• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

ttwtt78640 said:
How much do these other nations spend (% of GDP) on their military, education, agricultural subsidies and other "social programs"? These other nations made different CHOICES than the U.S. and allocate their tax money on those things in different proportions than we do. Perhaps if the U.S. spent the SAME dollar amount, per patient/citizen, as they did, then we would have that same "quality" of care. Using apples to moonrocks comparisons is insane.
Click to expand...

Don't allow him to distract you

UHC in other nations are not doing fine. Just look at the report that just came out about the NHS in the UK.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps if the U.S. spent the SAME dollar amount, per patient/citizen, as they did, then we would have that same "quality" of care. Using apples to moonrocks comparisons is insane.
Click to expand...

You have missed the point by a country mile. On averag those other countries spend HALF as much per capita as we do.

OECDChart1.gif
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
No lol. That isn't how politics works. The right went bezerk over it. That has a huge impact. Democrats in swing states couldn't take the heat and they caved. That's what all those tea parties were about- trying to force democrats in swing states to cave.
Click to expand...
You defeat your own argument, but that is OK since is was false to begin with. By your own admission here, concessions were made to wavering and cowardly DEMOCRATS, not republicans. How many votes did Pelosi need to pass Obamacare through the House? How many democrat members did she have at the time? She needed to appease wavering democrats, not woo mean republicans as you first contended. This was a democrat bill that was signed into law by democrats. If it was wildly popular you would be trumpeting the fact that republicans played no role rather than thanking them for forcing democrats to make needed concessions. The fact is, the law is unpopular. Obama never mentions it, democrats never mention it. And you are trying to put the blame for its deficiencies upon republicans--who had no role in the process. That is just partisan revisionism on your part. Play it straight and your position would have more credibility.
 
teamosil said:
I agree there are some similarities- they both want corporations to have less control over government. But they differ radically on the other side of the equation. OWS wants government to force corporations into line. The Tea Party wants government to let corporations off the leash to do whatever they want to us.
Click to expand...

I disagree that that is what the Tea Party wants. They want a controlled budget and fiscal responsibility. Given all the money the fed gives to various industries, they would be happy to review the incestuous relationship between government and corporations.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

reefedjib said:
I take it your company was not in the agriculture, defense, pharmaceutical, energy, telecom or financial industries. Were you working for a designer label?
Click to expand...

I was at a software company. But most of the regulations for those other industries don't kick in for small companies anyways. For example, energy company regulations will usually say that they apply to companies making more than X megawatts of energy or with more than Y employees or revenues or whatever.

But, those industries you list aren't just random. Those are all industries that have the potential to impose particularly enormous negative externalities on the general public. So it makes sense that they would be more heavily regulated, right?

reefedjib said:
Ok, I am with you. The commerce clause has not played a fundamental role in drug criminalization, but it is not a minor role either, at least in the case of marijuana. Otherwise, I could grow for personal consumption. See Gonzales v. Raich.
Click to expand...

If you're in a state that decriminalized it, yes, that is true.
 
reefedjib said:
I disagree that that is what the Tea Party wants. They want a controlled budget and fiscal responsibility. Given all the money the fed gives to various industries, they would be happy to review the incestuous relationship between government and corporations.
Click to expand...

All the hysterical blathering about how everything is "socialism" seems to have slipped your mind somehow... That's like their main thing! Opposing government intervention with the corporations. Look at how they flipped the eff out when the federal government prohibited companies from selling outdated lightbulbs for christ's sake. The tea party is fundamentally about two things- even lower taxes than we have now and de-regulation.
 
Kandahar said:
It doesn't matter. Virtually all of them are driven by the same tribal mentality that drives their fierce opposition to the Affordable Care Act, despite the fact that there was almost no opposition (let alone outrage) to these kind of ideas among conservatives prior to 2009.
Click to expand...

Dems shoved it down the throats of the GOP , Tea Party included. It was more about the way they went about it, not listening to any input from the GOP, than it was about the specific ideas. The result is a ****ing mess.

Kandahar said:
Health care would most certainly not be common ground. In fact it's possibly the single most intractable issue between them.
Click to expand...

How do you know? Have you asked them? Floating the idea of eliminating Obamacare with Medicare for all as a single payer, private service plan may give some pause to consider.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Fletch said:
You defeat your own argument, but that is OK since is was false to begin with. By your own admission here, concessions were made to wavering and cowardly DEMOCRATS, not republicans. How many votes did Pelosi need to pass Obamacare through the House? How many democrat members did she have at the time? She needed to appease wavering democrats, not woo mean republicans as you first contended. This was a democrat bill that was signed into law by democrats. If it was wildly popular you would be trumpeting the fact that republicans played no role rather than thanking them for forcing democrats to make needed concessions. The fact is, the law is unpopular. Obama never mentions it, democrats never mention it. And you are trying to put the blame for its deficiencies upon republicans--who had no role in the process. That is just partisan revisionism on your part. Play it straight and your position would have more credibility.
Click to expand...

When either side launches a big campaign on any issue it affects politicians in both parties. You understand that, right? That isn't news to you. So what gives? Honestly it kind of seems like you're intentionally trying not to understand.
 
My friends on the left, America is gravely weakened by internal division isn't it? Internal division weakens the country in the face of peer powers who have social cohesion doesn't it?
 
reefedjib said:
Dems shoved it down the throats of the GOP , Tea Party included. It was more about the way they went about it, not listening to any input from the GOP, than it was about the specific ideas. The result is a ****ing mess.
Click to expand...

I would be sympathetic to that argument except it was crystal clear that Republicans only interest was in seeing that nothing got passed.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
When either side launches a big campaign on any issue it affects politicians in both parties. You understand that, right? That isn't news to you. So what gives? Honestly it kind of seems like you're intentionally trying not to understand.
Click to expand...
But you are changing your argument. YOur first claim, the one I have been addressing, is the false claim that democrats made concessions to republicans that weakened the bill. That is false. That republicans and the general public had serious opposition to what the democrats were doing is true, but irrelevant. The bill was crafted not to appease angry, mean republicans, but to bring in 218 nervous democrats. This is a democrat bill. Own it. You certainly would if it were popular.
 
AdamT said:
I would be sympathetic to that argument except it was crystal clear that Republicans only interest was in seeing that nothing got passed.
Click to expand...

Assume for the sake of argument that you are correct. Do you think Republicans will now cooperate with your side? Probably not. Do you think that division will weaken America?
 
reefedjib said:
Dems shoved it down the throats of the GOP , Tea Party included. It was more about the way they went about it, not listening to any input from the GOP, than it was about the specific ideas. The result is a ****ing mess.
Click to expand...

Oh bull****. The Affordable Care Act is almost identical to Mitt Romney's health care reform law in Massachusetts, and virtually every single provision in the ACA had been endorsed by prominent conservatives, including Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Robert Bennett, and the Heritage Foundation. And take a look at some of John McCain's health care ideas from the 2008 campaign. Does any of that look familiar?

The Democrats did listen to input from the GOP. They spent the entire summer (and into the fall) of 2009 asking for their input and trying to reach a compromise for a bipartisan agreement. Instead the Republicans gave them the finger, burned down the groundwork for their own ideas, pissed on the ashes, and salted the earth.

How do you know? Have you asked them? Floating the idea of eliminating Obamacare with Medicare for all as a single payer, private service plan may give some pause to consider.
Click to expand...

Even if it did (highly unlikely), all it takes is for Rush Limbaugh and FOX News to start calling it socialist. Then these same people will immediately abandon the idea and swear up and down that they've always hated such a tyrannical idea (and probably actually believe that they always have). The Tea Party is not some budding new movement of independents who happen to be conservatives fed up with the size of government; they're just a bunch of pissed off Republicans who like to dress up like Uncle Sam.
 
Kandahar said:
Oh bull****. The Affordable Care Act is almost identical to Mitt Romney's health care reform law in Massachusetts, and virtually every single provision in the ACA had been endorsed by prominent conservatives, including Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Robert Bennett, and the Heritage Foundation. And take a look at some of John McCain's health care ideas from the 2008 campaign. Does any of that look familiar?

The Democrats did listen to input from the GOP. They spent the entire summer (and into the fall) of 2009 asking for their input and trying to reach a compromise for a bipartisan agreement. Instead the Republicans gave them the finger, burned down the groundwork for their own ideas, pissed on the ashes, and salted the earth.



Even if it did (highly unlikely), all it takes is for Rush Limbaugh and FOX News to start calling it socialist. Then these same people will immediately abandon the idea and swear up and down that they've always hated such a tyrannical idea (and probably actually believe that they always have).
Click to expand...

Do you think conservatives believe you? Will conservatives now unite with you in order to save the country?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Fletch said:
But you are changing your argument. YOur first claim, the one I have been addressing, is the false claim that democrats made concessions to republicans that weakened the bill. That is false. That republicans and the general public had serious opposition to what the democrats were doing is true, but irrelevant. The bill was crafted not to appease angry, mean republicans, but to bring in 218 nervous democrats. This is a democrat bill. Own it. You certainly would if it were popular.
Click to expand...

Seriously man, try harder. I'll go through it one more time for you, but you need to concentrate. You should not be struggling with this as much as you are.

The right exerted a huge amount of pressure on the Democrats over health care reform. The teabagging, the whole paranoid conspiracy theory angle, all kinds of stuff. Democrats in swing states have to deal with that. They can't just ignore it or they won't be re-elected. So, to quell the opposition they had to make concessions. For example, we gave up the public option, gave up coverage for abortions and added a citizenship check. Those were the three biggest requests of the right and they got all three. You follow?

That isn't a change in my argument, that is me having to spell things out more simplistically because you seem to be having a hard time understanding.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
I was at a software company. But most of the regulations for those other industries don't kick in for small companies anyways. For example, energy company regulations will usually say that they apply to companies making more than X megawatts of energy or with more than Y employees or revenues or whatever.
Click to expand...

Those companies are all in capital intensive industries. It makes no sense to talk about a company in those industries that operate below the thresholds for regulation. Therefore, the regulation imposes a barrier to entry and , believe it or not, the established companies in those industries are perfectly happy with that situation. It is corporate preservation.

teamosil said:
But, those industries you list aren't just random. Those are all industries that have the potential to impose particularly enormous negative externalities on the general public. So it makes sense that they would be more heavily regulated, right?
Click to expand...

And software doesn't?!?!?!

And is government the right group to do the regulation? Seems there is room there for abuse.
 
AdamT said:
I would be sympathetic to that argument except it was crystal clear that Republicans only interest was in seeing that nothing got passed.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that either. I think both issues were in play. What a ****ing mess. We've got the best of the best on both sides of the aisle, right? Oh, brother...
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Assume for the sake of argument that you are correct. Do you think Republicans will now cooperate with your side? Probably not. Do you think that division will weaken America?
Click to expand...

I think that republicans may be more cooperative if Obama wins reelection. After all, they have explicitly said that their No. 1 goal is to beat Obama — not to lower unemployment or the deficit, but to keep Obama from winning a second term.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

reefedjib said:
And software doesn't?!?!?!
Click to expand...

Yeah... Of course it doesn't. Not sure what you mean. An energy company has the potential to create an oil spill or a nuclear disaster, for example. Nothing like that with software companies. So, they need to regulate energy companies more intensively.

reefedjib said:
And is government the right group to do the regulation? Seems there is room there for abuse.
Click to expand...

Who else could do the regulation?
 
Kandahar said:
Sounds like a good argument for spending less on military and agricultural subsidies, and reforming our education system so that we can spend less there too.



No, see, that's the thing. We *ALREADY* spend far more than any other country in the world on our health care. Yet we STILL get results that are, at best, average. Obviously the countries with universal health care are doing something right, and obviously we are doing something wrong.
Click to expand...

What is NEVER discussed is that very few more people will get ANY better medical care yet the costs, and wait times, FOR ALL will increase, thus round 2, 3 and 4 will be needed to "fix" that. I have yet to hear ANY rational argument for dropping obesity as a premium rate defining factor yet keeping smoking, or removing gender yet keeping age. The law has many ODD and contrdictory things that are, IMHO, not constitutional. Not the least of which, is levying a fine or tax for simply paying cash for one's own medical care. If I am not fortunate enough to recieve a tax free medical insurance benefit from my employer, is that now MY fault? Perhaps the PPACA should have made that employee benefit TAXABLE, as it surely benefits ONLY those that have it, since I am now to be taxed for simply lacking it. Not only do I not get that benefit, I must then pay a tax for not getting it. That is insane.
 
Kandahar said:
The Democrats did listen to input from the GOP. They spent the entire summer (and into the fall) of 2009 asking for their input and trying to reach a compromise for a bipartisan agreement. Instead the Republicans gave them the finger, burned down the groundwork for their own ideas, pissed on the ashes, and salted the earth.
Click to expand...

Oh bull****. :) The Dems completely ignored them.

Kandahar said:
Even if it did (highly unlikely), all it takes is for Rush Limbaugh and FOX News to start calling it socialist. Then these same people will immediately abandon the idea and swear up and down that they've always hated such a tyrannical idea (and probably actually believe that they always have). The Tea Party is not some budding new movement of independents who happen to be conservatives fed up with the size of government; they're just a bunch of pissed off Republicans who like to dress up like Uncle Sam.
Click to expand...

Some like Rush and whoever, but others think he is a fool. The problem exists on both sides, Dem and GOP. Anyone gets out of line and the propaganda machine goes to work to make everyone toe the party line.

Time for the Tea Party and the OWS folks to step out of line.
 
reefedjib said:
Oh bull****. :) The Dems completely ignored them.
Click to expand...

Be serious. The Dems essentially submitted a Republican plan, for Gods sake. The big Democratic addition was the public option, which they dropped because they needed a few republican votes.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What is NEVER discussed is that very few more people will get ANY better medical care yet the costs, and wait times, FOR ALL will increase, thus round 2, 3 and 4 will be needed to "fix" that. I have yet to hear ANY rational argument for dropping obesity as a premium rate defining factor yet keeping smoking, or removing gender yet keeping age. The law has many ODD and contrdictory things that are, IMHO, not constitutional. Not the least of which, is levying a fine or tax for simply paying cash for one's own medical care. If I am not fortunate enough to recieve a tax free medical insurance benefit from my employer, is that now MY fault? Perhaps the PPACA should have made that employee benefit TAXABLE, as it surely benefits ONLY those that have it, since I am now to be taxed for simply lacking it. Not only do I not get that benefit, I must then pay a tax for not getting it. That is insane.
Click to expand...

If you don't get insurance through work, you're supposed to get it on your own. If you have any trouble at all paying for it, the ACA helps you out with that. So what's the problem? You're concerned about well off people who for some inexplicable reason don't want insurance? That isn't a real issue. It's just a convoluted hypothetical. There is virtually nobody who does that. Why would anybody do that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom