Slogan/motto:
For as much as it depends on you, live at peace with others.
Reputation:
July 5th, 2012, 08:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newman
So the geographical size of a territory is inversely proportional to the authority the corresponding government has over those residing therein?
One is a state the other is the federal government (a consortium of states).. huge difference.
The way this current debate is going, you would think that proponents of the Obamacare would just like to see those pesky state governments done away with and just absorbed by the federal government.
One is a state the other is the federal government (a consortium of states).. huge difference.
If by "huge difference", you mean "huge difference in size", then I think we agree. Where I don't follow you is how that size correlates to a change in the authority of the corresponding government, unless, of course, we go to the smallest possible size, namely, the individual, and place the authority for health care decisions there! Everything else seems arbitrary to me.
Quote:
The way this current debate is going, you would think that proponents of the Obamacare would just like to see those pesky state governments done away with and just absorbed by the federal government.
And those detractors of Obamacare might like to see those pesky individuals and their rights done away with and just absorbed by some different tyrant closer to home!
Slogan/motto:
For as much as it depends on you, live at peace with others.
Reputation:
July 5th, 2012, 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newman
If by "huge difference", you mean "huge difference in size", then I think we agree. Where I don't follow you is how that size correlates to a change in the authority of the corresponding government, unless, of course, we go to the smallest possible size, namely, the individual, and place the authority for health care decisions there! Everything else seems arbitrary to me.
And those detractors of Obamacare might like to see those pesky individuals and their rights done away with and just absorbed by some different tyrant closer to home!
At least if its done on a state level, you can vote by your feet and move somewhere else.
On a federal level, if the law ends up being one huge mistake, we all have to suffer and the only way out is to move to another country.
Big difference... this country has 50 different laboratories to use to get health care right.. and we are dumb for not using them.
At least if its done on a state level, you can vote by your feet and move somewhere else.
So, criminal legislation is ok as long as people can easily move about?
Quote:
On a federal level, if the law ends up being one huge mistake, we all have to suffer and the only way out is to move to another country.
Or, not consent to the criminal legislation in the first place...
Wow... moving to a different country is a preferred option? Preferred to nullification, repealing, or just plainly ignore the legislation?
Quote:
Big difference... this country has 50 different laboratories to use to get health care right.. and we are dumb for not using them.
Instead of 50 different laboratories, which still configures the entire population to a dismal lab rat existence, I propose 311,591,917 different laboratories, in which each individual is not a lab rat, but the experimenter!
Slogan/motto:
For as much as it depends on you, live at peace with others.
Reputation:
July 5th, 2012, 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newman
Instead of 50 different laboratories, which still configures the entire population to a dismal lab rat existence, I propose 311,591,917 different laboratories, in which each individual is not a lab rat, but the experimenter!
That is what we have now... people get to chose the level care they receive (or not receive).
It's too bad that the governments impact on health care has been so detrimental in the past... its meddling has put insurance out of the reach of the poor.
There is a big difference between a state doing it and the federal government doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HisServant
One is a state the other is the federal government (a consortium of states).. huge difference.
Why Republicans Should Not Complain
Republicans are fond of calling the states the laboratories of democracy. In a rational world Romney would be proud to claim his share of the credit for a bipartisan achievement that he was the first to introduce and successfully test in his own state "laboratory." It was adopted by a centrist Democratic President over the objections of his own base who wanted a single payer plan similar to Medicare or the national health plans of the rest of the advanced nations.
What many call Obamacare was hatched in the Heritage Foundation, a Republican think-tank, and first enacted by Mitt Romney, a Republican Governor. The Congress and President were very bipartisan in regards to the ideas in this healthcare reform and the conservative leaning Supreme Court up held this law 5 to 4.
How do Democrats show more bipartisanship than by enacting the other side's law?
Congressional Republicans on Thursday dispatched some of their best and brightest to the Supreme Court in heady anticipation of the GOP triumph that never came.
But when Chief Justice Roberts announced the decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch "folded his arms across his chest, his mouth slightly agape." His slack-jawed response was altogether fitting. After all, the same Orrin Hatch who now describes so-called Obamacare as unconstitutional and "an awful piece of crap" in 1993 co-sponsored, for the federal level, legislation with an individual mandate at its center.
And as it turns out, while Orrin Hatch and his GOP colleagues are now protesting how the Affordable Care Act is funded, Hatch acknowledged that when President Bush signed the $400 billion unfunded Medicare prescription drug program into law, "It was standard practice not to pay for things."
Slogan/motto:
For as much as it depends on you, live at peace with others.
Reputation:
July 5th, 2012, 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbang123
Why Republicans Should Not Complain
Republicans are fond of calling the states the laboratories of democracy. In a rational world Romney would be proud to claim his share of the credit for a bipartisan achievement that he was the first to introduce and successfully test in his own state "laboratory." It was adopted by a centrist Democratic President over the objections of his own base who wanted a single payer plan similar to Medicare or the national health plans of the rest of the advanced nations.
What many call Obamacare was hatched in the Heritage Foundation, a Republican think-tank, and first enacted by Mitt Romney, a Republican Governor. The Congress and President were very bipartisan in regards to the ideas in this healthcare reform and the conservative leaning Supreme Court up held this law 5 to 4.
How do Democrats show more bipartisanship than by enacting the other side's law?
Congressional Republicans on Thursday dispatched some of their best and brightest to the Supreme Court in heady anticipation of the GOP triumph that never came.
But when Chief Justice Roberts announced the decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch "folded his arms across his chest, his mouth slightly agape." His slack-jawed response was altogether fitting. After all, the same Orrin Hatch who now describes so-called Obamacare as unconstitutional and "an awful piece of crap" in 1993 co-sponsored, for the federal level, legislation with an individual mandate at its center.
And as it turns out, while Orrin Hatch and his GOP colleagues are now protesting how the Affordable Care Act is funded, Hatch acknowledged that when President Bush signed the $400 billion unfunded Medicare prescription drug program into law, "It was standard practice not to pay for things."
You just blabbering again? nothing there makes any sort of sense.
Nothing you want to deal with - but the law has been uphelded by the Supreme Court and won't be repealed anytime soon - Deal with it.
I, on the other hand, don't like the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision (which says that corporations can give unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns) but until it is overturned I have no choice but to accept that as the law of the land.
Slogan/motto:
For as much as it depends on you, live at peace with others.
Reputation:
July 5th, 2012, 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbang123
Nothing you want to deal with - but the law has been uphelded by the Supreme Court and won't be repealed anytime soon - Deal with it.
I, on the other hand, don't like the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision (which says that corporations can give unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns) but until it is overturned I have no choice but to accept that as the law of the land.
Yes, it will get repealed come January 2013... so there is nothing for me to get used to. 6 months and counting.
Linear Mode
