ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

How would you explain the continual expansion of the US federal government's scope of authority over the past 200 years--and increasingly so in the past 50 years? That's related to this slippery slope argument, in a more general form.

You mean like...since the 60's?

[GreecePwns]

[Obamacare: The Truth]
The argument that this sets a precedent for a future government to force people to buy anything they deemed beneficial to the economy at best and beneficial to their major donors at reality is correct.

The argument that this is corporate welfare is correct.

The argument that this is an unnecessary expansion of governmental powers is correct.

The argument that this is socialism is wrong and insults the socialists.
[/Obamacare: The Truth]

[BigBallinStalin]

How would you explain the continual expansion of the US federal government's scope of authority over the past 200 years--and increasingly so in the past 50 years? That's related to this slippery slope argument, in a more general form.

You mean like...since the 60's?

Haha, sure, but a significant starting point for this expansion was 1900-1914. During the 1930s and early 1940s the expansion was strengthened.

[BigBallinStalin]

GreecePWNs,

how would you define "socialism"?

[thegreekdog]

[Obamacare: The Truth]
The argument that this sets a precedent for a future government to force people to buy anything they deemed beneficial to the economy at best and beneficial to their major donors at reality is correct.

The argument that this is corporate welfare is correct.

The argument that this is an unnecessary expansion of governmental powers is correct.

The argument that this is socialism is wrong and insults the socialists.
[/Obamacare: The Truth]

QFT. Not socialism - crony capitalism.

[Phatscotty]

How would you explain the continual expansion of the US federal government's scope of authority over the past 200 years--and increasingly so in the past 50 years? That's related to this slippery slope argument, in a more general form.

You mean like...since the 60's?

Haha, sure, but a significant starting point for this expansion was 1900-1914. During the 1930s and early 1940s the expansion was strengthened.

You don't say?

Phase 1 1900-1913-14

Phase 2 and 3 (the 100 year plan)


Anyone else ever wonder why it was Teddy Roosevelt put himself on this monument? Why is he looking in a different direction than everyone else??? Hmmmmmmmmmm

[GreecePwns]

I would take a strict Marxist definition of the word: a near-classless society where ownership of the means of production is held by the proletariat, usually through the state. I say near-classless because Marx's socialist state is a temporary period in which the remains of the capitalist class are stripped of any sort of political and economic power (this is alternatively called the dictatorship of the proletariat because political and economic power is concentrated into one class, not one specific person).

To call a move which directly benefits a select few by forcing money into their hands out of the hands of the many socialism goes against the definition of the word. There are clearly defined classes in Obama's healthcare bill, all of which have some sort of political and economic power. Night Strike is just blindly throwing out buzzwords; one cannot define a word whatever they want in order to advance their argument. That's called moving the goalposts. (Marx would call NS a member of the lumpenproletariat, or those who advance the interests of the bourgeois despite not being one of them and many times against their own interest).

Maybe Saxi or someone else can fact-check this, my knowledge is coming only from the Manifesto and On the Jewish Question.

[Baron Von PWN]

I would take a strict Marxist definition of the word: a near-classless society where ownership of the means of production is held by the proletariat, usually through the state. I say near-classless because Marx's socialist state is a temporary period in which the remains of the capitalist class are stripped of any sort of political and economic power (this is alternatively called the dictatorship of the proletariat because political and economic power is concentrated into one class, not one specific person).

To call a move which directly benefits a select few by forcing money into their hands out of the hands of the many socialism goes against the definition of the word. There are clearly defined classes in Obama's healthcare bill, all of which have some sort of political and economic power. Night Strike is just blindly throwing out buzzwords; one cannot define a word whatever they want in order to advance their argument. That's called moving the goalposts. (Marx would call NS a member of the lumpenproletariat, or those who advance the interests of the bourgeois despite not being one of them and many times against their own interest).

Maybe Saxi or someone else can fact-check this, my knowledge is coming only from the Manifesto and On the Jewish Question.

Sounds about right. Though I'm no expert on Marxist theory.

[Phatscotty]

Glad someone else took notice. Obama is in deep shit! Either this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, or it's the biggest lie ever told. What a dummy!
"Violating the Constitution is the only way to fix the problem" Yeah, we know P-Bo. We know....


Fed Appeals Court to DOJ: You Have Until Thursday to Explain What the President Meant by ‘Unprecedented’ & ‘Unelected Group’

A federal appeals court has ordered the Justice Department to clarify comments made by the president when he said yesterday that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his signature health care law (“Obamacare”).

“I am confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” President Obama said.

“Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

And since making these remarks, a three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has told the DOJ that it has until Thursday to explain whether the Obama administration believes the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.

Uh oh! Now a senator called Obama stupid! George Bush got out in front of this one, and reminded everyone who bad it is to call a president stupid. Especially when they say or do something incredibly stupid!

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... 007/NEWS05

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad this morning sided with Sen. Chuck Grassley in an issue where the Iowa senator called President Obama stupid.

And the governor further went on to say that he wouldn’t take legal advice from Iowa evangelical Christian leader Bob Vander Plaats.

Branstad did not repeat the ‘stupid’ lingo used by Grassley in a highly abbreviated Saturday morning Twitter message critical of comments the President made about the Supreme Court’s independence.

However, the governor, like Grassley, was highly critical of Obama’s comments.

“I thought it was incredible that somebody that is a graduate of a law school would make the kind of outlandish statements that the President of the United States said,” Branstad said.

Obama last week said that he was confident that the Supreme Court would not strike down Congress’s 2010 health care because it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Critics of the President have said the statement appeared to be a threat that could blur the lines between the separation of powers among branches of government.

[patches70]

You need at least one more option on your poll-

[ ]Gimme more free stuff!

[vodean]

by "Right direction, but falls short," im assuming you mean, falls just short of socialism and total government control over all aspects of life.

[Mr_Adams]

I keep hoping to here Obama paraphrase Andrew Jackson. "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

[Phatscotty]

I keep hoping to here Obama paraphrase Andrew Jackson. "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

more like FDR.... "Let's just create more Supreme Court Justices"

[Mr_Adams]

I keep hoping to here Obama paraphrase Andrew Jackson. "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

more like FDR.... "Let's just create more Supreme Court Justices"

just FOUR more!

[PLAYER57832]

An individual mandate IS socialism (or at the very least it's not Constitutionalism) no matter who comes up with the idea.

No, Nightstrike, socialism is not a synonym for anything the far right dislikes.. sorry, but is not.
This is pretty far from socialism. Socialism would have the government owning and running the healthcare system.
Ironically, there is little real argument that the government could quite legally establish a fully socialistic healthcare system under the health and welfare clause, among other points. The grounds by which this system might be proven unconstitutional would be that it imposes forced commerce onto people. (not saying this argument will win, just that is the argument).

[Night Strike]

An individual mandate IS socialism (or at the very least it's not Constitutionalism) no matter who comes up with the idea.

No, Nightstrike, socialism is not a synonym for anything the far right dislikes.. sorry, but is not.
This is pretty far from socialism. Socialism would have the government owning and running the healthcare system.
Ironically, there is little real argument that the government could quite legally establish a fully socialistic healthcare system under the health and welfare clause, among other points. The grounds by which this system might be proven unconstitutional would be that it imposes forced commerce onto people. (not saying this argument will win, just that is the argument).

That argument has to win, because otherwise there is absolutely no limit to the government's power. And yes, there is a 100% real argument against socialistic healthcare: the US Constitution. Just because you refuse to abide by it doesn't mean it's not real and enforceable. The government telling people what they must or cannot buy IS part of socialism. They remove the free market by replacing it with government edicts. There's nothing free about that.

[isaiah40]

Socialism would have the government owning and running the healthcare system.

Actually player, this is exactly what ObamaCare will do. The feds running healthcare. Canada has socialized healthcare, and look at the problems they have. The president of the CMA (our AMA) has said that the system is about ready to implode. I have posted else where, but the province of Ontario by the year 2015 (if I remember correctly), their healthcare portion of the budget will be at about 75%. That leaves 25% for the operation of the province. I'm sorry but not even Microsoft can operate on 25% of their budget.
{quote="PLAYER7832"]Ironically, there is little real argument that the government could quite legally establish a fully socialistic healthcare system under the health and welfare clause, among other points. The grounds by which this system might be proven unconstitutional would be that it imposes forced commerce onto people. (not saying this argument will win, just that is the argument).[/quote]
No where does it say in the constitution that the government should provide healthcare coverage for the individual citizen. The General Welfare clause means the health, and security of the United States, not the individual citizen. If you want to use the general welfare clause to say that the government should provide this and other things for us, then we might as well all not work, hand over all of our guns, allow the government to teach us what THEY believe we should be taught, etc because that is part of the General Welfare clause. Our founding fathers believed in LIMITED government, not a dictatorship or monarchy.

[spurgistan]

For about the 248th time in this thread, health care reform during the Obama administration has been almost totally about revising regulations for private health insurers, effectively requiring private insurers to offer health insurance to everybody at a non-exorbitant price and for everybody to have some form of insurance. That's pretty much it, although that is a lot. People seeing echoes of the Canadian, British, or Soviet health care system are reading tea leaves.

[Night Strike]

For about the 248th time in this thread, health care reform during the Obama administration has been almost totally about revising regulations for private health insurers, effectively requiring private insurers to offer health insurance to everybody at a non-exorbitant price and for everybody to have some form of insurance. That's pretty much it, although that is a lot. People seeing echoes of the Canadian, British, or Soviet health care system are reading tea leaves.

And that "a lot" is unconstitutional. And it's not so much of "reading tea leaves" as it is listening to the progressives in the government say this legislation gets them closer to their end-goal of socialized healthcare.

[thegreekdog]

For about the 248th time in this thread, health care reform during the Obama administration has been almost totally about revising regulations for private health insurers, effectively requiring private insurers to offer health insurance to everybody at a non-exorbitant price and for everybody to have some form of insurance. That's pretty much it, although that is a lot. People seeing echoes of the Canadian, British, or Soviet health care system are reading tea leaves.

Right... crony capitalism.

And that "a lot" is unconstitutional. And it's not so much of "reading tea leaves" as it is listening to the progressives in the government say this legislation gets them closer to their end-goal of socialized healthcare.

Socialized healthcare won't happen anytime soon. The Affordable Care Act Congress and the current president were the best chance of that, and here we are arguing over a much ballywhooed law that is merely crony capitalism at it's worst. If they were going to do the socialized healthcare, they would have done it.

Now, maybe in 20 years someone will say "Hey, this Affordable Care Act is too expensive. Companies stopped providing health insurance so now the government pays health insurance and it's just a boondoggle to insurance companies We need healthcare controlled by the government!" And of course, then we'll get socialized healthcare.

[Night Strike]

So why should we even go down that road? Why don't we allow the free market to actually work instead of piling on more governmental regulations that ultimately make us dependent on the government?

[vodean]

An individual mandate IS socialism (or at the very least it's not Constitutionalism) no matter who comes up with the idea.

No, Nightstrike, socialism is not a synonym for anything the far right dislikes.. sorry, but is not.
This is pretty far from socialism. Socialism would have the government owning and running the healthcare system.
Ironically, there is little real argument that the government could quite legally establish a fully socialistic healthcare system under the health and welfare clause, among other points. The grounds by which this system might be proven unconstitutional would be that it imposes forced commerce onto people. (not saying this argument will win, just that is the argument).

so you're saying that when the government takes over medicine, controls prices, and forces certain people to buy certain things while the rich pay for it all is not socialism?
I would sure like to hear your definition of socialism then!

[GreecePwns]

Until anyone, literally ANYONE, can give an empirical argument that a free market healthcare system will be more efficient or effective than those in France or even the Netherlands (not UK or Canada; stop cherrypicking the worst of the worst), then it's really not worth arguing.

The following argument:

1. Switch to free market
2. Automatically more efficient

Is bullshit.

[Night Strike]

Until anyone, literally ANYONE, can give an empirical argument that a free market healthcare system will be more efficient or effective than those in France or even the Netherlands (not UK or Canada; stop cherrypicking the worst of the worst), then it's really not worth arguing.

The following argument:

1. Switch to free market
2. Automatically more efficient

Is bullshit.

Government regulations to add: stop allowing lawsuits simply because the doctor ran 15 tests instead of 20 (TORT reform); require hospitals/doctors to publish prices prior to services instead of billing based on type of insurance

Government regulations to remove: allow people to buy insurance across state lines; remove sex-specific coverage for individuals not of that sex; remove many minimum coverage requirements and allow providers to put together many different packages of coverage

Systematic reform: switch to individual/family coverage instead of employer coverage.

[vodean]

Until anyone, literally ANYONE, can give an empirical argument that a free market healthcare system will be more efficient or effective than those in France or even the Netherlands (not UK or Canada; stop cherrypicking the worst of the worst), then it's really not worth arguing.

The following argument:

1. Switch to free market
2. Automatically more efficient

Is bullshit.

when my dad broke his arm in denmark, his arm was badly broken and needed immediate surgery. it took almost a week before he got surgery (REALLLY!? A WEEK!??). then, they didnt do it properly, and it had taken too long, so he had to convince a doctor that he still had problems. 6 months, and ~5 doctors later, one said "alright, if you are really in pain, i can take a look at it" (keep in mind that he is very used to pain and serious injury, and couldnt sleep without medication). The doctor realized the gravity of the situation, and scheduled him for surgery, where they grafted a metal plate to his forearm. To this day (10 years on), he has limited flexibility and strength of that arm, and it still hurts sometimes.
Hence socialized medicine removes the incentives to work, and so patients are left untreated.