Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[Alpo]

someone says repeal it and you slam that saying what do you replace it with, and we'll never have a free market. Then I ask you what YOU would replace it with you say it's up to us to replace it, even though we just said repeal, not replace. Then when called on it you call it a tangent and don't answer. OK.

You have had a tendency toward hyperbole in your past few posts. "crap" "slam". I suppose it isn't personal and just a state of mind?

 

[hoosierdoc]

You have had a tendency toward hyperbole in your past few posts. "crap" "slam". I suppose it isn't personal and just a state of mind?

not sure. maybe "slam" is too harsh, how about just "tell people they're wrong"

crap is a catchall term for me

 

[actaeon277]

what's archer? I hear cool young people use it so I use their terms to fight my aging body.

[video=youtube;OEYwOWjQiz4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&persist_app=1&v=OEYwOWjQiz4[/video]

 

[Alpo]

OK. Thanks.

Yeah, we have a disagreement about the government's ability to tax (16th Amendment provides for same and is evidence of the assent of the people). We have disagreement about the government's role in providing for the common good (general welfare [preamble], tax and spend and uniformity clauses). We have a disagreement about history. We disagree about the nature of free markets.

I'm certain there are other things where we have disagreement.

That does not make me a radical liberal, communist, intellectual snob or any other such thing some have mentioned. It is a disagreement about the reasons people come together to form groups and states and countries. and the economic policies and practices necessary to keep a representative democracy afloat.

What I tend to see here among some is a form of rugged individualism that harkens to past heroes but has little to do with today. I'm not fond of slogans like "tax is theft". The 16th Amendment of the Constitution granted that power at the behest of Congress, 2/3rds of the states and a significant portion of electorate. The earth is not flat and taxation is not theft. The South lost the Civil War. Badly.

Having said that, it does not mean I support many of the social justice programs and initiatives that the democrats have gotten into law. Quite the contrary. As it relates to Obamacare, I believe that the cries for repeal without an alternative to replace the program is ill-considered.

Do I have an alternative? Why should I have one? We have a program. If the republicans don't like it, they can fix it. But we have as some have counted over 75 million with pre-existing conditions. I'm not personally affected, so I'm not worried about my ox being gored.

But, if you gore 75 million oxes, you'll have a stampede. I think Trump is smart enough to recognize that. But I think Congress is comprised primarily of morons.

 

[bwframe]

Trump vows ‘insurance for everybody’ in Obamacare replacement plan

 

[steveh_131]

Yes it was. Here is the full text of the decision if you have time. It is always good to speak from documents where possible, don't you think?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/221/1

You're still arguing that Standard Oil qualifies as 'predatory capitalism', and posting court decisions that support it. I'm not arguing against that, Alpo.

The document that you cited features a supreme court ruling that occurred in 1911. Standard Oil's market share had begun dropping long before 1911. Free market competition was bringing prices down, building crucial infrastructure and improving the quality and efficiency of the industry.

If you want to call it 'predatory capitalism' by the Supreme Court's definition, I won't argue against you. But for the third (and hopefully last) time: Sign me up for another. I like low prices, efficiency, and freedom and that is exactly what was occurring until the Supreme Court stuck their nose into something that the free market was already correcting.

One shouldn't be forced to do anything; however, if you think that private charitable contributions have adequately addressed the situation of the poor in the past through voluntary donations, you might need to dig a bit deeper.

I have never argued that private charitable contributions have adequately addressed the situation of the poor. However, if you actually believe the first portion of your statement:

One shouldn't be forced to do anything

then charitable donations, while inadequate, are the only moral vehicle for addressing the poor. And if you aren't satisfied with them then I suggest that you pick your charity and push hard to support it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Trump vows ‘insurance for everybody’ in Obamacare replacement plan

The more interesting question is do you support it? But seriously, maybe I'm missing something. We're replacing one govt healthcare plan with another? If Obama had proposed whatever plan the GOP is going to come up with, surely it would've been opposed. How is this new plan any better than what it's going to replace, looking at the overall result?

 

[bwframe]

Notice that the dems are often quick to throw around numbers without any substantiation?
Blah, blah, blah millions...

You would think a group known for making stuff up would be more inclined to straighten up their bad reputation? After 8 years of saying over and over to "make it true," in people's minds, they can't get that we are over that?

 

[Jludo]

The more interesting question is do you support it? But seriously, maybe I'm missing something. We're replacing one govt healthcare plan with another? If Obama had proposed whatever plan the GOP is going to come up with, surely it would've been opposed. How is this new plan any better than what it's going to replace, looking at the overall result?

No no, one is 'free market' universal Healthcare...

 

[ATM]

...I'm not fond of slogans like "tax is theft". The 16th Amendment of the Constitution granted that power at the behest of Congress, 2/3rds of the states and a significant portion of electorate. The earth is not flat and taxation is not theft. The South lost the Civil War. Badly...

You're not fond of definitions, I get it.

Who had the power to rob without consequence that they could grant that power to another?

Taxation is theft, and a form of slavery.

Any state that defies the edicts of the U.S. may be subjugated with force, this is our world now.

Don't like it? Move to another world, right?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You're not fond of definitions, I get it.

Who had the power to rob without consequence that they could grant that power to another?

Taxation is theft, and a form of slavery.

Any state that defies the edicts of the U.S. may be subjugated with force, this is our world now.

Don't like it? Move to another world, right?

Taxation is a form of taxation. There's no comparison to slavery. You don't like being taxed, leave the system.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Trump vows ‘insurance for everybody’ in Obamacare replacement plan

The more interesting question is do you support it? But seriously, maybe I'm missing something. We're replacing one govt healthcare plan with another? If Obama had proposed whatever plan the GOP is going to come up with, surely it would've been opposed. How is this new plan any better than what it's going to replace, looking at the overall result?

No no, one is 'free market' universal Healthcare...

This makes me sorta itch.

Republicans, democrats, and most others can agree medicines are too expensive and medical care in general is outrageous. If the government is going to be funding medicare and Medicaid, I guess I don't have a problem with them negotiating what prices they'll be on the hook for paying. But if we want to lower the cost of prescriptions, while we're in the repealing mood, why not repeal the laws that contribute to those high costs?

To Kut's point. The republicans are in a potential no-win situation. The fact of the matter is taking the free market approach that would scratch the itch of a libertarian or conservative, will undoubtedly cause some of the democrat's poster children to lose coverage and would no-doubt be played to the hilt, showing how uncaring and heartless those rascally republicans really are.

 

[HubertGummer]

That's why the Republicans must replace it with something. I am NOT a fan of .gov sticking its nose where it has no business being, but if the Rs take Obamacare away and don't pit something else in its place, they will never win another election.

This is why we should NEVER vote for a person who wants to expand social programs. Once you give the people free stuff(by taking from others), you can never undo it. People get used to the idea of getting whatever for free and they will not give it up.

 

[Jludo]

This makes me sorta itch.

Republicans, democrats, and most others can agree medicines are too expensive and medical care in general is outrageous. If the government is going to be funding medicare and Medicaid, I guess I don't have a problem with them negotiating what prices they'll be on the hook for paying. But if we want to lower the cost of prescriptions, while we're in the repealing mood, why not repeal the laws that contribute to those high costs?

To Kut's point. The republicans are in a potential no-win situation. The fact of the matter is taking the free market approach that would scratch the itch of a libertarian or conservative, will undoubtedly cause some of the democrat's poster children to lose coverage and would no-doubt be played to the hilt, showing how uncaring and heartless those rascally republicans really are.

Are they wrong? How is the situation now any different than it was before? The left berates the right for being heartless all the time, should Republicans care if that's because they're taking away a perk or fighting to block it in the first place?

 

[Jludo]

That's why the Republicans must replace it with something. I am NOT a fan of .gov sticking its nose where it has no business being, but if the Rs take Obamacare away and don't pit something else in its place, they will never win another election.

This is why we should NEVER vote for a person who wants to expand social programs. Once you give the people free stuff(by taking from others), you can never undo it. People get used to the idea of getting whatever for free and they will not give it up.

If your party isn't willing to scale anything back all they're fighting for is the captains chair in the titanic.

 

[jamil]

Yes it was. Here is the full text of the decision if you have time. It is always good to speak from documents where possible, don't you think?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/221/1




One shouldn't be forced to do anything; however, if you think that private charitable contributions have adequately addressed the situation of the poor in the past through voluntary donations, you might need to dig a bit deeper.

OK. Thanks.

Yeah, we have a disagreement about the government's ability to tax (16th Amendment provides for same and is evidence of the assent of the people). We have disagreement about the government's role in providing for the common good (general welfare [preamble], tax and spend and uniformity clauses). We have a disagreement about history. We disagree about the nature of free markets.

About "general welfare", why did it take 150 years for elected government to figure out that it means congress has the power to tax and spend without limit? What makes you think "general welfare" applies to individuals? It is clear from the historical arguments, that for a long time, and even among the Hamiltonians, "general welfare" applies to the United States as a sovereign state, and not the whims of individuals. It means the federal government has the power to act in the interests of its own well being, but within the restrictions placed upon it by the constitution. It's only a recent phenom that people who wanted to buy other people's votes, abused the meaning to justify spending for any whim.

At this point, we are beyond constitutional spending. It is very unlikely that this will ever change to any meaningful extent. Your side has conned the nation into believing it is immoral not to confiscate other people's resources from people who've earned them, and redistribute them to others who haven't. The people who've done that over the past 50 years have now extracted all the money of the current generations, and now we're taking it from the future several generations.

If you think it's immoral not to confiscate the wealth of people who earned it, and give to people who didn't, I have a simple question to ask. Really, this is a collective question I ask of the left generally, not you specifically. If "you" can go to the polls and flip a lever to relieve your conscience so easily, why is it so difficult to click "donate" on a website to help the poor? Why must you vote to take it by force instead of putting your own money where your mouth is?

The left likes to remind us how wealthy they are: Left and Right coast elites are swimming in wealth. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Hollywood elites, and the list goes on and on. If you are so morally superior, why do you donate so little to the poor, compared with what you donate to politicians who promise to confiscate even more?

Why can't you guys put your own money where your mouth is? I've talked several times about a fantacy tax plan where everyone pays a modest flat rate income tax to pay for Madisonian constitutional expenditures, and beyond that, if you want the government to spend money on something, YOU right the check for it. I call that the put your money where your mouth is tax. No more pretending to be moral by flipping the lever for a politician who claims they'll end poverty by distributing more of earners wealth.

As for the nature of free markets, I'm not opposed to having courts settle disagreements about companies taking unfair advantage of the markets. But we'd need to make the court system more available to the small and less susceptible to the influence of the large.

 

[steveh_131]

Taxation is theft, and a form of slavery.

I completely agree with this from a moral perspective. On the other hand, I must currently accept it as the status quo of our constitutional republic.

I am a libertarian because I am also pragmatic. My belief that taxation is immoral does not mean that I am suggesting that it is practical to completely overthrow our government. It is simply a guiding principle that I think we should use when making policy decisions.

Since we can not practically eliminate the practice of taxation while operating under the U.S. constitution then the simple and moral answer is to minimize it in every way possible and imaginable. Each and every dollar that the government spends needs to be viewed as a dollar that we stole from someone. In fact, considering how deep in debt we are, it needs to be viewed as a dollar that we are stealing from our own children.

Now that we have this in perspective, are you ready to start stealing from your own children to fund more profoundly inefficient and ineffective government programs? I know I'm excited!

 

[steveh_131]

Why can't you guys put your own money where your mouth is? I've talked several times about a fantacy tax plan where everyone pays a modest flat rate income tax to pay for Madisonian constitutional expenditures, and beyond that, if you want the government to spend money on something, YOU right the check for it. I call that the put your money where your mouth is tax. No more pretending to be moral by flipping the lever for a politician who claims they'll end poverty by distributing more of earners wealth.

Preach.

 

[ATM]

Taxation is a form of taxation. There's no comparison to slavery. You don't like being taxed, leave the system.

The solar system? Eventually, the U.S. will claim whatever planet I find and enslave it, too.

 

[HubertGummer]

If your party isn't willing to scale anything back all they're fighting for is the captains chair in the titanic.

You know as well as I do that if the Rs do away with Obamacare, the left will scream bloody murder about all these poor people that lost their free ride and now have to pay for it. The Rs will lose elections and when the D's get back in they will reinstall Obamacare and we will still be hosed.