“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
1. force small business to provide health insurance at $17K/yr. or a $2,000 fine - they will pay the fine and save $15,000
2. force then to pay $15/hr min wage - insuring they will never opt for insuring employees.
There is a ban moon on the rise.
That is simply false. But, for the fun of it, tell me: why do you think people join societies?Originally Posted by ludin
I don't want to live in a society where everything is socialized. Nor do I think pure communism is an ideal economic or governmental model--and I have never said otherwise. However, some socialization is good, and socialized health care would be a good, in my view.Originally Posted by ludin
That said, you're simply dodging the point, which was about why societies exist--to wit, taking care of all the individual members, who would do far worse living on their own. We survive better and have longer and more enjoyable lives living as part of a collective, with certain things guaranteed by society as a whole. It's not an argument against the notion that X is good to say that too much of X is bad. For instance: two aspirin when you have a headache is good. Two whole bottles of aspirin is bad. Similarly, some socialization is good. Too much is bad.
For this to be true, it would be necessary for a semi-large contingent of liberals to have argued against, and taken active steps to shut down, the single-payer option. Can you point to some such coalition or group that is both certifiably liberal and who argued thusly?Originally Posted by ludin
Just to be clear: I imagine your definition of liberal and mine are fairly different. Obama is not "far left," for example, and neither are Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, or the like. Find someone like Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer, Noam Chomsky, or etc. who took steps to kill the single-payer option.
Yes, the article does propose that.Originally Posted by ludin
I disagree. Section 1333 allows states to enter into compacts which allow insurance sales across state lines. I bought my insurance on the market place from BCBS of Texas--I don't live in Texas.Originally Posted by ludin
The arrangement is similar to any other mass marketing of a necessary commodity. I can cross state lines and buy a candy bar without the two states in question having any formal agreement. But (for good reason) I cannot simply plop down a huge factory farm in, say, Iowa and ship all my produce to California without abiding by some regulations, some of which are drawn by the Federal government, others of which are decided by inter-state compact.
Didn't it? The question was whether conservatives think that opening exchanges would reduce prices of health care or not. You said, in post 345, something to the effect that this was a lie which almost every republican knew.Originally Posted by ludin
I agree with this, but not for the same reasons. We simply cannot have competition in health care coverage. I don't mean that we ought not to have--i.e. that there's some moral imperative about it (although I do think such imperative exists). Rather, I think the simple fact is that big businesses, and insurance in particular, will always be subject to some level of collusion. It's to insurers' advantage to drive up prices, and if all of them do it, offering slightly different bells and whistles, they'll all make more money.Originally Posted by ludin
Don't mistake cost for price. The cost is disconnected from the price in the case of health insurance and health care.Originally Posted by ludin
What a law actually says no longer matters - what is important is only what those supporting it really meant it to say.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
One interesting point that seems to float around this thread is whether the justices overstepped their bounds by attempting to understand the intent behind the law, rather than give it a purely literal reading.
I'm a little surprised this point has legs. One of the pillars of statutory construction in jurisprudence for roughly the last three centuries has been to figure out the intent of the legislature. This, for a simple reason: language is not perfect, and people who use language even less so. However carefully something is worded, it will never perfectly express the intent of the person doing the wording. Questions of interpretation will arise, and it would be simply foolish to ignore intent.
That said, words and phrases do not have fixed meanings. If we're at a party and I say "well, all the beer is gone," people don't suddenly fall on their knees and cry to the skies "why, O Lord, why!?!" I don't mean all the beer in the world is gone. I just mean, all the beer in our supply is gone. But if I instead say "all the dinosaurs are gone," people don't leave the party expecting to run into dinosaurs. The meaning of "all" changes from one sentence to the next. Similarly, if I say the price of a Ferrari is higher than the price of a Toyota, no one goes to the Ferrari dealer looking up to the sky to find the prices. Words change meaning in context, and part of context is the intent of the speaker (or, in this case, writers).
Last edited by ashurbanipal; 06-26-15 at 09:07 AM.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.