Sabyen91: He has admitted before that it was better than nothing. In the same thread he then went on to ridicule the left for supporting it.

I have this crazy idea that "better than nothing" and "the best we could do" aren't the same thing.

paygun: Sabyen91: Some New England states and Pacific NW states will decide to go with a single payer system and eventually all the blue states will follow. The red states? fark em.

I think single payer is the only possible outcome eventually because arithmetic is non-partisan.

I noticed you don't have any comment on Obama signing a bill that was inspired by The Heritage Foundation's health care ideas. I'm not surprised. When I bring this up on a board I visit that leans to the right, their answer is OMG TEH SOCIALIZMS but it's really the same thing in the end.

I notice you are still incredibly obtuse. I don't care if it used to be a Republican idea. It is not the reform I would have preferred but it is a step in the right direction. Do you have something against pragmatism?

TV's Vinnie: Talondel
1) The law was *NOT* found to be fully constitutional. .

[www.mediaite.com image 500x231]

States that are denying HCR to it's citizens are putting them in danger and are depriving them of a Federal right. To deny people HCR is EXACTLY as vile as denying black people the right to go to school or to vote.

You're on the right path (pun intended) but you've got all the wrong words in there.

paygun: Sabyen91: He has admitted before that it was better than nothing. In the same thread he then went on to ridicule the left for supporting it.

I have this crazy idea that "better than nothing" and "the best we could do" aren't the same thing.

So now that we have "better than nothing" you taunt people because they want to keep it? That makes zero sense.

Sabyen91: Do you have something against pragmatism?

When it's used as an excuse, yes.

Sabyen91: So now that we have "better than nothing" you taunt people because they want to keep it? That makes zero sense.

Do you think we're going to pass another health care reform bill this year? How about next year?

paygun: Sabyen91: So now that we have "better than nothing" you taunt people because they want to keep it? That makes zero sense.

Do you think we're going to pass another health care reform bill this year? How about next year?

And if we got rid of Obamacare we would pass another health care reform bill? How about when Republicans take the Senate?

paygun: Sabyen91: Do you have something against pragmatism?

When it's used as an excuse, yes.

An excuse for what?

Sabyen91: And if we got rid of Obamacare we would pass another health care reform bill? How about when Republicans take the Senate?

I'm not proposing we get rid of it. I'm only saying the cheerleading for this turd is politically motivated and not because of the substance of the law.

I am proposing that aiming one notch above the Republicans and then cheering when that's accomplished is a pretty damn sorry thing to do. But, since it's not unadulterated praise for the Obama administration I guess that's just not enough.

Chummer45: I really wish the left would just respond to the GOP health care trolling like this:

You don't like the ACA, I get it. Then what, specifically, do you propose we do to reform health care in this country? If you're going to criticize the democrats, you at least need to offer a viable alternative.

If you'll recall when the ACA was being debated in Congress, the Republican talking points about alternatives were:

1. Anybody can get healthcare at an Emergency Room even if they can't pay, they'll still get a bill, but that won't stop them from getting emergency medical services in the future.

2. People should go to their churches and ask for charitable help with medical expenses they can't pay. Because apparently everybody goes to a Church, and those Churches have huge amounts of cash on hand they are willing to give to parishioners to cover their medical expenses.

3. People shouldn't get sick, since people get sick due to bad lifestyle choices and thus medical bills you can't afford are your own fault for not taking better care of yourself.

ox45tallboy: I really do believe the first state to implement universal coverage and submit it under the provision of Obamacare that allows states to "opt out" if they have a better solution will be a deep red state, such as Mississippi or Alabama, and it will be sold to the public under the guise of the "Anti-Obamacare". And it will be named after some Republican politician.

Of all the predictions I see around here, this is one of the better ones. I think you could be right.

I'm sure there will be a lot of pissing and moaning here if it happens too, not because single payer was finally implemented somewhere, but because it will mean a political loss for the left.

Chummer45: And, if Scalia is so ideologically pure, how come he ruled just a few years ago that the federal government can make purely intra-state sales of medical marijuana that is grown and sold in the state illegal? If he was consistent, he'd argue that purely intra-state commerce isn't "interstate commerce." (and don't bother explaining Wickard, etc regarding that. I know what Scalia's justification would be. The point is, he is just as willing to change his view of how expansive the commerce clause is based on his ideology.)

I don't recall ever saying that he was. Why don't you go back and actually read what I wrote. Particularly the last parenthetical. Everyone knows ever since Gonzales v. Raich that while Scalia is a fairly reliably conservative, he's certainly not reliably for limited government. He should have disavowed Wickard in Raich, but instead he endorsed Wickard in Raich and then waited to do it 7 years later in a case that more closely agree with his policy preferences to finally disagree with it.

Chummer45: I'm not really trying to take sides (ok, I sorta am). But when right wingers take this "holier than thou" approach to their supreme court justices, and act like they are somehow less politically oriented than their liberal counterparts, it is a load of BS.

I think if you read my post, you'll see I'm not doing that. I tend to come across as more right wing on FARK then I really am because I only post when I have something to say that hasn't already been said in a given thread. Generally, when the liberals are right on FARK there's no reason to post because the various liberal legal scholars who post here will effectively cover the issue. However, on AVA threads they (so far) have tended to avoid pointing out the fact that the states won a significant 10th Amendment victory, and also a significant Commerce Clause victory. (exception, GAT_00 noted these issues on the first day the opinion came out).

For what it's worth, my personal view on health care reform is that we should go to a federal system single payer for catastrophic coverage, emergency care, and end of life care and leave the rest to the states or the individual. The reason being, those are the three things that (virtually) no one wants to see a person denied. No one wants to see an otherwise responsible and productive worker bankrupted by one catastrophic incident that was beyond their control. No one wants to see people who could be saved dying in the street because the ER won't take them. No one wants to see old people turned out on the street to die. Market forces will not work in those areas because as a society we won't tolerate people being denied care for those things based on their ability to pay. When market forces won't work, the best thing to do is to socialize the costs across as large a segment of society as possible (that means doing it at the federal level).

Yes, that's right, that's a libertarian/free market argument for federally socializing (portions) of health care.

TV's Vinnie: States that are denying HCR to it's citizens are putting them in danger and are depriving them of a Federal right. To deny people HCR is EXACTLY as vile as denying black people the right to go to school or to vote.

Troll or moron? I'm going with moron. Try reading section IV-A of the opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius. The portion of ACA that required states to implement the medicaid expansion or lose their existing medicaid funding was struck down as violating the 10th Amendment. I know you have that oh so compelling twitter quote to contradict me, but I think I'll take the text of the opinion over the twitter ramblings of an ill-informed tool.

ox45tallboy: Know how I know you don't keep up with Congress?

You do have a point there. Anything that isn't a complete disaster may very well be the best we could do. Time will tell exactly which this "reform" will be.

ox45tallboy: I really do believe the first state to implement universal coverage and submit it under the provision of Obamacare that allows states to "opt out" if they have a better solution will be a deep red state, such as Mississippi or Alabama, and it will be sold to the public under the guise of the "Anti-Obamacare". And it will be named after some Republican politician. Naming the ACA after Obama was a really stupid move that the right is already starting to regret.

And another thing, if they would sell it as "a health care system like our military has" it would be a slam dunk. Who on the right would oppose that? You don't support the troops? Why do you hate America?

The left could have gotten a hell of a lot farther with Obamacare if they took the same tack. But it would be a loser with their own constituency because it wouldn't play into culture war.

paygun: Sabyen91: And if we got rid of Obamacare we would pass another health care reform bill? How about when Republicans take the Senate?

I'm not proposing we get rid of it. I'm only saying the cheerleading for this turd is politically motivated and not because of the substance of the law.

I am proposing that aiming one notch above the Republicans and then cheering when that's accomplished is a pretty damn sorry thing to do. But, since it's not unadulterated praise for the Obama administration I guess that's just not enough.

And you will still bash people for supporting the bill? Because it isn't as good as it could be if the Dems had 300 votes in the House and 80 in the Senate? Social Security and Medicare started out modestly but they became more popular and were expanded. It is a first step (I feel I am repeating myself). It seems you just have a stick up your ass about Obama and that informs your feelings about ACA.

bugontherug: Chummer45: (it is just uses the taxing power to provide penalties for noncompliance in a way functionally identical to a fine for not having car insurance)

Well said.

I'm sure you both already realize this, but there is no federal requirement to purchase car insurance. Those are state laws. States have a general regulatory power to regulate for the general welfare that the federal government does not have. The federal government is limited to either regulating interstate commerce, or to taxing and spending for the general welfare. They can't regulate for the general welfare. And yes, there are significant differences between the ability to tax and spend for the general welfare and the ability to regulate for the general welfare, as already noted above.

Sabyen91: It seems you just have a stick up your ass about Obama and that informs your feelings about ACA.

You're making a great case for my point that any dissent in regards to the Obama administration will not be tolerated. Even if it's nothing more than the idea that we could have done better.

ox45tallboy: Because that's pretty much how it happened in Canada. The lumberjacks and igloo dwellers in Saskatchewan were the first to get universal health care. Not the city-dwelling liberals in Ontario, or the Frenchies in Quebec, it was the backwards libertarian lumberjacks in Saskatchewan that did good to get their kids any education at all. They made it happen, and then they held themselves up as an example to the rest of the country.

I think you're right again, that's probably how it will happen here. The deep red states are pretty quick to throw the bootstraps right out the window when it comes to feeding at the state trough.

paygun: Sabyen91: It seems you just have a stick up your ass about Obama and that informs your feelings about ACA.

You're making a great case for my point that any dissent in regards to the Obama administration will not be tolerated. Even if it's nothing more than the idea that we could have done better.

No, most people talk about the bill itself. You are the one that immediately accuses people for only liking it because Obama signed it. Even though you admit it is better than nothing. It makes me think the reason you bash it is BECAUSE Obama signed it. All the liberals I know are not enamored with the result but the pragmatic ones know it is not likely a final result.

247 and done! Thread over!

Weaver95: I dunno. I just find it curious to see Republicans ripping into the president and saying they're oppressed when a few short years ago they had the attitude of 'support the president or you are a traitor'.

If you feel like I'm ripping into the president by saying the political component of the health care debate overshadowed the substance of the reform law, then maybe you need to take a step back.

Especially since your justification for this is apparently the fact that the Republicans called you names.

The way I see it, if the Feds can pick and choose which laws they want to enforce, then the states can to.

OHDUDENESS: The way I see it, if the Feds can pick and choose which laws they want to enforce, then the states can to.

If you had ever taken a civics class you would know how stupid you sound.

ox45tallboy: Holding up the health care of our military personnel as an example would invite scrutiny that would do neither party any good, and sidetrack the rest of the debate.

Yeah, right again. The real problem with mental health care in the military looks to me to be the stigma that's attached to it. It's a hard problem to solve. It could be solved by acting like a soldier who is having mental health issues is the same as any other soldier who isn't. But that's probably not the safest thing to do.

Weaver95: Now the same people who went around for 8 years saying that it was treason to question the President are now very vocally saying that the President is wrong, that Obama is evil and that Obama should be impeached. They're also saying they feel oppressed for questioning Obama's policies.

I see your point. You've just confused me with one of those people. Why, I have no idea. How is this even relevant? You're not confusing me with one of those people because I claimed that this reform law isn't the best we could do, right? Because that would make me think that maybe you've just got a chip on your shoulder.

Doc Lee: jjorsett:
Wow, a lack of a coherent policy reason for something in Obamacare? Say it ain't so. This must be what Nancy Pelosi meant by passing the law to see what's in it. Now that we have:

If only we had listened to the G0P and implemented tort reform then everything would have been unicorns and rainbows!

How's that tort reform working out for you, California? Seeing those long promised lowered premiums?

1) Nope, but it's just a matter of time.
2) Raising costs is Obama's and Obamacare's fault

/According to my in-laws.

mgshamster: Raising costs is Obama's and Obamacare's fault

Never mind the fact that costs have been rising since before he was even born.

paygun: You're making a great case for my point that any dissent in regards to the Obama administration will not be tolerated. Even if it's nothing more than the idea that we could have done better.

You're dumb, so I'll break this down into small parts for you.

Person #1: I don't agree with Obama's position on [issue] because [carefully thought-out reasoning without hyperbole or slander]; instead, we should [detailed and realistic plan].

This is good. Most of us will respect this person, if not agree with them, and debate accordingly.

Person #2: Fartbongo sucks! His position on [issue] sucks! All of the Demoncraps suck! No, I don't know what should be done instead, and I don't care - there's a black man in the White House!

This is bad. Most of us will mock this person for being a complete and total farkwit.

You have a long history of being Person #2; therefore, nobody takes you seriously. Get it now?

PC LOAD LETTER: foo monkey: TV's Vinnie: Isn't it possible for citizens to wage a class-action lawsuit against the Governor of any state that denies it's own citizens a right that has been ratified as fully Constitutional?

I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.

Healthcare isn't a Constitutional right.

But it is amongst the enumerated powers of the Congress to provide.

Yeah, actually it's not. Where does it say that?

Weaver95: you clearly indicate here that you feel 'any dissent in regards to Obama administration will not be tolerated'.

That's not what anyone where has explicitly claimed, it's just that when I bring it up they mysteriously go silent. And I don't mean that they really believe that and just don't want to come out and say it, either. There's just a lot of the usual internet arguing with a retard here and so that's almost always the right response. I understand why people do it. It's just that pulling the hair trigger isn't always the right thing to do.

Fluorescent Testicle: You have a long history of being Person #2; therefore, nobody takes you seriously. Get it now?

I have a long history of saying that Obama isn't the best president ever, and not agreeing with his politics. You're seeing that as the same thing, and it's not. But, it kind of takes care of itself. If that's all you can see then it's not like I'm missing out on interesting conversation with you.

TheLalagah: PC LOAD LETTER: foo monkey: TV's Vinnie: Isn't it possible for citizens to wage a class-action lawsuit against the Governor of any state that denies it's own citizens a right that has been ratified as fully Constitutional?

I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.

Healthcare isn't a Constitutional right.

But it is amongst the enumerated powers of the Congress to provide.

Yeah, actually it's not. Where does it say that?

Does it matter? Is it really so horrible to ensure that as many people as possible can get health care without hassle? Is the idea of more people being healthy such a threatening thing or something? People used to voice fear over death panels, now they're screaming about the opposite of them. Gotta be contrarians and Bizarros for everything, apparently.

Mugato: OHDUDENESS: The way I see it, if the Feds can pick and choose which laws they want to enforce, then the states can to.

Isn't denying universal health care for an entire state a little different than allowing a few houses giving medicinal marijuana to a few people with doctor's notes?

I know, I know, there's no difference, zero tolerance and FARK YOU. I GOT MINE. Got it.

Well, it is a multibillion dollar industry that's going about untaxed. If my state (California) legalized pot, I don't think the feds would care much. They would still do federal raids (we just wouldn't have state raids, anymore), like they currently do in Humbolt and Mendicino counties. And any industry that is required to abide by federal law (such as law enforcement and forensics) would see an immediate denial of federal funds if those industries allowed their employees to use pot.

cman: There are far too many posts biatching about this, so a quote is useless because I will have a HUGE farking post.

What some people are saying: it is appropriate for states to ignore the law because Obama does not follow the law, specifically talking about the illegal immigration writ.

Simply speaking, the Presidential arm of the United States government is called the Executive branch. There is a good reason why it is called such. He is the executive. He executes the laws passed by Congress. However, the executive is given some leeway in how he executes the laws. He is not breaking the law; he is reorganizing the resources of the Government to go after law breakers (rapists, murderers, gang members). He wisely understands that someone who lives by themselves in peace is not worth the effort of removing due to cost/reward ratio.

I dont know about you, but I am more worried about the illegal immigrant breaking into my house to kill me over an illegal immigrant who works on the ground of a rich asshole. You should feel the same way, too

Well said.

It's cute that the Republicons are railing so hard against the healthcare that they themselves came up with back in 2006.

cman: There are far too many posts biatching about this, so a quote is useless because I will have a HUGE farking post.

What some people are saying: it is appropriate for states to ignore the law because Obama does not follow the law, specifically talking about the illegal immigration writ.

Simply speaking, the Presidential arm of the United States government is called the Executive branch. There is a good reason why it is called such. He is the executive. He executes the laws passed by Congress. However, the executive is given some leeway in how he executes the laws. He is not breaking the law; he is reorganizing the resources of the Government to go after law breakers (rapists, murderers, gang members). He wisely understands that someone who lives by themselves in peace is not worth the effort of removing due to cost/reward ratio.

I dont know about you, but I am more worried about the illegal immigrant breaking into my house to kill me over an illegal immigrant who works on the ground of a rich asshole. You should feel the same way, too

No no no, he has to follow the law EXACTLY as it is written, or else he is an evil usurper abusing hos powers for his own gain and slaughtering our own citizens.

Even if said citizens betrayed us, renounced their citizenship, and left the country to work with our enemy, putting themselves into the battlefield and actively working to harm us. Which is funny when people who questioned Bush were demonized as traitors to America and told to get out or die, while they demand that actual traitors who did leave should be dragged back to stand trial.