ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[BigBallinStalin]

Symmetry, you seem to be a man interested in ideas, and if I'm not mistaken, you enjoy the art of arguing. Perhaps, you even strive to reach mutual understanding in order to clarify another's position and then make a well-founded criticism of it, but I could be completely mistaken.

Nevertheless, why is Hasnas' article the "daftest bloody thing [you've] read in a long time"?

As a matter of courtesy, please respond here.

[Symmetry]

Symmetry, you seem to be a man interested in ideas, and if I'm not mistaken, you enjoy the art of arguing. Perhaps, you even strive to reach mutual understanding in order to clarify another's position and then make a well-founded criticism of it, but I could be completely mistaken.

Nevertheless, why is Hasnas' article the "daftest bloody thing [you've] read in a long time"?

As a matter of courtesy, please respond here.

Look, as a quick heads up, if you're reading an essay that starts with a pop quiz, you're likely likely into magazine territory, kiddo. Then you've got the premise that misunderstands "divine right of kings", and has no idea when and where it applied, but apparently the author thinks it stops at some at some point.

Then something called "rule of law" happened, and that lasted, according to the essay, 100 years (funny how nice round numbers turn up like that in idiot history).

After that nice round number was over, we're over the lies of the rule of law, as demonstrated with a lovely historical narrative from who knows when, through Ghandi, Nixon, and then now.

Yeah dude, some solid thinking.

[BigBallinStalin]

Symmetry, you seem to be a man interested in ideas, and if I'm not mistaken, you enjoy the art of arguing. Perhaps, you even strive to reach mutual understanding in order to clarify another's position and then make a well-founded criticism of it, but I could be completely mistaken.

Nevertheless, why is Hasnas' article the "daftest bloody thing [you've] read in a long time"?

As a matter of courtesy, please respond here.

Look, as a quick heads up, if you're reading an essay that starts with a pop quiz, you're likely likely into magazine territory, kiddo. Then you've got the premise that misunderstands "divine right of kings", and has no idea when and where it applied, but apparently the author thinks it stops at some at some point.

Judging from the unnecessary repetitions in your response, it seems that for whatever personal reasons, you furiously pounded out a response without carefully considering the quality of your position.

If you scroll down, he explains why he presented that quiz, which enables the reader to better understand his position on the problems of making laws clear and objective. It might not be as effective for some people who "judge the book by its cover."

Re: "likely likely into magazine territory," here's the author's CV, which to me is more convincing than the assertion made by you.

Then something called "rule of law" happened, and that lasted, according to the essay, 100 years (funny how nice round numbers turn up like that in idiot history).

After that nice round number was over, we're over the lies of the rule of law, as demonstrated with a lovely historical narrative from who knows when, through Ghandi, Nixon, and then now.

Yeah dude, some solid thinking.

If those truly are his positions, then please quote him in support of your allegations. I have to make this request because judging from your recent jumping to conclusions without much critical thinking, I am led to assume that you are unfortunately "fitting words into his mouth."

[saxitoxin]

The legendary NPR / New York Times journalist Chris Hedges - who most recently edited "The Occupy Wall Street Journal" - earlier in the year spoke to C-SPAN on a variety of issues, including Obamacare - video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zotYU21qcU&t=4m10s.

This is a corporate coup d'etat where the citizen is rendered impotent. It's a disastrous bill. It was written by corporate lobbyists - 2,000 pages of it. It's essentially the equivalent of the bank bailout bill for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries - $400 billion in subsidies. Meanwhile, the Obama administration handed out exemptions so corporations don't have to insure chronically ill children.*

* reference to Obamacare exemptions authorized by Obama to his major donors at McDonalds and Wal-Mart which permits the children of employees of those companies to be thrown in the gutter like Poles to die

Under Obamacare, children of McDonald's and Wal-Mart employees will receive less medical care than they did before the bill. McD's kids are now part of the ghetto of the new Obama 3-Class Corporate Society (Ruling Class, Subsidized Class and Trash Human Class) and will be left to either survive or die as trash-humans in a real-world version of the Hunger Games.

[Phatscotty]

Nothing is free. It always has to be paid for by someone else. Just because you vote the government to steal from one person to give to another person does not make it right, and it doesn't matter what bleeding heart reason to come up with.

[AndyDufresne]

Nothing is free. It always has to be paid for by someone else. Just because you vote the government to steal from one person to give to another person does not make it right, and it doesn't matter what bleeding heart reason to come up with.

Think of the poor words and letters in this post, that laid down their lives to be paid to Phatscotty from some unknown donor. Godbless.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

Nothing is free. It always has to be paid for by someone else. Just because you vote the government to steal from one person to give to another person does not make it right, and it doesn't matter what bleeding heart reason to come up with.

Think of the poor words and letters in this post, that laid down their lives to be paid to Phatscotty from some unknown donor. Godbless.


--Andy

The person who earns the money has more right to that money than the person who did not earn it.

If there is something you want done, then go and do it. Do not vote to force other people to do it for you.

You cannot create opportunity or fairness for some while destroying opportunity and fairness for others.

[Neoteny]

What if what I want done is to force other people to do things for me. Can I vote for that?

[Phatscotty]

What if what I want done is to force other people to do things for me. Can I vote for that?

Have you not already?

[Neoteny]

No, since I manage well enough on my own to not require government assistance. I would be interested in hearing some more vague catchphrases that are as vapid as they are misleading. Could you give me more of those? Or do I have to vote to have them taken from you?

[john9blue]

You cannot create opportunity or fairness for some while destroying opportunity and fairness for others.

i disagree.

taking 1 million dollars from donald trump and giving it to ten poor people will generate much more opportunity and fairness than it destroys.

[comic boy]

Wow Scotty backed another loser , a picture is emerging

[aad0906]

Yup, Obama lied all along about the mandate not being a tax all along.

What, I have to pay my health insurance premium to the government from now on? Are they secretly taking my car insurance premiums too? At least I am glad I am not being forced to pay for education for others peoples kids. Oh wait...

[BigBallinStalin]

No, since I manage well enough on my own to not require government assistance. I would be interested in hearing some more vague catchphrases that are as vapid as they are misleading. Could you give me more of those? Or do I have to vote to have them taken from you?

Here's one:

one in the bucket is two in the fish.


I think that's how it goes, but to be sure, we should hold a vote on this and then have the courts settle it.

[saxitoxin]

The interesting question is what they'll do next. Opposition to the Individual Mandate was kind of a recent thing for Republicans- not so long ago it was widely supported within the party. Will they return to that position, and work bipartisanly to get the law running efficiently, or will they sabotage its effective running at every opportunity and make it more costly?

Only recently did conservatives and libertarians start remaking the Republican party, that's why only recently did the Republican party decide not to support individual mandates. But it does demonstrate why we must continue to remove progressives of all parties from positions of power in the government.

To be fair, the guy running for the Republican Presidency is probably the most famous implementer of the individual mandate system of healthcare prior to Obamacare.

I'm not sure the "conservatives and libertarians" are doing a great job if they're trying to elect one of those old-guard individual mandate supporters to the highest office in the land.

That's why myself and many others did not vote for him in the primaries. But he is the person who was chosen as the nominee, and he will be the person to sign the repeal if we provide him with a conservative super-majority. There's no way Obama will repeal the massive tax increase he has pushed onto the American people, so Romney is the only option available in 2012.

I'm unclear why they'd need a super-majority, or maybe even any majority at all.

The law was passed through a parliamentary maneuver in the Senate with an absolute majority so the Republicans should be able to avoid a filibuster the same way with a mere majority. In such a case they'd just need to win 4 seats (and the White House, of course, to prevent a veto).

If they only won the White House, Romney could just refuse to enforce the law now that Obama has set the precedent that the president has this authority (with regard to his recent alien amnesty).

I'm not advocating any of these things or displaying any sympathy to the Republicans, I'm just pondering things out loud and asking for clarification or explanation. It seems like, if the GOP actually want to axe this law, they have a pretty low hurdle to overcome.

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm saying when does it bite us in the ass?

An excellent question!

No one really knows when the increasing deficit spending, increasing federal government expenditures, and further hampering regulation will eventually lead to the next recession or massive social unrest.

What is certain is this: the current situation is unsustainable in the long-run.

One clarification, this bill is already paid for.

[Phatscotty]

You cannot create opportunity or fairness for some while destroying opportunity and fairness for others.

i disagree.

taking 1 million dollars from donald trump and giving it to ten poor people will generate much more opportunity and fairness than it destroys.

a fair point on opportunity, but not fairness.

Say one of the poor people turns his share of that money into a millions dollars......then you can take his million dollars and give it to 10 other poor people right?

[GreecePwns]

Of course you can, but that is not nearly the same situation. Donald Trump feels less hurt losing $1 million dollars than the person in your example, because Trump has much more than $1 million and wouldn't be losing a big percentage of his money, while the other person would lose literally everything.

And before this becomes a flat tax proponent argument, taking $500,000 from a person with $1 million to his name affects said person less than if you were to take $1 from a person that has $2 to his name.

[jbrettlip]

I'm saying when does it bite us in the ass?

An excellent question!

No one really knows when the increasing deficit spending, increasing federal government expenditures, and further hampering regulation will eventually lead to the next recession or massive social unrest.

What is certain is this: the current situation is unsustainable in the long-run.

One clarification, this bill is already paid for.

HAHHHA...most incorrect post I have ever read on the CC forums!

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm saying when does it bite us in the ass?

An excellent question!

No one really knows when the increasing deficit spending, increasing federal government expenditures, and further hampering regulation will eventually lead to the next recession or massive social unrest.

What is certain is this: the current situation is unsustainable in the long-run.

One clarification, this bill is already paid for.

Tell that to the unfunded liabilities and the debt holders of US treasury bonds.

Also, whatever the government owes, the people ultimately owe it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Of course you can, but that is not nearly the same situation. Donald Trump feels less hurt losing $1 million dollars than the person in your example, because Trump has much more than $1 million and wouldn't be losing a big percentage of his money, while the other person would lose literally everything.

And before this becomes a flat tax proponent argument, taking $500,000 from a person with $1 million to his name affects said person less than if you were to take $1 from a person that has $2 to his name.

This isn't true unless you somehow know how these individuals subjectively perceive the value of their money compared to each of their opportunity costs.

You're making the mistake of believing that interpersonal comparisons of utility are true. They aren't because value is subjective.

[Nobunaga]

The mandate was seen as unconstitutional by the supremes. Roberts said it would work, though, if it were a tax. It passed the judicial muster as a tax increase.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQMkOScXctY

This will be the first time we are forced to pay a tax on something we do not purchase or own. As a precedent, this is frightening. Think of possible future taxes that may be weighed against this precedent.

That said, it did pass, if even as a tax. I'm a "rule of law" type and will vote in hopes of seeing it repealed, but I'm done bitching about it.

Cheers.

[Phatscotty]

We The People have one more chance to stop this, in November.

It's the purpose of the Constitution, and finally, we are going to use it!

[Nobunaga]

We have one more chance to stop this, in November.

I won't be holding my breath.

C'mon Phatty, join me in the awakening here. We tried, man, we tried. But the nation is falling apart in spite of it. Join the wave, man. Sign up for all the free stuff you can get and milk the system for all you can. This is America, man - the new America. Screw the founders, the constitution, personal responsibility and all that shite. Just too damned much work.

[Phatscotty]

We have one more chance to stop this, in November.

I won't be holding my breath.

C'mon Phatty, join me in the awakening here. We tried, man, we tried. But the nation is falling apart in spite of it. Join the wave, man. Sign up for all the free stuff you can get and milk the system for all you can. This is America, man - the new America. Screw the founders, the constitution, personal responsibility and all that shite. Just too damned much work.

Giving up without a fight?

Not me