Health Care Summit (Live Thread)

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

First, display to me that you have educated yourself well enough on both sides in this regard so I know it isn't a waste of time.

The commerce clause has basically been so perverted that congress can regulate damn near anything nowadays. However, it is one thing to regulate activity that individuals choose to engage in, and another to FORCE individuals to engage in an activity.

Granted, that's a distinction the Supreme Court has never had to rule on, but there's no fucking way they will find it to be constitutional. What's to stop Congress from passing a law that says you must buy a GM car?

Going behind the mandate, the tax is unconstitutional to.

[Talint]

Also:

When you claim that your country has the best health care in the world, when the world ranks you at #37...I don't know. Seems very "The Emperor's New Clothes" to me. Yeah the report is almost ten years old, but you can't tell me the system has gotten any better since then.

[Not Kuno]

Apparently if youre a republican

care = money

"The elected officials came to the US for their surgeries because we have CARE"

(no they came because theyre rich fucks that dont want to wait)

[Zhais]

well Barrasso is a moron...

Holy shit, yup a moron.

"Derp a derp, these rich folks have the option of affording a high-deductible care" implying that it fixes small business owners or self-employed can?

[ZarakiKujata]

well Barrasso is a moron...

Holy shit, yup a moron.

"Derp a derp, these rich folks have the option of affording a high-deductible care" implying that it fixes small business owners or self-employed can?

He's from Wyoming wtf do you expect?

[Krazy]

Poor McCain, Obama's keeping him out past supper time.

[Acturus]

Congressman Henry "Ratface" Waxman is speaking!

Get that man a hunk of cheese.

[Not not Mattaru]

The commerce clause has basically been so perverted that congress can regulate damn near anything nowadays. However, it is one thing to regulate activity that individuals choose to engage in, and another to FORCE individuals to engage in an activity.

Granted, that's a distinction the Supreme Court has never had to rule on, but there's no fucking way they will find it to be constitutional. What's to stop Congress from passing a law that says you must buy a GM car?

Going behind the mandate, the tax is unconstitutional to.

The analogy does not really work here. Although the government is saying people must be covered by health insurance it isn't restricting choice in the same way as saying you have to buy a GM.

Even if a public option was still around it is not the same as saying "you have to take the public option" or "you have to buy a program from Blue Cross Blue Shield". Its saying you have to be covered, if no one has a plan that you can afford, you can get a public option.

It is the difference between saying a company must meet an environmental standard, and they can do it how they see fit versus you have to use scrubbers whether or not a better option is available.

So, this is not an issue I am fundamentally against, but it does not apply to what we are talking about, because it simply is not being proposed.

Moreover, you are discussing a type of mandate, not mandates in general. Specify, because any law is technically a government mandate (unless this is some special jargon you are talking about and no very right GOP rhetoric doesn't count) because it is an authoritative prohibition on certain things.

I won't even get into the tax thing that was debated to death months ago.

[kuronosan]

Did he really just make an etch-a-sketch analogy?

[Not not Mattaru]

Did he really just make an etch-a-sketch analogy?

He was just trying to




Shake things up.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

The analogy does not really work here. Although the government is saying people must be covered by health insurance it isn't restricting choice in the same way as saying you have to buy a GM.

Even if a public option was still around it is not the same as saying "you have to take the public option" or "you have to buy a program from Blue Cross Blue Shield". Its saying you have to be covered, if no one has a plan that you can afford, you can get a public option.

It is the difference between saying a company must meet an environmental standard, and they can do it how they see fit versus you have to use scrubbers whether or not a better option is available.

So, this is not an issue I am fundamentally against, but it does not apply to what we are talking about, because it simply is not being proposed.

Moreover, you are discussing a type of mandate, not mandates in general. Specify, because any law is technically a government mandate (unless this is some special jargon you are talking about and no very right GOP rhetoric doesn't count) because it is an authoritative prohibition on certain things.

I won't even get into the tax thing that was debated to death months ago.

So, your point is, the govt. can mandate an activity so long as it doesn't mandate a specific activity? So the govt. can't mandate that everyone buy GM, but they can mandate that everyone buy a car? Gimme a break, same fucking thing.

And ur analogy is actually the one that doesn't make sense b/c ur talking about an activity someone chooses to engage in, not one that people choose not to engage in.

[kuronosan]

He was just trying to




Shake things up.

Requesting shoop. NAO!

[Mizango]

He was just trying to




Shake things up.

Oh man, winnar.

[Acturus]

Wooo!

Dodd made the point about the hidden tax to the insured due to the healthcare usage of the uninsured. I like when that point is made.

[kuronosan]

Representative Rangel is officially the most intelligent person sitting at that table.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Representative Rangel is officially the most intelligent person sitting at that table.

Yet he can't do his taxes correctly.

[kuronosan]

Yet he can't do his taxes correctly.

Spoken like a true dipshit.

I imagine that there are millions of things you could be good at, or that you are very intelligent, but can you perform surgery on yourself? Fix your own car? Have you designed, built, and paid for your own house?

What the fuck does doing your taxes wrong have to do with intelligence and common sense?

Nothing. Just shut the fuck up.

[Not not Mattaru]

So, your point is, the govt. can mandate an activity so long as it doesn't mandate a specific activity? So the govt. can't mandate that everyone buy GM, but they can mandate that everyone buy a car? Gimme a break, same fucking thing.

And ur analogy is actually the one that doesn't make sense b/c ur talking about an activity someone chooses to engage in, not one that people choose not to engage in.

No I'm saying your analogy is not applicable to the issue at hand. I prefer not to dig deep into the issue of mandates if it is not necessary, because if there is no clash in what we are talking about we aren't debating an issue worth debating over.

No actually my analogy does not. If you are talking about the environmental standards issue people have to meet them, because otherwise it allows negative externalities to go entirely uncaptured. People who choose not to engage in these are outlawed, a kind of regulation, a mandate. I'll extrapolate on this at the bottom.

Well, I suppose technically the government can mandate everyone to buy a car because it is not limited by the constitution. I doubt that would happen. I suppose you would argue that the Supreme Court ought to make it unconstitutional. You should get on that. I'm not here to debate about all the weird things the Congress could do.

In the case of health care, even if health care does not pass. People still have to pay for it through either taxes or insurance premiums. People are in a sense still purchasing something as long as they have insurance and/or pay taxes because even the uninsured get care. The care given is basically an uncaptured, inefficient market. By requiring people to have health insurance it is not making them buy anything new, or anything at all - it brings them into a health care system that is capable of negotiating for coverage.

People get sick or hurt, they go to the hospital, the try and get medical attention and someone pays for it. This isn't a car, or a normal consumer good, because the health care system is non-exclusive for emergency procedures. Whether you can buy it or not it is provided. So the option left is people don't get emergency care or it is denied outright if people can not pay.

You may want to make it a constitutional issue, and I think that is dangerous simply because ridiculous abuses of a mandate are weeded out in the democratic process on the whole, while reasonable mandates that fall within a government's normal functions (i.e. regulating some markets to protect consumers, citizens, breaking monopolies etc.) would disappear. While there are negative and positive choices, saying someone can not produce a certain product for safety reasons is simply removing an option off their menu of choices, the difference between that and saying someone must produce or buy one particular thing is the degree to which choice is being restricted - it is not an absolute, its a question of degree.

[Headspace]

I haven't been to a dentist in 3 years because I don't have healthcare nor do I qualify for any of the free shit.

Now my jaw/wisdom teeth area really fucking hurts and I'm sure I have a few cavities from when I was an irresponsible teen

good shit

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

No I'm saying your analogy is not applicable to the issue at hand. I prefer not to dig deep into the issue of mandates if it is not necessary, because if there is no clash in what we are talking about we aren't debating an issue worth debating over.

No actually my analogy does not. If you are talking about the environmental standards issue people have to meet them, because otherwise it allows negative externalities to go entirely uncaptured. People who choose not to engage in these are outlawed, a kind of regulation, a mandate. I'll extrapolate on this at the bottom.

Well, I suppose technically the government can mandate everyone to buy a car because it is not limited by the constitution. I doubt that would happen. I suppose you would argue that the Supreme Court ought to make it unconstitutional. You should get on that. I'm not here to debate about all the weird things the Congress could do.

In the case of health care, even if health care does not pass. People still have to pay for it through either taxes or insurance premiums. People are in a sense still purchasing something as long as they have insurance and/or pay taxes because even the uninsured get care. The care given is basically an uncaptured, inefficient market. By requiring people to have health insurance it is not making them buy anything new, or anything at all - it brings them into a health care system that is capable of negotiating for coverage.

People get sick or hurt, they go to the hospital, the try and get medical attention and someone pays for it. This isn't a car, or a normal consumer good, because the health care system is non-exclusive for emergency procedures. Whether you can buy it or not it is provided. So the option left is people don't get emergency care or it is denied outright if people can not pay.

You may want to make it a constitutional issue, and I think that is dangerous simply because ridiculous abuses of a mandate are weeded out in the democratic process on the whole, while reasonable mandates that fall within a government's normal functions (i.e. regulating some markets to protect consumers, citizens, breaking monopolies etc.) would disappear. While there are negative and positive choices, saying someone can not produce a certain product for safety reasons is simply removing an option off their menu of choices, the difference between that and saying someone must produce or buy one particular thing is the degree to which choice is being restricted - it is not an absolute, its a question of degree.

I'll try this one more time.

Environmental regulations regulate some activity that a person CHOOSES to engage in, your chimney sweeper/coal something example. They are only forced to to follow the regs if they engage in said activity. If they CHOOSE not to engage in the activity, they don't have to follow the regs.

Health insurance legislation says YOU MUST purchase health insurance. In our current situation no one MUST purchase health insurance.

Half the shit you posted was again pointless b/c you merely listed activities that are again, voluntary.