Applying "truth in advertising" to obamacare

[Guest thorn]

3pugguy,

Thanks. Rereading my previous posts I don't blame you...you have no monopoly on being a Jackazz. Apologies all around. Anybody who has 7 dogs has a good soul.

I'm personally trying to generate less heat and more light. I think it's important for our country for people of good will who disagree on political issues to talk/debate/hear each other out. With the advent of cable and the net it's too damned easy for me to live in my MSNBC world and conservatives to live in their FOX news world and for us to lob rhetorical mortar shells at each other rather than seeking common ground and compromise, or at least understanding of where the other guy''s coming from. I've enjoyed this forum...and though my mind has changed little if at all, it has made me think and learn a few things.

Best regards,

Ralph

PS--Curious, what do you think should be changed about our healthcare system and how do you believe those things should be accomplished?

Why waste wind answering you when you do not have the same interest or like minded thought? Your earlier arguments advocate a government operating at a wash in competition to private companies trying to turn a profit. Then you label it as a better good while it's an expense to others. I'm not saying it's not good(that's another debate completely), I'm just saying it's not a reasonable example.

But, to give a short answer let's start by fixing programs already in place.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Why waste wind answering you when you do not have the same interest or like minded thought? Your earlier arguments advocate a government operating at a wash in competition to private companies trying to turn a profit. Then you label it as a better good while it's an expense to others. I'm not saying it's not good(that's another debate completely), I'm just saying it's not a reasonable example.

But, to give a short answer let's start by fixing programs already in place.

So since he doesn't agree, you shouldn't waste your time?

I know RGB has been confrontational and inflammatory to the established line of thinking here, and has received confrontation and inflammatory remarks in return. However, what good does it do to limit discussion to those that already agree with you?

I vehemently disagree with nearly all of RGB's assertions, but I value hearing a point of view other than mine, and I would ask that you try to find something of value in civil discourse.

We're all better for it if we can find some common ground, or at least disagree without vitriol.

[Guest H0TSH0T]

also know this to the core of your being, we all are individuals, we all have opinions, we all have rights. As individuals we have individual needs wants and desires, and it is not your place, or anyone else to conform those to your standard or a government standard by force, subversion, or legislation, or any other method. As individuals it gives us freedom to make decisions, like choose our doctors, religion, and partners for that matter, if we make the wrong decision we have to live with the consequences, hopefully it will be a minor setback and will be able to make another attempt to progress in the detection desired, if not we may have to cut our losses and make a different approach to the solve the issue what ever it may be, now when you take the ability to choose what is best for you, due to someone forcing you to do what is best for them, how are you going to benefit if your goal is not the same, it is impossible. if we are desiring different outcomes. my goal would to be in the best possible health as soon as possible to continue doing as i please till the day i die, i would believe that the government wants me to be only as healthy as necessary to keep a certain position of power in power and to make them money so they can do as they please till i die and as soon as one of those things change, we all would be expendable like used toilet paper.

i don't believe the hype, i am more realistic than that and will base a position on the likely-hood of success over time, based on past results on (the track record) of other issues, you lie to me, i cant trust you, you lie to us all i believe we all don't trust you, and simply when we have a president, and congress, that do lie, do only care what is in their best interest and are using you and i to achieve it, in a deceptive manner, to me that is a breach of trust, and that cant be mended. until the violators of the trust are no longer in power. so good luck in making me believe that anything that sounds to good has to be true, when i know better.

[Guest thorn]

So since he doesn't agree, you shouldn't waste your time?

I know RGB has been confrontational and inflammatory to the established line of thinking here, and has received confrontation and inflammatory remarks in return. However, what good does it do to limit discussion to those that already agree with you?

I vehemently disagree with nearly all of RGB's assertions, but I value hearing a point of view other than mine, and I would ask that you try to find something of value in civil discourse.

We're all better for it if we can find some common ground, or at least disagree without vitriol.

It was NOT my thinking I was referring to, it was his. It was a question not a statement.

I do not have any interest in the "common ground" that is where we are today. If I'm going to argue or debate it will be me, not common ground. The answer to RGB's assertions is NO WAY! NOT ME! If he or those he find's on his side of the fence want that they need to know that they take it with the power of the gun not by my acceptance.

[Mark@Sea]

How to fix programs already in place?

Social Security. Now given out to many, many people who didn't contribute a dime. For decades, 'contributions' to OASDI in excess of outlays were 'returned' to the general budget - and spent on pork-barrel projects by vote-buying congressrats.

How about the income tax? Originally it was voluntary, and promised to effect only the top 1% or so - the ultra rich. Where are we now? Millionaire congressrats don't apparently, pay their share - while the middle class are paying in some cases 30-40% or more of their income to the government. Even worse in states that levy income tax, in addition to high sales and property taxes.

Maybe those aren't great examples... lets' take a look at welfare, originally intended as temporary aid. Now we have life-long welfare recipients, who have never held a job... cradle to grave dependent on the government robbing Peter to pay them. Let us not forget the role that welfare played in destroying the traditional family. It pays more to be a single mother - and the "baby daddies" congregate on the streetcorners, unwanted at their childrens' homes - can't get in the way of that government gravy, you know.

How about section 8 housing? A wonderful program wherein crime is exported from government housing projects and urban ghettos to the suburbs.

Oh, there are many, many examples. Now how many of these programs pass constitutional muster?

The way to 'fix' these programs is to halt them, or at the very least, drastically cut back on eligibility, with an eye toward eventually phasing them out completely. Stop treating the constitution as a 'living document' that need not be amended - just find a sympathetic judge who will 'interpret' it to say whatever he wants it to say. Stop allowing every branch of the government to do any darn thing it likes, and hold them to their oaths.

That may sound unfriendly, un-christian, un-progressive - but I'm tired of living under a government that for practical purposes has no limit on its' powers.

[Mark@Sea]

Heck, first start in the right direction - people on the dole don't get a vote. That might start reversing the trend of voting ever expanded and larger 'entitlements' Why the heck are they 'entitled' to what they never earned in the first place, anyway? What could possibly entitle me to the fruit of your labors, friend?

[Guest Hyaloid]

It was NOT my thinking I was referring to, it was his. It was a question not a statement.

I do not have any interest in the "common ground" that is where we are today. If I'm going to argue or debate it will be me, not common ground. The answer to RGB's assertions is NO WAY! NOT ME! If he or those he find's on his side of the fence want that they need to know that they take it with the power of the gun not by my acceptance.

Best of luck with that. If nothing else, use it as a chance to understand how the opposition "thinks".

You are certainly welcome to participate in the discussions here, but please keep the "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric to a minimum, please. I understand the emotion, but it really does no good here.

Remember, this sub-forum is for "discussion and friendly debate about national and political issues."... it's not so people can thump your chest and let us know how tough your are, or try to shout down opposing viewpoints, no matter how much you disagree with them.

As long as an argument is showcased in a friendly manner, without personal attacks it will be allowed to persist. If you wish to

'defeat it', then use facts, logic and other friendly debate tools.

Remember, sometimes, heck, probably MOST of the time, we will end up having to agree to disagree... however, if you are only happy if you are declared the "winner", and anyone who disagrees is the enemy, then I am afraid you may find your stay in this portion of the forums short lived.

I hope everyone has a happy Labor Day!

[Guest Hyaloid]

Also, please remember... long posts are ok... but please remember to use the "Enter" key every now and then everyone... paragraphs are your friends.

[Guest SUNTZU]

How to fix programs already in place?

Social Security. Now given out to many, many people who didn't contribute a dime. For decades, 'contributions' to OASDI in excess of outlays were 'returned' to the general budget - and spent on pork-barrel projects by vote-buying congressrats.

How about the income tax? Originally it was voluntary, and promised to effect only the top 1% or so - the ultra rich. Where are we now? Millionaire congressrats don't apparently, pay their share - while the middle class are paying in some cases 30-40% or more of their income to the government. Even worse in states that levy income tax, in addition to high sales and property taxes.

Maybe those aren't great examples... lets' take a look at welfare, originally intended as temporary aid. Now we have life-long welfare recipients, who have never held a job... cradle to grave dependent on the government robbing Peter to pay them. Let us not forget the role that welfare played in destroying the traditional family. It pays more to be a single mother - and the "baby daddies" congregate on the streetcorners, unwanted at their childrens' homes - can't get in the way of that government gravy, you know.

How about section 8 housing? A wonderful program wherein crime is exported from government housing projects and urban ghettos to the suburbs.

Oh, there are many, many examples. Now how many of these programs pass constitutional muster?

The way to 'fix' these programs is to halt them, or at the very least, drastically cut back on eligibility, with an eye toward eventually phasing them out completely. Stop treating the constitution as a 'living document' that need not be amended - just find a sympathetic judge who will 'interpret' it to say whatever he wants it to say. Stop allowing every branch of the government to do any darn thing it likes, and hold them to their oaths.

That may sound unfriendly, un-christian, un-progressive - but I'm tired of living under a government that for practical purposes has no limit on its' powers.

Hear, hear!

[Guest thorn]

Best of luck with that. If nothing else, use it as a chance to understand how the opposition "thinks".

You are certainly welcome to participate in the discussions here, but please keep the "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric to a minimum, please. I understand the emotion, but it really does no good here.

Remember, this sub-forum is for "discussion and friendly debate about national and political issues."... it's not so people can thump your chest and let us know how tough your are, or try to shout down opposing viewpoints, no matter how much you disagree with them.

As long as an argument is showcased in a friendly manner, without personal attacks it will be allowed to persist. If you wish to

'defeat it', then use facts, logic and other friendly debate tools.

Remember, sometimes, heck, probably MOST of the time, we will end up having to agree to disagree... however, if you are only happy if you are declared the "winner", and anyone who disagrees is the enemy, then I am afraid you may find your stay in this portion of the forums short lived.

I hope everyone has a happy Labor Day!

I hear you but must correct where necessary if you are labeling your post directly to me...

1) I know exactly what the opposition thinks and in fact that is as much of anything the point and where we are today.

2) "from my cold dead hands" you need to go back and reread and clearly understand what I said and what it clearly stated. It is in no way written that it is my gun.

If I'm understanding correctly, the rest of your response I must regard as a blanket or general statement?

Moving on.... While I tend to agree more with Mark@Sea on where things should be. I do see offering fixes to existing programs worthwhile instead of just starting another. A middle ground if you will...

[Guest Hyaloid]

I hear you but must correct where necessary if you are labeling your post directly to me...

1) I know exactly what the opposition thinks and in fact that is as much of anything the point and where we are today.

2) "from my cold dead hands" you need to go back and reread and clearly understand what I said and what it clearly stated. It is in no way written that it is my gun.

If I'm understanding correctly, the rest of your response I must regard as a blanket or general statement?

Moving on.... While I tend to agree more with Mark@Sea on where things should be. I do see offering fixes to existing programs worthwhile instead of just starting another. A middle ground if you will...

Okey dokey, thanks for the clarification.

[Guest 3pugguy]

Yeah, it is not like me to be such a jerk and I could not let it slide; I may make snide comments, as we all will do from time to time, but I don't want to be a total a-hole. We can agree to disagree and do so...(wait for it)...agreeably

Have a nice Labor Day.

[Guest 3pugguy]

3pugguy,

Thanks. Rereading my previous posts I don't blame you...you have no monopoly on being a Jackazz. Apologies all around. Anybody who has 7 dogs has a good soul.

I'm personally trying to generate less heat and more light. I think it's important for our country for people of good will who disagree on political issues to talk/debate/hear each other out. With the advent of cable and the net it's too damned easy for me to live in my MSNBC world and conservatives to live in their FOX news world and for us to lob rhetorical mortar shells at each other rather than seeking common ground and compromise, or at least understanding of where the other guy''s coming from. I've enjoyed this forum...and though my mind has changed little if at all, it has made me think and learn a few things.

Best regards,

Ralph

PS--Curious, what do you think should be changed about our healthcare system and how do you believe those things should be accomplished?

RGB,

On your points of people of differing minds coming together, I fully agree. My initial thoughts on healthcare and insurance:

1. Tort reform is a must

2. Allow small companies to "pool" if it will give them "group" breaks enjoyed by larger companies

3. Allow any of us to shop for insurance from any provider, not just in our state. I recall something about California, with its 15 billion dollar economoy, and the small number of insurers available.

What bothers me the most is the smoke and mirror approach that I perceive from Mr Obama; he needs to pick his lane, stay in it, and convince us of WHAT exactly HIS plan is. One commentator said Obama overlearned the Clinton lesson, i.e. too hands off and letting Congress run with the idea.

Anyway, just snap shot ideas. And I am not so naive as to believe any plan, for anything, will make all of us happy, regardless of the issue or the party in power. But going back to your point with which we will ALWAYS agree - reasonable people can and should find a mutually agreeable position, especially when we are talking about something that is between 15-20% of our economy as heathcare is at present. But compromise requires a clear starting position and voices raised not in anger, but in reasoned opposition, providing counter points.

Last point - I am concerned at the expansion of powers we all seem to be willing to allow our government, on local, state and federal levels, to take. We cannot cede constitutionally dictated processes for expediency or only if it suits our personal agenda.

My two cents from the peanut gallery...

[tntnixon]

Nice try. This question--what is meant by "promoting the general welfare"-- was argued ad nauseum when Social Security was proposed in the 1930's. Forgive me if I choose not to re-try a case which has already been decided in my favor. Last time I looked we have Social Security. Though you may believe it unconstitutional, and get some satisfaction from defending that belief, I still get my check.

(That's not a cue to begin a debate on Social Security)

As to showing you the enumerated power giving Congress the authority to provide healthcare...you'll find it right next to the clause permitting Congress to fund the Air Force (only the army and navy are mentioned)

and the Interstate highway system. The constitution has survived because it is, and was meant to be, a living document allowing our nation to adapt to changing realities unforseeable in the 18th century.

It is hostile to the constitution to attempt to deny that flexibility.

Just as a little history lesson, I will tell the story of how these programs became "constitutional".

Roosevelt's "New Deal" was losing badly in the SCOTUS, basically every decision that was handed down. So FDR had a plan.

The US Constitution does not spell out the number of justices on the SCOTUS. So he proposed to keep adding justices until he could completely overule the court. Unfortunately, the Senate (highly dominated by Democrats) was willing to go along with this plan.

So, SCOTUS met with FDR and negotiated their decisions away to prevent this from coming to fruition. So, now all the decisions, not so suprisingly, started to go FDR's way. These cases, which were being decided by a blackmailed court, started setting precedent. Those decisions and their derivatives are still being used by the courts today.

So, when liberals talk about constitutionality of laws, such as Social Security, it has to be seen in light of the fact that it would have been declared unconstutional by an un-blackmailed court.

[Steelharp]

And there you go. Thank you for that!

[Guest Hyaloid]

Just as a little history lesson, I will tell the story of how these programs became "constitutional".

Roosevelt's "New Deal" was losing badly in the SCOTUS, basically every decision that was handed down. So FDR had a plan.

The US Constitution does not spell out the number of justices on the SCOTUS. So he proposed to keep adding justices until he could completely overule the court. Unfortunately, the Senate (highly dominated by Democrats) was willing to go along with this plan.

So, SCOTUS met with FDR and negotiated their decisions away to prevent this from coming to fruition. So, now all the decisions, not so suprisingly, started to go FDR's way. These cases, which were being decided by a blackmailed court, started setting precedent. Those decisions and their derivatives are still being used by the courts today.

So, when liberals talk about constitutionality of laws, such as Social Security, it has to be seen in light of the fact that it would have been declared unconstutional by an un-blackmailed court.

I was relatively unaware of this... can you post any sources to back it up... certainly has peaked my interest. Thanks!

[tntnixon]

The bill was ultimately defeated but only after the justices had already conceded. I wish I still had my term paper I wrote on this when I was still a history major (Originally I was a double major in history and biochemestry until I realized I couldn't afford the debt of med school and changed to Nursing). I had a lot more documentation and original sources cited than this Wikipedia source. But on short notice this is the best I can do. My original paper took me three months to research.

Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited September 7, 2009 by tntnixon

[Mark@Sea]

Yep. In my grade-school days, I thought FDR was a great president. It took a lot of years of reading, discovering how many small details fit into the picture, before I became aware that FDR went a long way toward making the Constitution irrelevant, stripping the restraints it held on federal government. My characterization of him today would be "less than kind", to put it mildly.

[tntnixon]

Interesting enough, at the time I wrote my paper, I was a liberal myself. But somehow, over the course of 20 years, experience and logic has made me more and more conservative. My Grandfather was actually the president of the AFL-CIO and cast the deciding vote at the 1960 Democratic Convention that gave JFK the nomination (he was one of JFK's best friends and I hate to admit it but he did actually have some mob ties). So I was indoctrinated as a liberal from the time of birth. Only as I experienced life on my own terms did I become conservative. He would roll over in his grave if he knew I generally vote Republican, now.

[Steelharp]

Interesting enough, at the time I wrote my paper, I was a liberal myself. But somehow, over the course of 20 years, experience and logic has made me more and more conservative.

That is common; what's the saying? If you're young and not liberal, you don't have a heart. If you're older and not conservative, you don't have a brain.

Uh... Ralphie?

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

The bill was ultimately defeated but only after the justices had already conceded. I wish I still had my term paper I wrote on this when I was still a history major (Originally I was a double major in history and biochemestry until I realized I couldn't afford the debt of med school and changed to Nursing). I had a lot more documentation and original sources cited than this Wikipedia source. But on short notice this is the best I can do. My original paper took me three months to research.

Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's the famous attempt by FDR to "pack the court."

The Senate rejected it by a 70-20 vote, sending the bill back to committee where it was never heard from again.

As for the court being, in effect, blackmailed, you don't know many Federal judges.....no beings on earth are less susceptible to blackmail--certainly not as a group. I'd be interested in anything you have to back up that claim. In the years since then we've had long periods when the court was dominated by conservatives....ex. the Bush v. Gore court....yet the New Deal programs were allowed to stand. It's easy to condemn FDR in hindsight, but if you look at him in the context of his times it's evident that his modest concessions to socialism may well have prevented a complete social and economic collapse and averted a more draconian shift toward communism or fascism...both of which were extremely popular at the height of the depression. For many, his programs such as the WPA and CCC which provided jobs to the unemployed, and social security literally meant the difference between life and death.

It was a time when millions of responsible citizens like you and I suddenly found themselves without jobs and with their fortunes wiped out. You have to imagine yourself in that position to understand what FDR meant to people. Our recent economic SNAFU was in large part the result of the repeal of the New Deal era Glass-Stegall act...Clinton went along with the Republicans on that.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

That is common; what's the saying? If you're young and not liberal, you don't have a heart. If you're older and not conservative, you don't have a brain.

Uh... Ralphie?

....and if you trust Fox news you don't have either.

Just kidding.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Interesting enough, at the time I wrote my paper, I was a liberal myself. But somehow, over the course of 20 years, experience and logic has made me more and more conservative. My Grandfather was actually the president of the AFL-CIO and cast the deciding vote at the 1960 Democratic Convention that gave JFK the nomination (he was one of JFK's best friends and I hate to admit it but he did actually have some mob ties). So I was indoctrinated as a liberal from the time of birth. Only as I experienced life on my own terms did I become conservative. He would roll over in his grave if he knew I generally vote Republican, now.

That's damned interesting!

I'd be curious as to what brought about the change in your outlook.

I was raised in a political family (Democratic), became a Republican when I started making money and paying taxes,

then came back around. I actually think I'm a "raging moderate," but you've only got 2 choices at the polls.

How's this for "common-ground."--

I think most liberals and conservatives have one big, fundamental thing in common--we fear some big, powerful entity having too much control over our lives.

Conservatives fear government taking their money and telling what to do.

Liberals like me don't like that either, but have a somewhat greater fear of unbridled corporate power....particularly in this age of multinational conglomerates who have no allegiance to any country. I see government as a necessary evil--the only thing with the power to protect us from corporate excesses, not to mention foreign armies.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

RGB,

On your points of people of differing minds coming together, I fully agree. My initial thoughts on healthcare and insurance:

1. Tort reform is a must

>>>Some states have already put caps on "pain and suffering"

claims....$200,000 in Missouri I believe. I can agree that it should be possible to arrive a some formula that would both prevent ridiculous monetary awards and allow for particularly egregious circumstances to be compensated at a higher rate--the example of a surgeon amputating a patient's good leg rather than the cancerous one comes to mind.

2. Allow small companies to "pool" if it will give them "group" breaks enjoyed by larger companies

>>>Agreed

3. Allow any of us to shop for insurance from any provider, not just in our state. I recall something about California, with its 15 billion dollar economoy, and the small number of insurers available.

>>>Agreed.

>>>What about a pool for individual 'independent contractors' like me?

What about denying people with pre-existing conditions or charging them unaffordable rates?

It seems that the more people insured, the less the risk to insurers thus greater possible access at lower cost?

What bothers me the most is the smoke and mirror approach that I perceive from Mr Obama; he needs to pick his lane, stay in it, and convince us of WHAT exactly HIS plan is. One commentator said Obama overlearned the Clinton lesson, i.e. too hands off and letting Congress run with the idea.

>>>I find that annoying too. I think he's having to walk a fine line between those who are adamantly for single-payer and those who are adamantly against any government option.

If he draws an line in the sand he risks ending up with nothing.

Anyway, just snap shot ideas. And I am not so naive as to believe any plan, for anything, will make all of us happy, regardless of the issue or the party in power. But going back to your point with which we will ALWAYS agree - reasonable people can and should find a mutually agreeable position, especially when we are talking about something that is between 15-20% of our economy as heathcare is at present. But compromise requires a clear starting position and voices raised not in anger, but in reasoned opposition, providing counter points.

>>>amen

Last point - I am concerned at the expansion of powers we all seem to be willing to allow our government, on local, state and federal levels, to take. We cannot cede constitutionally dictated processes for expediency or only if it suits our personal agenda.

>>>Having recently been given a ticket (for rolling through a red light in Gallatin...no traffic in sight) by a surveillance camera I can see your point.

My two cents from the peanut gallery...

Thanks

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Heck, first start in the right direction - people on the dole don't get a vote.

>>>Okay, I'll give you that if you'll give me a rule prohibiting congresspeople from voting on issues affecting entities from whom they get huge campaign contributions. I might settle for CSPAN having to run a crawl listing a congressman's biggest contributors and how much they contributed while he is speaking. Isn't that something both sides could agree on?

That might start reversing the trend of voting ever expanded and larger 'entitlements' Why the heck are they 'entitled' to what they never earned in the first place, anyway? What could possibly entitle me to the fruit of your labors, friend?

>>>Lazy people piss me off too but most "entitlements" aren't total giveaways--social security and medicare for example.