler.
The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.
But the court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.
so the 'court's conservatives' have already made up their mind?
yes
Tu Stultus Es
Oral arguments tend to be the finishing touches on the written arguments. The majority of the case is in the written briefs, which were already submitted.
OP, I've not read any post so far, but will do so.
About all of the insight I can offer is to say "100% private = shit, 100% public = shit" and offer up a description of the local situation, so here goes.
We have a reasonable taxpayer-funded health system. If you're fucked up, you can get "free" (tax-funded) health care. It might not be the best around and you may have to wait a little while sometimes, but you can get fixed up if you really need it. Going to the local doc for some pills to fix your cold or whatever will cost you 2-4 hours worth of wages. From what I've heard, the UK's NHS is the cream of the crop for public health systems, though ours is still pretty good. They fixed me up when I fucked up and cut my hand open a few years back.
Public health does need funding, which means either taxes, or a government which owns a lot of shares in a lot of companies. I don't mind paying a little more each month if it means more security.
We also have a private health system. Personally, I have health insurance because I got it free through a previous employer and was able to keep the policy after I left, at the discounted rate which they paid. The policy covers either a shitload of major surgery, or a bit of major surgery and some minor GP stuff, for about 12-20 hours waged work per quarter. This private policy has paid for my wisdom teeth, and after having left said former employer in 2009 the payments are only just starting to work in my insurer's favour. The insurer, BTW, is not a company, but a co-operative. The payments go to the doctors, not shareholders, and because of this its incredibly good value.
So yeah, private and public can co-exist quite peacefully. I'm happy with my hybrid health system.
About all of the insight I can offer is to say "100% private = shit, 100% public = shit" and offer up a description of the local situation, so here goes.
We have a reasonable taxpayer-funded health system. If you're fucked up, you can get "free" (tax-funded) health care. It might not be the best around and you may have to wait a little while sometimes, but you can get fixed up if you really need it. Going to the local doc for some pills to fix your cold or whatever will cost you 2-4 hours worth of wages. From what I've heard, the UK's NHS is the cream of the crop for public health systems, though ours is still pretty good. They fixed me up when I fucked up and cut my hand open a few years back.
Public health does need funding, which means either taxes, or a government which owns a lot of shares in a lot of companies. I don't mind paying a little more each month if it means more security.
We also have a private health system. Personally, I have health insurance because I got it free through a previous employer and was able to keep the policy after I left, at the discounted rate which they paid. The policy covers either a shitload of major surgery, or a bit of major surgery and some minor GP stuff, for about 12-20 hours waged work per quarter. This private policy has paid for my wisdom teeth, and after having left said former employer in 2009 the payments are only just starting to work in my insurer's favour. The insurer, BTW, is not a company, but a co-operative. The payments go to the doctors, not shareholders, and because of this its incredibly good value.
So yeah, private and public can co-exist quite peacefully. I'm happy with my hybrid health system.
Last edited by Pubic (2012-03-30 03:50:48)
Sometimes taxes are necessary to preserve freedom.