Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Hypocrisy and Contradiction of Today's Right

Words matter, but meanings matter more. When it comes down to it, yes, the President once promised you could keep you doctor and your insurance, and failed to completely fulfill that promise. But the President made a good faith effort to extend healthcare to millions of Americans, and the judicial activism of the right has, in bad faith, created a ruling that could strip that from millions of Americans.

I live in a state where the Governor made a big show of refusing to set up a state exchange. How was that possible? Because the Roberts court forced the system to become peacemeal, ruling unconstitutional the mandatory nature of the set up of the state exchanges.

Without that ruling, nothing in this recent DC circuit decision would have any meaning. The quirk of language this depends upon is the reference to the subsidies for the state exchanges. At the time of the drafting of the law, though, nobody could have forseen that a partisan court, lead by a judicial activist, would re-write the law into a voluntary state by state system, with the federal exchanges filling in where states decided to opt out.

In other words, the two conservative judges who made this decision completely disregarded the obvious, unambiguous intent of the legislators to insist on a letter of the law decision. They reinterpreted the law to fit their right-wing agenda.

This hasn't been an isolated incident. After years of complaining about liberals stretching the law, reinterpreting constitutional mandates, stuffing decisions into places they don't belong, Republicans and Conservatives are showing their true colors. They're showing that all that prevented them from carrying out such a described program of revisionism was a lack of power on their part.

This ruling has the potential to make affordable insurance impossible for millions of Americans. Forget keeping your doctor. Forget keeping your policy. And this won't be something inflicted by Obama's policies, but inflicted by two separate decisions compelled by the right in the question to destroy the Affordable Care Act.

In other words, after all their outrage over Obama's broken promise, they have compelled a far worse result in their quest to destroy Obamacare.

And what follows? Yeah, here's where it becomes a real joke. About the best they can offer is tort reform. Or, put another way, if your doctor screws up, your ability to recover damages from that doctor is limited.

That's their solution for Universal healthcare. Why? Why are Republicans so lacking in a solution? Because Obamacare was once their solution: compel people to buy the product, under a tax penalty, and lower costs by getting rid of free riders who burden other people with the cost of their care. I mean hell, it even sounds like a plan a market-oriented conservative would come up with!

Unfortunately, in their quest to inflict political defeat on Obama, to prevent an prestige-enhancing political victory, Republicans decided that it had to be opposed, and more to the point, had to be opposed as the direct opposite of what it really WAS! So, a policy that effectively makes people buy a private product gets lumped in with the British and Canadian systems, which are government funded and operated.

The Republicans, trying to score political points, beat their own solution to the healthcare shortfall in America beyond recognition.

I see Republicans these days calling policies socialism that were unremarked upon and unrepudiated during the 1980s. I see them question international norms that were proudly upheld by previous Republican Administrations.

After years of supporting one debt ceiling increase after another to feed Bush's debt-financed wars and tax cuts, Republicans suddenly get stingy when a Democrat comes along, all of a sudden notice these huge deficits, and start to claim they're bad for the economy when they formerly said they were quite necessary for the economy. The irony being they were probably worse for the economy while they said they were good, and better when they said they were bad.

If I seem a much, much angrier man than I used to be, well, this is part of the reason. I spent four years hearing Republicans say one thing about their policies, then turn around in 2008 to find them flip flopping in the exact opposite direction. It seems less determined by real principle, and more dependent on setting a double standard that grabs powers for them away from their rivals.

They bashed decisions that favored liberals as judicial activism. Now they celebrated much more egregious twisting of the law designed to meet partisan ends.

But what will be the net effect? At the end, this is what I will say to those who lost their subsidies, if the ruling stands:

You were denied this healthcare coverage, or have seen your premiums go up, because a group of Supreme Court Justices hired on by Republican Presidents made Medicaid expansion and state exchange set up optional for the states, rather than a requirement, and because the Republican President appointed judges of a 3 judge appeals panel chose to interpret a part of the law never written with that possiblity in mind as if it barred subsidies to those states. Additionally, when all is said and done, the reason why you won't get those subsidies, and people in those states that set up exchanges and expansions did, will be because of the Republican legislators and governors who scuttled those plans, opted out.

In short, the reason why you are paying more for your insurance now, or why you could have, if these rulings had been upheld, is the politics of the Republican Party. Obama didn't do this to you. The Republicans did. Republicans are trying to force you to pay more or get less. Republicans are trying to take your policy away from you, and not even as the consequence of an inadvertant failure on their part, but as a deliberate result of their political operations. They are willing to hurt you to destroy a President's legislative legacy.

It's time to hurt them right back, where it's appropriate to do so: at the ballot box. Send the Republican Party a message: you do not deliberately endanger the healthcare of millions of American in order to promote your political agenda.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2014 11:00 AM
Comments
Comment #381336

Stephen

I’m curious. Why are you so “concerned” about the millions of Americans who may lose their government health insurance or pay higher premiums now, but didn’t care one bit about the millions of Americans who lost their coverage or pay higher premiums because the ACA was forced onto them?

Quirk of language? Can I pay only my state taxes next year and claim I thought state meant federal? LOL!
Face it, they were either careless with their wording in trying to beat the 2010 election results, or they believe their own rhetoric of using words like state instead of government, worker instead of employee, comrade instead of fellow American.

Your two flip flop examples are weak, sorry. The Heritage idea was NEVER presented to, or accepted by, Republicans at the national level. To assume people on the right all wanted it because a liberal state senate rewrote a liberal Republican Govs bill, is silly.
And you’re still going on about the debt ceiling? Sheesh. How is this a flip flop when the biggest fight against raising it came from Tea Party candidates who were not elected until 2010?

Sorry Stephen, but President Obama and his politics are responsible for the ACA mess, nobody else. If he hadn’t forced the ACA onto the country, NONE of this would be happening. Millions would not have lost their insurance and doctor when the ACA was enacted. Millions would not have seen their premiums spike. Millions would not be paying more to get less, so that others can pay nothing and get more. President Obama took their policies away from them.

You have no right to be angry at Republicans for doing what their voters demand, especially when you expect the same from your own liberals. Your own hypocrisy is much more obvious than I think you realize.

Posted by: kctim at July 23, 2014 2:06 PM
Comment #381341

Daugherty writes; “…Supreme Court Justices hired on by Republican Presidents made Medicaid expansion and state exchange set up optional for the states, rather than a requirement…”

Incorrect, the Constitution did that. It is not in the purview of the federal government to dictate to the states in this instance.

Does Daugherty understand why some states opted out of Medicaid expansion and state exchanges? I doubt it.

Why doesn’t Daugherty fault obama for the many changes made to obamacare without benefit of congressional approval or federal court rulings?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 23, 2014 3:59 PM
Comment #381355

The plaintiffs in Halbig have no chance of winning their case in the Supreme Court. In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Supreme Court established a precedent known as Chevron deference. The way it works, is that whenever a statute’s meaning is slightly ambiguous the courts will always accept a Federal Agency’s interpretation.

For instance, the Clean Air Act requires that states that fail to meet certain air quality to establish permitting programs to regulate “stationary sources” of pollution. In the context of environmental regulation, this term has always referred to a single device or piece of equipment. However, the Reagan Administration’s EPA decided that to create a new definition whereby entire plants were considered to constitute a “stationary source” of pollution. This enabled operators to add noncompliant equipment to a plant as long as total emissions did not increase. NRDC took Reagan’s EPA to Court and ultimately lost. Although the EPA’s interpretation contradicted traditional definitions, there is a little bit of ambiguity. According to the Court, this slight bit of ambiguity is all that is needed for the executive branch to modify how a statute is enforced.

In other words, the interpretation must be unambiguously wrong in order for it to be invalidated, which is not the case in Halbig v. Burwell. It is easily arguable that by deciding to not create their own exchanges, these states thereby established exchanges that were subsequently funded and run by the Federal government as prescribed by the PPACA. Therefore, the Federal exchange was also “established” by the states.

I’m curious. Why are you so “concerned” about the millions of Americans who may lose their government health insurance or pay higher premiums now, but didn’t care one bit about the millions of Americans who lost their coverage or pay higher premiums because the ACA was forced onto them?

False equivalence here. You cannot compare losing access to a single plan with losing a subsidy that amounts to losing access to all plans. Also, you neglect the fact that in the former case, nearly everyone who lost an old plan was able to find better and cheaper plans in the exchange. Lastly, the quantities are different. 4-5 million Americans rely on PPACA subsidies today and that number is expected to triple in 3 years (source); on the other hand, the number of people in the former category is likely 2.7 million.

Face it, they were either careless with their wording in trying to beat the 2010 election results, or they believe their own rhetoric of using words like state instead of government, worker instead of employee, comrade instead of fellow American.
The language is ambiguous because the House passed the Senate version of the PPACA directly (instead of going to conference where these sorts of typos are usually removed).
The Heritage idea was NEVER presented to, or accepted by, Republicans at the national level.
Ignore this link, it’ll pop your partisian bubble.
To assume people on the right all wanted it because a liberal state senate rewrote a liberal Republican Govs bill, is silly.
Firstly, Romney is not a marginal figure in the Republican Party. Secondly, Republicans in the Massachusetts Senate (Scott Brown in particular) had significant influence over the reform bill as it navigated the General Court. Lastly, the law has Mitt Romney’s signature on it. Not Travaglini’s signature. Not DiMasi’s signature.
How is this a flip flop when the biggest fight against raising it came from Tea Party candidates who were not elected until 2010?
The people who became the Tea Party never raised a fuss regarding the deficit during the 2000s (or the 1980s). Also, there are many Congressional Republicans who supported Ted Cruz’s foolish game of chicken even though they were elected long before 2010 (and voted for many increases in the debt ceiling in the ’80s or ’00s).
If he hadn’t forced the ACA onto the country
Forced? Obama ran his campaign on this plan in 2008 and won an election. If Americans didn’t like the plan, the would’ve voted for McCain. Poll after poll has consistently indicated that a majority of Americans either support the PPACA or oppose it for leftist reasons.
Daugherty writes; “…Supreme Court Justices hired on by Republican Presidents made Medicaid expansion and state exchange set up optional for the states, rather than a requirement…”

Incorrect, the Constitution did that. It is not in the purview of the federal government to dictate to the states in this instance.

Actually, both of you are wrong. The Medicaid expansion was always optional. However, before the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruling, the Federal government prefaced a state’s entire Medicaid subsidy upon the PPACA expansion. After the ruling, states were empowered to elect not to expand Medicaid, but continue to receive Federal money for the preexisting medicaid program. I don’t believe there is a provision in the Constitution that entitles states to spend the Federal government’s money without playing by the Federal government’s rules, but that’s why the Supreme Court Ruling in that case was entirely baseless.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 23, 2014 6:13 PM
Comment #381356

Wrong Warren…the federal government can give any state any amount of money it wishes with or without strings attached. The federal government can not force states to comply with federal rulings in this instance.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 23, 2014 6:26 PM
Comment #381359

Fashion and popular items,in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style,varieties, low price and good quality,and the low sale price.Thank everyone Welcome to ==== http://www.kkship4biz.net ==
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
Jordan (1-22)&2014 shoes $45
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18
FREE SHIPPING
http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net
http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

http://www.kkship4biz.net

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===

===( http://www.kkship4biz.net )===
This is a shopping paradise
We need your support and trust

Posted by: guseryre at July 23, 2014 10:31 PM
Comment #381362

Royal Flush, I’m not wrong. Please do some reading on this subject. The status quo ante National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius was one where states had the option to choose whether or not to expand medicaid. However, the PPACA as originally enacted amended the Medicaid law such that any state that didn’t expand medicaid would forfeit its entire medicaid subsidy (not just the PPACA supplemental subsidy).

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 23, 2014 10:50 PM
Comment #381364

Ah, Warren, always nice to see your posts.

Let’s look at your little bubbles.

Your lack of concern for one American over another American, does not mean a “false equivalence” is present. First, EVERY American is forced to now purchase a government approved insurance plan. Insurance companies will alter pre-ACA plans to comply, but that does not change the fact that those changes create new and different plans than what the person had before. That means a lot more than the guess of 2.7 million have and will lose the plan they had.

If we are all supposed to be equals in the eyes of government, then government should treat us equally, not differently. If we are going to use individuals losing their health insurance as an example of something, then we should use ALL, not only the ones that support our political objective.

Fact: Millions of Americans lost their insurance plans when the ACA was imposed. Their ability to get another plan does not change that fact. Neither does governments belief that the ACA mandated plans are better or cheaper. They lost the insurance they were satisfied with, and were forced to purchase insurance not of their choosing.

Fact: IF the ACA was gone tomorrow, NOBODY would lose the right to have access to those plans. They would only lose their desire to have someone else provide it to them.

“The language is ambiguous because the House passed the Senate version of the PPACA directly (instead of going to conference where these sorts of typos are usually removed).”

Why the rush? Why not send it to conference to properly sort things out? Because it HAD to be passed BEFORE the people could have a say in the 2010 elections.

“Ignore this link, it’ll pop your partisian bubble.”

No need to ‘ignore’ anything, the facts speak for themselves. Republicans have never voted on and embraced this government mandate, on a national level. IF they had, it would have already been the law for the past 23 years, failed, and replaced by government provided health care, just as it was planned to do all along.

“Firstly, Romney is not a marginal figure in the Republican Party…”

Romney is a moderate Republican with the willingness to compromise with liberals on social issues in blue states. His input and signature has no bearing on the fact that the Dem majority rewrote the law enough for it be called the Heritages plan on steroids.

“The people who became the Tea Party never raised a fuss regarding the deficit during the 2000s (or the 1980s).”

Not true. The Tea Party did not become a viable force until the late 2000s and that power gave them a voice that had to finally be listened to. Tea Party candidates also did not start winning elections until the late 2000s.
To say they didn’t “raise a fuss” when they didn’t have a voice or weren’t even in office, is nothing but political propaganda.

“Also, there are many Congressional Republicans who supported Ted Cruz’s foolish game of chicken even though they were elected long before 2010 (and voted for many increases in the debt ceiling in the ’80s or ’00s).”

Because the mood of Republicans voters had changed. Do you honestly think a Congressional Republican should ignore his/her voters? That they should ignore the fact that they just watched many of their fellow statesmen lose at the ballot box?

“Forced? Obama ran his campaign on this plan in 2008 and won an election.”

Yes, forced.
First, on this issue, Obama did not run his campaign on creating a government mandate to force every American to purchase health insurance. He ran it on reforming health care and was very vague about how he intended to do it.
Second: When you give 51% of the people something to make them happy, you still have 49% who are forced to comply. When the previous system has almost 80% support, and ACA support is supposedly hovering around 40%, people are not happy with something, and that is the mandate which requires force.

“If Americans didn’t like the plan, the would’ve voted for McCain.”

They DID vote for McCain, you just think the desires of two trump the rights of one, so you are willing to ignore in order to fulfill your desires. They also voted against the ACA in 2010, when its details became known.

“Poll after poll has consistently indicated that a majority of Americans either support the PPACA or oppose it for leftist reasons”

No, they show that people like SOME aspects of the ACA, ALL of which could have been addressed without another government mandate that takes away freedom of choice.

And of course leftists don’t like the ACA, they want “free” health care, not health insurance they have to pay for themselves.

Posted by: kctim at July 24, 2014 9:56 AM
Comment #381388
If we are all supposed to be equals in the eyes of government, then government should treat us equally, not differently. If we are going to use individuals losing their health insurance as an example of something, then we should use ALL, not only the ones that support our political objective

Losing a plan and gaining another is not the same as losing access to all plans. It simply isn’t. So stop making a false comparison.

Millions of Americans lost their insurance plans when the ACA was imposed. Their ability to get another plan does not change that fact.
However, the replacement insurance certainly mitigates the situation immensely. The end result here is not an increase in the uninsured population. On the other hand, People who lose the ACA subsidy will not get a replacement plan. The number of uninsured will rise.
IF the ACA was gone tomorrow, NOBODY would lose the right to have access to those plans. They would only lose their desire to have someone else provide it to them.
No, without the ACA none of these plans would be possible. These plans accept anyone regardless of preexisting conditions and this is impossible to accomplish if the ACA disappeared.
Why the rush? Why not send it to conference to properly sort things out? Because it HAD to be passed BEFORE the people could have a say in the 2010 elections.
When I look at the chronology of the ACA law, I don’t see any rushing. The ACA was signed in March 2010. This was 7 months before the election and 9 months before the 112th Congress began. Hearings regarding health care reform began several years prior. Max Baucus began negotiations with GOP colleagues in June 2009 (9 months before ACA became law). Please cut the crap. Scott Brown and 40 other GOP senators pledged to filibuster any health care reform bill coming out of conference, which took the option of going to conference off the table. The only other option would be to kill the bill and restart from square one in a future Congress, which is an absurd thing for a party to do in this context and would establish a terrible governing precedent for the future.
Republicans have never voted on and embraced this government mandate, on a national level. IF they had, it would have already been the law for the past 23 years, failed, and replaced by government provided health care, just as it was planned to do all along.
You forgot one thing: In 1993, Democrats opposed this alternative plan, which is why it died in Committee. If Republicans had their way it would’ve become law. Here is a contemporary account from the LA Times:
In what may be the most politically significant alternative to the Clinton Administration’s health care reform plan, Senate Republicans unveiled their own version Wednesday—one that embraces many of the White House proposals but rejects some key ones, notably cost controls and mandatory employer-paid benefits. … But where the White House puts the burden for providing health care on employers, the Republican plan places it on individuals, who would be required to purchase health insurance in the same manner that most states require motorists to carry automobile insurance.

Individuals too poor to afford insurance would be issued government vouchers to help pay for it.

The GOP plan was put together by moderates led by Sen. John H. Chafee (R-R.I.), but it has received qualified expressions of support from some conservative Republicans. By Wednesday it had at least 22 co-sponsors, half the GOP membership of the Senate.

Romney is a moderate Republican with the willingness to compromise with liberals on social issues in blue states. His input and signature has no bearing on the fact that the Dem majority rewrote the law enough for it be called the Heritages plan on steroids.
Republican State legislators (such as Scott Brown) were extremely influential as the bill progressed from one step to next. I lived in MA at the time and I remember consuming local media at that time. The bill was unmistakably Republican and the Romney administration had to fight hard to convince Democrats to vote for it.
Not true. The Tea Party did not become a viable force until the late 2000s and that power gave them a voice that had to finally be listened to.
The Tea Party is composed mostly of people who were eligible to vote in 2004 and before. The TP would have been just as viable in 2005 as it was in 2009, if only conservatives actually had principles they believed in rather than simply voting for the candidates that vaguely a particular tribal identity.
Because the mood of Republicans voters had changed. Do you honestly think a Congressional Republican should ignore his/her voters? That they should ignore the fact that they just watched many of their fellow statesmen lose at the ballot box?
The top priority of any elected official should always be to do what is best for the country. Sometimes that requires making tough decisions that cut against public opinion. Sometimes, a GOP primary is a poor way of assessing public opinion (look at the recent Senate primaries in Delware, Nevada, Missoui, etc). Look at Lisa Murkowski, who ultimately beat Joe Miller.
When the previous system has almost 80% support
80% of people were insured before the ACA, but polls have consistently indicated that the status quo was not widely supported. If this weren’t the case, McCain would’ve taken the Presidential Oath in January 2009.
They DID vote for McCain, you just think the desires of two trump the rights of one, so you are willing to ignore in order to fulfill your desires. They also voted against the ACA in 2010, when its details became known.
Requiring unanimity is a terrible way to run a country. Are there rights that we possess that cannot be taken away by any majority? Yes, but there is no such right that abrogates one’s legal obligation to pay taxes agreed upon by 51% of the Congress.
They also voted against the ACA in 2010, when its details became known
And they also voted for Obama (and the ACA) in 2012. Turnout was greater in 2012 than in 2010, so 2012 better reflects the will of the American electorate.
No, they show that people like SOME aspects of the ACA, ALL of which could have been addressed without another government mandate that takes away freedom of choice.

And of course leftists don’t like the ACA, they want “free” health care, not health insurance they have to pay for themselves.


Apart from the individual mandate, do polls show support for all of the ACA’s other provisions? Yes, but that isn’t the poll question I’m talking about.

Do 40% of American voters support the ACA outright? Yes. Do 45% of American voters reject the ACA for conservative reasons? Yes. What the the remaining 15% think? They are mostly people who oppose the ACA because they’d rather of socialized medicine or governmental single payer coverage. These folks are probably not going to be voting Republican anytime soon.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 24, 2014 2:29 PM
Comment #381396

Just a “Tweak of the Beak” of my liberal friends I have found this story very interesting as it could easily apply to the slavish belief by the left of MMGW.

At the end of the article it reads…”Real scientists should not be afraid of where the facts take them even if it means dismantling their long cherished views of science.”

Scientist Fired for Discovering Something and Publishing What He Discovered

“The Pacific Justice Institute reports the following: “A scientist was terminated from his job at a California State University after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops fossil, and then publishing his findings…”

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/16394/scientist-fired-discovering-something-publishing-discovered/#7L0lcorvTzd2Hbag.99

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 24, 2014 4:42 PM
Comment #381398

Warren

If you lose a plan, you lose a plan. It’s dishonest to suggest it’s somehow “different” simply because somebody else gives you a different option.
Would you like a false comparisons? Defining lack of access as something not being provided to you. Not one single person is denied access to the insurance of their choosing if by some miracle the ACA was gone tomorrow.
No matter how you try to spin it, millions of people lost their insurance when the ACA was enacted and they are no less important than those who would lose their government subsidized insurance if it went away.

“No, without the ACA none of these plans would be possible.”

Seriously? How do you explain the insurance plans that were available before the ACA, that everybody had access to? Oh, but what about preexisting conditions? That issue could have been addressed without a government mandate that takes away freedom of choice.

“When I look at the chronology of the ACA law, I don’t see any rushing…”

Cut the crap? Come on Warren, there is no need to get emotional. I am being respectful and there is no need or reason to get all bent out of shape.

Now, let’s look at that timeline.
Obama became President Jan of 09. He fought with Republicans and his own party for most of the year, heard plenty from the people about not wanting things in the ACA, especially the mandate, representatives did not, could not, know what was in the whole thing, but still passed it in early 2010.
With so much disagreement and lack of knowledge about the ACA, WHY was it passed in such a way? WHY were democrats not concerned with WHY Republicans would filibuster the bill? WHY were democrats so willing to pass something they really had no clue about? Because they were lazy and didn’t want to start again from step one? Or because they knew they would not have the numbers to pass it AFTER the election?
An honest assessment points to the latter.

“You forgot one thing: In 1993, Democrats opposed this alternative plan, which is why it died in Committee. If Republicans had their way it would’ve become law.”

I did not forget it. Republicans have never voted on and embraced the plan on a national level. Sure, some Republican reps wanted it, but we will never know if the people wanted it. IMO, Republicans would have lost big at the polls for the decades if it had become law back then. If you believe the people would have embraced another huge government mandate back then, I disagree.

“Republican State legislators (such as Scott Brown) were extremely influential as the bill progressed from one step to next.”

Having lived there, you then know that there was a lot of give and take from both sides, and that Mass Republicans are no way representative of how other Republicans across the country feel. You also know that democrats also greatly influenced the bill, which means it is no longer a Republican bill. And that after what this administration added to it, it was called RomneyCare on steroids.
If it’s a Republican bill, why are there so many leftist fingerprints all over it?

“The TP would have been just as viable in 2005 as it was in 2009”

But they weren’t, were they. No, something really ticked them off and they decided that was the time to respond. You can cop out and blame ‘racism’ if you want, but people really are upset with the debt and government control over their lives.

“The top priority of any elected official should always be to do what is best for the country”

OK. But who gets to define what is ‘best for the country?’ The left and their desire for huge government programs? The right and their beliefs of individual rights and freedoms? The left and their false belief that they know what is in everybody’s best interest? The right who believes the individual knows what is in their own best interest?
Tell me Warren, why is your belief of free health care what’s best for the country, more valid than my belief that our rights and freedoms are what’s best for the country?

“80% of people were insured before the ACA, but polls have consistently indicated that the status quo was not widely supported.”

I hate polls, but they actually showed that something like 76% of insured Americans were satisfied with their health insurance back then. True, there were parts that people wanted reformed, but they could have been handled without something like the ACA.

McCain didn’t have a chance in 2008. As expected, he received 4% of the black vote instead of the 11% Bush got in 04. He received something like 15% less of the hispanic vote than Bush. Democrats got 5 million new minority voters signed up. People thought it was time a black man was President. People were told on a daily basis that not supporting Obama was racist. People were tired and wanted something different than Bush.
Any body who actually thought McCain had a chance were only fooling themselves.

“Requiring unanimity is a terrible way to run a country.”

Which is why we compromise on 3/4.

“Are there rights that we possess that cannot be taken away by any majority? Yes, but there is no such right that abrogates one’s legal obligation to pay taxes agreed upon by 51% of the Congress.”

Actually, there are rights like that and they require super majority support to be taken away. The fact that we allow our politicians and courts to side step that requirement does not mean it is magically Constitutional.

“And they also voted for Obama (and the ACA) in 2012.”

Very true, but I don’t believe it is fair to say the ACA played a big part in it, or that it is a better reflection of what the electorate wants.
We did not get to keep our plans or our doctors as promised. We are not saving over two grand on premiums, as told. And there are still more things to find out about the ACA. Conveniently, after another big election. Hmmm, imagine that.

“What do the remaining 15% think?”

I don’t know. You may be right and they are all liberals wanting “free” government health care. Seeing how only 11% or so of Democrats self identify as liberals, though, I’m not willing to leap to such a conclusion.
But even if we are conservative and say 10% of them really are liberals, is forcing liberal policy onto basically half of the country and dividing it even more, really what’s best for the country?

Posted by: kctim at July 24, 2014 4:59 PM
Comment #381401

…to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it… to abandon completely… the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.

— The Inquisition’s injunction against Galileo, 1616.[60]

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 24, 2014 5:07 PM
Comment #381409
To say they didn’t “raise a fuss” when they didn’t have a voice or weren’t even in office, is nothing but political propaganda.

kctim, one of the leading figures in the tea party was Dick Armey. He was in Congress for 20 plus years prior to financing and forming the Tea Party as part of Freedom Works. This is but one example of “having a voice”.

To think that all the foot soldiers (movement followers) in the “grassroots” Tea Party movement(yeah I know not even tea baggers believe that one anymore) didn’t have a say until 2010 is just wrong. These conservatives movement followers voted, they backed the big spending starve the beast repubs/conservatives, they are the same people who supported tax cuts while supporting going to war in Iraq. The same repubs/conservatives that cut taxes and ran up the huge debts these tea party types are all butt hurt about now.

The Tea Party leaders have been influencing our elected representatives for year they just found a new group of “lawmakers” foolish enough and indoctrinated enough to believe the myths they have been telling you guys all these years.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/FreedomWorks

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tea_Party_Patriots

Posted by: j2t2 at July 24, 2014 7:17 PM
Comment #381410

It’s about time some brave governor did something positive to help curb wasteful spending on welfare cheats.

AWESOME! Maine GOP Gov. LePage To Make “Able-Bodied” Welfare Recipients Work For Their Food Stamps…

“Maine’s Republican governor on Wednesday launched a push to make more “able-bodied” people work for their food stamps.

“People who are in need deserve a hand up, but we should not be giving able-bodied individuals a handout,’’ said Gov. Paul R. LePage.”

http://weaselzippers.us/194291-awesome-maine-gop-gov-lepage-to-make-able-bodied-welfare-recipients-work-for-their-food-stamps/

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 24, 2014 7:36 PM
Comment #381412
It’s dishonest to suggest it’s somehow “different” simply because somebody else gives you a different option.
Look. The original question you posed to Stephen was why don’t liberals sympathize with someone who had to change plans this year. This is fundamentally a question about values. These are values that we don’t share, which leads to our differing ideologies. You happen to place a high value on a right to make stupid decisions that impact others than I do. Instead, I believe individuals have a responsibility to do better than that. Take the case of Julie Boonstra, a woman with Leukemia who was featured in television advertisements sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative superPAC. Her horror story was widely debunked. Her new insurance plan is saving her lots of money. I feel that she’s better off today than she was last year, even if she did lose the right to purchase a stupid health plan. You are free to think differently, that the loss of the ability to purchase a stupid health plan is a much greater tragedy than the benefits gained by the better plan. However, that is your opinion and you shouldn’t be expect others to share it.
Would you like a false comparisons? Defining lack of access as something not being provided to you. Not one single person is denied access to the insurance of their choosing if by some miracle the ACA was gone tomorrow. No matter how you try to spin it, millions of people lost their insurance when the ACA was enacted and they are no less important than those who would lose their government subsidized insurance if it went away.
You are absolutely right. Feeling sympathy for Julie Boonstra’s loss of an inferior plan does not compel you to feel sympathy for someone else’s loss of a PPACA subsidy due to a typo. The two events are apples and oranges. You may judge the apple rotten and the orange ripe and I may judge the apple to ripe and orange rotten. We can debate the ripeness or rottenness of each on its own individual merits. But, believing the apple to be rotten does not obligate one to believe that the orange is rotten as well.
Seriously? How do you explain the insurance plans that were available before the ACA, that everybody had access to?
Insurance plans operated in a different market than they do after the ACA. I already mentioned the preexisting conditions issue, but there are also many others. For instance, the requirement that everyone purchase insurance has reduced the cost of insurance across the board. Without the ACA, this would no longer be true. Costs would have to rise to compensate for the loss of people who wished to be stupid and remain uninsured. In short, the plans available through the ACA exchange would cease to exist. You can argue that people may be better off in this scenario (maybe they have more choices now), but you cannot honestly argue that everyone will be able to keep their insurance (you will commit the same rhetorical blunder that Obama committed).
Obama became President Jan of 09. He fought with Republicans and his own party for most of the year, heard plenty from the people about not wanting things in the ACA, especially the mandate, representatives did not, could not, know what was in the whole thing, but still passed it in early 2010.

Firstly, we are talking about Congress not Obama. Congress wrote the sentence that is relevant in the Halbig v. Burwell case, not Obama. Congress decided the pace at which the bills were drafted and voted upon. What did Congress do in 2009? They negotiated and conducted political horse trading in order to secure enough votes. In the Senate, this culminated on December 24, 2009 when 60 Senators voted for HR 3590. This occurred before Scott Brown won the special election in Massachusetts that prompted the panic in the Democratic party that lead to the procedural jujitsu that enabled the PPACA to be passed. When those senators voted on 12/24/09, they believed that the bill would eventually go to conference in order to be brought into agreement with the House bill (they were still on route to pass the law the old-fashioned way so they would have an opportunity to correct minor errors and typos). The vote on 12/24/09 was not “rushed”.

With so much disagreement and lack of knowledge about the ACA, WHY was it passed in such a way?
The disagreement and lack of knowledge was solely a Republican phenomenon. When the Democrats finally passed the law in March, 2011 they knew exactly what they were voting for and they agreed with it.
WHY were democrats not concerned with WHY Republicans would filibuster the bill
If you recall the discussions from 2009, Democrats were extremely concerned with why the GOP was so steadfast. Max Baucus spent countless hours meeting with Republicans in 2009 trying to find this out. Ultimately, the answer became clear: Republicans would not negotiate because they sought to make the PPACA Obama’s Waterloo.
WHY were democrats so willing to pass something they really had no clue about?
Democrats knew what they were voting on. Pelosi’s remarks referred to Republicans, not Democrats. The problem here was not that the Democrats were unaware of these things, but rather that they were unable to fix them.
Because they were lazy and didn’t want to start again from step one? Or because they knew they would not have the numbers to pass it AFTER the election? An honest assessment points to the latter.
More honesty would suggest that both points are true. Democrats worked long and hard for 9 months negotiating for Bill Nelson’s vote. Why on Earth would they abandon all that effort, spend 9 months twiddling their thumbs and then have to start all over with Deb Fischer? Also, given Democrats’ experiences with Republican intransigence, it was entirely reasonable to believe that Deb Fischer would not negotiate in good faith. The only sensible move would be to stick to the same pacing that they had been following the entire year.
IMO, Republicans would have lost big at the polls for the decades if it had become law back then. If you believe the people would have embraced another huge government mandate back then, I disagree.
Conservatives kept pulling the GOP lever even though the GOP was responsible for massive deficit spending in the ’80s and ’00s. I am confident the same would occur if Chafee’s HEART act became law in ‘93. GOP candidates would trumpet “at least we prevented Hillarycare from being enacted” and the conservative electorate would tow the party line.
Having lived there, you then know that there was a lot of give and take from both sides, and that Mass Republicans are no way representative of how other Republicans across the country feel. You also know that democrats also greatly influenced the bill, which means it is no longer a Republican bill. And that after what this administration added to it, it was called RomneyCare on steroids. If it’s a Republican bill, why are there so many leftist fingerprints all over it?
You are correct that the bill was ultimately bipartisan, but it was the state GOP that was the main driving force behind it. Democrats forced concessions on a few points, but Romney/Brown never thought these were unreasonable and ultimately supported the bill until the end. Also, just so you know, from 1996 to 2004, a coalition of conservative DINOs and Republicans controlled the legislature under the leadership of Tom Finneran. Only a minority of Democratic representatives voted for Finneran to be Speaker, he only won the speakership because he won unanimous GOP support.
But they weren’t, were they. No, something really ticked them off and they decided that was the time to respond. You can cop out and blame ‘racism’ if you want, but people really are upset with the debt and government control over their lives.
Or maybe Stephen is right and all this uproar is just a way for conservatives to seize power? We’ll have to see if the next Republican administration actually balances the budget, but I am pretty sure that all the Tea Party’s complaints will fall by the wayside the moment the GOP regains control over all three branches of government. I personally don’t think it is entirely about racism; if President Herman Cain or Alan Keyes did the same things the Right would be perfectly fine with it.
Tell me Warren, why is your belief of free health care what’s best for the country, more valid than my belief that our rights and freedoms are what’s best for the country?

My beliefs are no more valid than your beliefs when it comes to our voting behaviors. We both vote for what we think is best, which is how we ought. Republican intransigence from the 111th Congress was not borne not by sincerely held conservative beliefs regarding what is best for the country, but rather by a cynical desire for power. The previous conservative endorsement of similar plans (Heritage Proposals, John Chafee’s HEART act, Mitt Romney’s work in MA) is all the evidence I need for my conclusion. Over the past quarter-century, there have been so many opportunities for conservatives to reject individual mandates. However, the mandate received endorsement after endorsement each year. If conservatives were truly doing what they believe to be best for the country, the idea would have been quashed a long time ago. Perhaps Mitt Romney would have vetoed the MA bill. Perhaps John Chafee’s GOP colleagues would have refused to cosponsor the HEART bill. Perhaps John Chafee would have never written the HEART bill in the first place. Perhaps the wonks at Heritage would have tossed the idea into the trash instead of endorsing it. Look, I can understand that if you look at any of these individually, it isn’t unreasonable to conclude that the idea was marginal and didn’t receive mainstream traction. However, over the course of 16 years that conclusion lost its validity as conservatives revived the individual mandate concept and endorsed it time after time.

People were told on a daily basis that not supporting Obama was racist.
Uh? No. Perhaps in the rants of some obscure blogger, but definitely not daily.
Any body who actually thought McCain had a chance were only fooling themselves.
McCain never had a chance because he was a conservative running in a center-left country.
Actually, there are rights like that and they require super majority support to be taken away.
But a right to not pay a tax isn’t one of them.
I don’t know. You may be right and they are all liberals wanting “free” government health care. Seeing how only 11% or so of Democrats self identify as liberals, though, I’m not willing to leap to such a conclusion.
I’m not sure where you get the 11% figure. Something like 40% of Democrats identify as liberal and 23% of the entire electorate does. I am quite confident that roughly 15% of American oppose the ACA for liberal reasons because it’s what they tell ORC every month. To be fair, the figure is more like 13% than 15%. I guess 2% of Americans are remain unsure here.
is forcing liberal policy onto basically half of the country and dividing it even more, really what’s best for the country?
. Is forcing conservative policy onto basically half of the country and dividing even more really what’s best for the country? Because that’s what doing notheing entailed. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 24, 2014 10:51 PM
Comment #381413

I think it’s more of judicial partisanship than judicial activism. An activist judge, according to the right, is a judge who rules based on the Constitution and not the Bible (i.e. gay marriage)

The Roberts Court makes its rulings based off the Republican Party’s platform and not the Constitution. John Roberts himself said the only reason he voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act is because if he didn’t, the High Court would have lost all credibility.

Posted by: TreyL at July 24, 2014 10:51 PM
Comment #381416

kctim-
See, when you start arguing about the loss of policies and loss of doctors, you’re talking about a relative, though significant loss of desired healthcare. But many of those people got new plans, were automatically cycled into them, and many of those people also got better plans on the exchanges. So, in their case, it wasn’t this total loss.

But what your people are forcing, and have already forced, is a much more absolute loss of healthcare. Now you might want to start making distinctions between government and private healthcare, but that’s your political bias at work, and not an objective measure of whether people are covered.

The Heritage idea so strongly resembles what the Hillary-Care opponents, Romney, and Obama put forward that it strains credibility to say it’s not what it is. Problem is, somebody up top decided that they were going to make it into the prime example of socialism, which is hilarious, since it does all it can to keep the insurance companies in the game. But you people… if somebody particular says it, you believe it. You don’t check. You instantly circle the wagons when you’re told you’re wrong. You’ve gotten so use to shutting the rest of us out that it’s become unthinking reflex. Would it kill you to believe that perhaps the people who led the charge against Obamacare lied to you for their own political gain?

Don’t you, who professes either to have never trusted these people in the first place, or lost trust in them, find it believable that they might have screwed over conservative principle in order to gain power, and gain it quickly?

The fact that you can be so easily manipulated is why you have such terrible leaders. If you were more canny with them, you might get folks who do more than talk, and impress you with the purity of their ideology. See, that’s a poor variation on public accountability, really. You can concern yourself with the consistency a person has with an abstract, mental checklist of policy positions and beliefs, or you can look at actual results.

It’s funny, really, that the actual results of the Obama Presidency are much better in many cases than Bush’s are. But if we’re talking propaganda, no Republican can admit that. He must be the worst, or the last guy will be.

The ACA mess is in part a consequence of what Republicans have done to try and destroy it. The Roberts court decision piecemealed the expansion of Medicaid, leaving millions out, and this new decision will compound that judicial activism, which flew in the face of years of precedent (just like many of Roberts’ decisions) by taking those states that refused to expand healthcare, and saying that the people who got their insurance on the federal exchanges (which only got set up where states failed to set them up themselves) don’t get the same subsidies.

Can you really argue to me that it was the intention of the Obama Administration and the Congress to set up a two tier pricing system, one affordable to people, one not? That just strains credibility, but you guys will claim anything to believe what you want to believe.

The premium spikes, this time, if they come, come because your people inflicted them on us through judicial activism.

As for what Republican voters demand? Have you considered for even a moment, as you build yourself up in outrage what exactly the implications of that requirement would be for Democratic Senators and Representatives? You don’t think it could be equally applied there?

But I would observe something that you REFUSE to allow for: that it may be better to get some of what I want in the real world, rather than all of what I want in my imagination!

Do you really think that the mandate was my ideal? It wasn’t! Neither were either of the two tax cut extensions. Nor was the deal we struck in 2011 to end the debt ceiling crisis. Nor are any number of budgets, emergency compromises, or anything like that. But I supported my President on those things, supported getting SOMETHING rather than NOTHING done. We can glory and wallow in our people doing nothing but successfully refusing to compromise, or we can push for them to create actual results, however imperfect or compromised, in the real world.

Faced with political realities, I would much rather have my President do what’s good for the country, what meets its needs now, than perpetually shoot for ideals and leave this nation’s real order of things in shambles.

You would rather see this country decline and decay, it seems to me, than have it run in a way that isn’t perfectly like what you want. You talk to me about how this is a Republic, and yet you turn around and advocate this point of view that is more fitting to a direct democracy, or a simple popular legislative model.

Your criticism is inconsistent and false. I’m not the hypocrite or the idealist. I am not the person who can’t seem to embrace the imperfection of his system, and allow that he only has influence, not control over it.

That’s why I’m going to win. I haven’t defined victory as something so perfect that I can never be satisfied with an intermediate result as a first step.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 25, 2014 7:26 AM
Comment #381417

kctim-
See, when you start arguing about the loss of policies and loss of doctors, you’re talking about a relative, though significant loss of desired healthcare. But many of those people got new plans, were automatically cycled into them, and many of those people also got better plans on the exchanges. So, in their case, it wasn’t this total loss.

But what your people are forcing, and have already forced, is a much more absolute loss of healthcare. There’s no question that the direct result of this would be many people being unable to afford their plans. And it wouldn’t be something that ran according to the original legal interpretations or intentions of Congress. This is purely an act of Judicial activism that was itself necessary to create this outcome. Nobody was even remotely thinking of kicking people on the Federal Exchanges off the subsidies before the two judges of this three judge panel decided on this outcome. It’s like one of those programming exploits that we hear about in IT, the ones that cause Microsoft to send you a constant stream of patches and fixes.

As for the Heritage idea? Look, you can pretend this wasn’t a conservative idea, because, really, there are no more conservative ideas. Conservative is whatever you’re for, liberal is whatever you’re against. Yours is the massive flip-flop. You no longer have the consistency of logic in your argument to face it.

As for what Republican voters demand, if Republican voters want a bunch of people acting like the House is all that matters, and expressing their ideals so purely it hurts, fine. But they will get results that reflect that, namely the results they’ve already seen with Boehner and the hundred of other trained barking seals who spout those carefully crafted focus-grouped talking points, and get nothing else done. This is an adult system we have here, which requires compromise on deeply held beliefs, or consensus at the least, in order to move policy forward. If you want the benefits of a functional government, if you’re so up in arms about things going wrong, you could do far better than you’re doing right now by compromising and making political ideals something you shoot for, not something you require to be carried out no matter what the conditions on the ground are.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 25, 2014 7:35 AM
Comment #381418

Royal Flush-
No, the Constitution didn’t up and fly out of it case and do that. A set of Supreme Court justices, working off of a theory of what they believe it says, did that.

I wonder, if it was the magic flying Constitution which did this decision, why is it that you, who said that the law was utterly unconstitutional, didn’t get the decision you wanted? Could it be that things are more complex than your political propaganda allows for?

You talk about the Constitution, but to carry it out, the Framers built a government around it, a government that operates on older principles, including the common-law system of precedents we got from the British Commonwealth. Your Supreme Court darlings opened up some pretty wriggly can of worms with their decisions, have come up with some pretty questionable legal arguments to support their theories.

Another part of this, though, which you also neglect, is that the executive branch has the job of carrying out the complex piles of laws that Congress has passed, laws that often contradict each other, or have problems in their legal structure, or practical issues associated with them. It’s the job of the executive branch, in fact it’s very purpose, to iron out these problems. Congress is supposed to be available then to revise the law. Problem is, we have one chamber wanting to utterly destroy it, and not settling for much less than that. If we had a more reasonable Republican majority, more able to realize that they can’t just do away with Obama’s key plan while he’s in office, if we had people who cared about getting the best results for Americans, we could see some changes and improvements made that way. But don’t you dare criticize this President for not going to Congress to get revisions, when you’ve made it clear that the only revisions you want are complete repeals.

As for the Triceratops soft tissue? First of all, the job requirements in science require people to put aside personal religious beliefs, and focus on what the evidence says. Moreover, they’re supposed to test whatever findings they have in order to make sure it’s true, not simply come to a conclusion and take it to heart, like you seem to do.

We’ve had some pretty shocking results over the past few years. There was a brief moment a few months ago when it seemed like there could be Neutrinos racing by at faster than light-speed. Rather than simply proclaim this result, like some guy in the comics or the movies, the people on the project asked a whole bunch of people to check their results, see if they made errors. Sure enough, some cabling turned out to skew the results, and we were back to a world in which nothing with mass can travel through space faster than light.

That so-called soft tissue is an anomaly. It can be explained in a number of ways. What I read said that it could be what it is, and we just didn’t understand fossilization well enough. It could also, though, be contamination. Or, worse, It could be scientific fraud. Remember cold fusion?

The scientist in question had a job to do. That job was to exhaust all methods to come up with natural explanations for what was there, to analyze it according to principles that can be repeated elsewhere.

I mean, it wouldn’t be the first time we got a better glimpse of the soft tissue and other fleshier parts than before. We’ve had imprints from around the fossil tell us that many dinosaurs had feathers, or feather like coverings. We’ve gotten impressions of skin, fossils of their dung and their stomach contents. There could be certain classes of fossils that have this soft-tissue somehow preserved in them.

Or, somebody could have stuck that in there. Or somebody could have let a fossil get contaminated. Or it could have been contaminated where it was.

These possibilities need to be eliminated, not simply dismissed out of hand. If the Scientist just defaulted to an explanation that it was evidence of young-earth creation, then that is bad science at best.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 25, 2014 8:10 AM
Comment #381422

J2

Using political propaganda to arguing against a claim of political propaganda? Really?

Yes, there have always been people and representatives who are closer to the Constitution than others. As you would say, further right. But that group of people were not organized enough to have enough power to effect legislation until the Tea Party came about.

Besides, even if we were to disregard that fact and accept your opinion on the matter, what does that say about the liberal extremists claim that the Republican Party has moved so far to the right? How in the hell can they now be further right than ever before, if they are supporting the same ideas that you say they have been controlling the country with for decades?

Sorry, but if we look at the actual history of this nation, the group who is foolish enough to have been indoctrinated to believe myths, are those who believe personal responsibility, low taxes, low debt and limited government are extreme radical beliefs that have never existed here.

Posted by: kctim at July 25, 2014 11:18 AM
Comment #381423

Warren

Obviously, we do not share the same values. I value the individual right of choice, where you seem to value the individual desire to judge and control what you view as “stupid” choices made by others. That is why I care about ALL who lost their plans, and why you justify the loss of plans when it supports your opinion.
Should we really be forcing our own personal values onto everybody else though? I don’t believe so, but, as you said, we have differing ideologies.

“I feel that she’s better off today than she was last year, even if she did lose the right to purchase a stupid health plan.”

Why does how YOU feel matter? Shouldn’t it be how SHE feels, seeing how SHE is the ONLY one who knows what is in her own best interest and all? How can you say her previous plan was “stupid” and that the plan she is forced to purchase is “better,” when YOU have clue about why SHE chose her previous plan?
Oh, I don’t “expect others to share” such respect for their fellow persons, I just think it would nice if you did.

Feeling sympathy has absolutely nothing to do with how access is NOT defined by something not being provided.

Pre-existing conditions could have been addressed without creating another huge government mandate.
Costs are not down “across the board.” Millions are paying more for their premiums and co-pays. Those are the facts, Warren. You may think it is “fair” to place a greater burden on them so that others may have less or no burden, but I do not.

“You can argue that people may be better off in this scenario…”

Only because I support the individual freedom of choice.

“Firstly, we are talking about Congress not Obama…”

No, Warren, Congress AND Obama worked on the legislation. They BOTH knew it had to be done before the election. There is a reason you guys proudly call it ObamaCare.
But, you are correct, Congress did the hard work with the “horse trading” and “jujitsu.” It’s funny that you admit the vote was rushed before Brown could be sworn in, but still deny the dem Congress and President Obama weren’t trying to beat the 2010 election.
The PPACA transformed our system, it did not just tweek it. That is not something you should do haphazardly in less than a year, unless you are up against a deadline. Deep down, you know this Warren, especially with all of the problems that the law is creating.

“The disagreement and lack of knowledge was solely a Republican phenomenon.”

No, it was not. No Republican agreed with the law, and many moderate Democrats had to be bought off in order to agree with it.
The FACT that so much about the law is unclear, needs special changes, and dems were vague about what was in it, is proof that you are just spinning here.

“If you recall the discussions from 2009…”

I recall that one of the main sticking points were the mandates, and that liberals deflected from that by making it about a personal hate of Obama.

“Democrats knew what they were voting on. Pelosi’s remarks referred to Republicans, not Democrats.”

Because she could not answer the question. Hell, to this very day, people cannot answer questions. Not because they read the bill and forgot, but because they only read parts of it.

“The problem here was not that the Democrats were unaware of these things, but rather that they were unable to fix them.”

Then WHY pass a bill they know needs a major overhaul? They either didn’t know what was in it, or they knew what was in the bill and knowingly passed a bad bill to beat their deadline. Which is it Warren?

“More honesty would suggest that both points are true.”

Yes, it was rushed.

“Why on Earth would they abandon all that effort, spend 9 months twiddling their thumbs and then have to start all over with Deb Fischer?”

Because it totally transformed our system into one that the vast majority of the country did NOT want, and the top priority should have been getting it right.

“Conservatives kept pulling the GOP lever even though the GOP was responsible for massive deficit spending in the ’80s and ’00s.”

The 70s and the wars had them pulling those levers. I disagree with them doing so and you could be correct that would have done so because they feared Hillarys dumb plan more. But those two things are nothing like pulling the lever to give up your freedom of choice on your health care.
(Things like that actually being possible always make me give the NWO conspiracy theories some thought, lol)

“You are correct that the bill was ultimately bipartisan, but it was the state GOP that was the main driving force behind it.”

Main driving force, but they wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without giving up more than just a “few things.” My point is that it was not really only a Republican plan and Republicans are NOT hypocrites for rejecting the ACA.

“Or maybe Stephen is right and all this uproar is just a way for conservatives to seize power?”

Conservatives and liberals want the power to run the country as they think it should be ran, that’s politics. Stephen gets so much crap because he refuses to acknowledge and respect the fact that principles and beliefs are what guide most people on the right.

“We’ll have to see if the next Republican administration actually balances the budget,”

They won’t.

“but I am pretty sure that all the Tea Party’s complaints will fall by the wayside the moment the GOP regains control over all three branches of government.”

I agree for the most part. I think the true Tea Party members will still complain, but I have no doubt their reps will be more open to compromise. It’s only natural since their solutions will be closer to Republican beliefs than they are to liberal beliefs.

“I personally don’t think it is entirely about racism”

I know you don’t Warren. In fact, you are one of my favorite blue bloggers because you don’t.

“Uh? No. Perhaps in the rants of some obscure blogger, but definitely not daily.”

Yes, we were. Newspapers, TV and internet, the primary reason for one not supporting Obama was racism. Just as it still is today.

“McCain never had a chance because he was a conservative running in a center-left country.”

I totally agree that we have become a center-left country. I have said so many times on here.

“But a right to not pay a tax isn’t one of them.”

It is if that tax isn’t Constitutional.

“I’m not sure where you get the 11% figure. Something like 40% of Democrats identify as liberal and 23% of the entire electorate does.”

I said earlier that I hate polls. I hang out at DU and Discussionist and they were all up in arms about a poll showing 11% of Dems identify as liberal. I have no problem admitting that poll could be, or probably is, wrong.
Thank you for the additional info on that.

I’m still not so keen on one side or the other forcing their individual beliefs onto others, especially when the numbers are so close like that.
But hell, I’d probably be complaining even if it was 75-25, LOL!!!

Posted by: kctim at July 25, 2014 1:03 PM
Comment #381424

Daugherty writes: “First of all, the job requirements in science require people to put aside personal religious beliefs, and focus on what the evidence says.”

Yup…done, and fired for daring to show data that doesn’t conform to current thinking.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 25, 2014 2:20 PM
Comment #381425

Royal Flush-
According to CSUN, the guy was a temporary technician, let go when his term of employment lapsed. That aside, let me ask you the question: is the man doing his job if he suddenly goes, “this is evidence of young earth creation!”

Folks have this rather bad idea of science as being all about shocking discoveries, which supplants the old order. The reality requires more work than that naive child’s notion of how science works.

That’s what you rebel against, don’t you? Talking points don’t require work on your part. Neither do religious doctrines. Science, though, requires that you work through the ins and outs of how you measure something, how you distinguish the presence of a cause from its lack, what elements of a given system are important for predicting its behavior, and what are not.

Over the years, I’ve grown an appreciation for both the necessity and the good of such a system, and how it makes the world around us as reliable as it is.

That reliability, that invisibility of function, is what gulls people like you into believing that it’s just another system of belief, as you live in a world where nature seems tamed and we no longer have to advance technology to maintain our standard of living or improve it.

I’ve laid out the complexities of trying to determine whether that’s modern or ancient tissue they’ve got in that bone. It’s not as easy as finding it, then holding up a sign above our heads saying, “It’s ancient Triceratops flesh!” Comparisons need to be made, genetics, proteins, whatever. You might honor the guy who jumps to a conclusion as a martyr, but he’s really not the Galileo you want him to be.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 25, 2014 2:50 PM
Comment #381427

kctim-
Thing is, I can’t nail down what those principles are anymore. They will say one thing while in power, claiming that something like the insurance mandate is better than socialism, then when some Democrat adopts their plan as part of reform, they’ll turn around and say that it IS socialism.

It’s difficult to compromise with people who move the goalposts on a constant basis, who ultimately ask you to meet them halfway in your endzone.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 25, 2014 2:56 PM
Comment #381429

Daugherty writes; “According to CSUN, the guy was a temporary technician, let go when his term of employment lapsed.”

Yea, sure, 38 month temp worker. It will be interesting to see how the law suit is decided.

“According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!”

Armitage, a published scientist of over 30 years, was subsequently let go after CSUN abruptly claimed his appointment at the university of 38 months had been temporary, and claimed a lack of funding for his position. This was news to him, and contradicted prior statements and documents from the university.

Michael Peffer, staff attorney with PJI’s southern California office said, “It has become apparent that ‘diversity’ and ‘intellectual curiosity,’ so often touted as hallmarks of a university education, do not apply to those with a religious point of view. This suit was filed, in part, to vindicate those ideals.” -

See more at: http://www.pacificjustice.org/press-releases/university-silences-scientist-after-dinosaur-discovery#sthash.Stsd0bEe.dpuf

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 25, 2014 3:00 PM
Comment #381430

Daugherty writes; “That reliability, that invisibility of function, is what gulls people like you into believing that it’s just another system of belief, as you live in a world where nature seems tamed and we no longer have to advance technology to maintain our standard of living or improve it.”

What a wonderful talent to have…being able to conclude what “people like me” believe.

Tell us Daugherty, what scientific degree do you hold? I’ve told you mine.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 25, 2014 3:05 PM
Comment #381431

Stephen

I am not so arrogant to believe that I somehow know if a person has a better policy than they had before. Is a guys policy better because it now covers birth control pills?
When I argue the loss of policy and doctors, I don’t ignore those who I think are better off, I include ALL people.

There was no “absolute loss of healthcare” BEFORE the ACA, there is none now, and there would be no such thing if the ACA was gone tomorrow. Stop trying to be so dramatic.
What people who do not support the ACA want is their freedom of choice back. Suggesting that belief is forcing anybody to do anything, is ridiculous. In absolutely no way does somebody not giving you something for nothing mean that they are forcing anything onto you.

I don’t have a political bias, I have a bias for individual rights. I have a bias for the rights of ALL, not the sad story of one.

The Heritage idea? How about trying to stay on topic.
What I actually said was that Republicans have never voted on and embraced such a law on the national level. You going to prove that wrong? Or are you going to circle the wagons and make more dumb “you people” games?

Tell me, Stephen. What lie do I promote that was actually used in the “charge against Obamacare,” that is inconsistent with the beliefs I have stated on here for the past 10 years?
Seeing how I am so easily manipulated to disagree with liberal policy, you should have no problem providing some examples to prove your point. To get back some of that credibility that eludes you of late.

You have tried the “actual results are what’s important” argument before, you lost then as you lose now.
You want “actual results” based on material things, I want them based on rights and freedoms. The fact that you write them off as being nothing more than an abstract mental checklist explains loudly why you are a liberal.

“It’s funny, really, that the actual results of the Obama Presidency are much better in many cases than Bush’s are.”

You know what’s even more funny? I have never said one was better than the other.

“The ACA mess is in part a consequence of what Republicans have done to try and destroy it.”

This is getting pitiful. Seems like just a short time ago somebody was running around blabbing about the Supreme Court was the final word and everybody needs to “deal with it.” But now that you might not get everything you way, they are an activist court?

“Can you really argue to me that it was the intention of the Obama Administration and the Congress”

Wasn’t arguing it before and not doing so now. I think in their rush to get beat the election deadline, they made many silly mistakes that would have been caught under normal procedure. And yes, not being clear and using the wrong words IS a perfect example.

When premiums spike and taxes keep going up, it will because of the ACA, nothing else. To blame judicial activism for failing to do one’s job properly is pretty standard nowadays, so good job.

“But I would observe something that you REFUSE to allow for: that it may be better to get some of what I want in the real world, rather than all of what I want in my imagination!”

You know, I can’t tell if you are really this dense, or if building and tearing down all this strawman BS makes you just have a really hard time understanding things.

Listen closely now: My individual rights and freedoms ARE what I want in the real world. I am not willing to give them up for comfort or convenience, as you are.

“But I supported my President on those things, supported getting SOMETHING rather than NOTHING done.”

Of course you supported him, he is a liberal democrat. Duh. Your blind partisanship, devotion and hypocrisy is much more obvious than you think.

“We can glory and wallow in our people doing nothing but successfully refusing to compromise”

Meh. I prefer to call it successfully slowing the destruction of the country, but please go on.

“or we can push for them to create actual results, however imperfect or compromised, in the real world.”

Oh, you mean instead of forcing all businesses to provide every birth control option under the sun, people should be willing to compromise and let a few businesses opt out of providing those they object to?

“Faced with political realities, I would much rather have my President do what’s good for the country”

Don’t fool yourself. You want your President to only do what you think is good for the country, you don’t give a crap about what other people think is best for the country.

“You would rather see this country decline and decay, it seems to me, than have it run in a way that isn’t perfectly like what you want.”

Sigh. I view the loss of our individual rights and freedoms as the decline and decay of our country. As you see it in material terms, can I then not say the same thing about you?

You really don’t understand that we place a higher priority on different things, do you? You honestly cannot grasp how anybody could value their freedom of choice more than just having something handed to them, can you?

“Your criticism is inconsistent and false.”

Then put your big boy pants on and prove it. Show me one thing which I am inconsistent on. Since you made the claim, it should be pretty easy, but I won’t hold my breath.

“I’m not the hypocrite or the idealist.”

Yes, you are. From abortion to taxes, I can point out specifically where you hold hypocritical views.

I also hold no false belief that I have any control over how our government operates. Give me a freaking break. I have long accepted that each year, fewer and fewer people believe in the Constitution and where that is leading us.

“That’s why I’m going to win. I haven’t defined victory as something so perfect that I can never be satisfied with an intermediate result as a first step”

But yet you are the one complaining the most. Go figure.
At least when I complain, I am complaining about losing what we once had, not about what I am not being given.

Posted by: kctim at July 25, 2014 3:11 PM
Comment #381433

Royal Flush-
That’s your man’s claim. Is there anything more than that, anything that makes it more than one person’s word against another?

As for being a published scientist, in what publications? Mostly Christian ones, not the kind of research publications that would entitle him to the authority you give him falsely.

I wasn’t born yesterday, Mr. Flush, I know what science is and isn’t made credible on.

As for this wonderful talent of knowing what people like you believe, it comes from wonderful talents like “Watching”, “Reading”, “Listening”, and then taking all I’ve watched, read, and listened to and making a comparative judgment about the value of science, based on my knowledge of the subject.

You guys are constantly telling us what you think, we don’t need to develop mutant abilities in order to discover it.

kctim-
There are other preventative benefits available to men in their policies that weren’t there before.

There was no “absolute loss of healthcare” BEFORE the ACA, there is none now, and there would be no such thing if the ACA was gone tomorrow. Stop trying to be so dramatic.

No, people have real policies now, purchased on the marketplace. This court decision would force them to pay more for that healthcare, or stop paying for it altogether.

That is absolute, as opposed to relative, losing the ability to afford healthcare in many cases as opposed to simply losing the cheaper, more familiar healthcare they already got.

As for the “many silly mistakes”? That’s funny, you folks were arguing that the original intent of the law is what matters, not some sophist’s reading of it. So, what is it, Democrats should have been less sloppy, or they originally intended to have federal marketplace policies be more expensive?

As for what you’ve said about individual freedoms and liberties? I think you want to pat yourself on the back for being such a brave, courageous citizen, and frankly, I couldn’t find the self-congratulation more grating. You think I don’t value my individual rights and liberties as much as you? Which one of us publishes under their real name? I did that as a statement that I took my rights as an American seriously enough that I would express my opinion without the shield of anonymity to protect me.

You see things in the simplicity of doctrine.

But what does doctrine mean by itself? Nothing. It doesn’t matter what Arthur Laffer things what the revenues will do if you lower taxes. It doesn’t matter what Hobby Lobby thinks it gains by being able to ditch contraception policies that go against the owner’s religious beliefs. It doesn’t matter what you think is behind the debt.

What we think can float free of what is true fairly easily.

So, you don’t really impress me when you say you are for individual rights, and in the next breath talk about corporations being able to opt in and out of different kinds of contraception. I mean, good God, man, whens the last time you saw a pregnant partnership, or an S-Class Corporation breastfeeding? Ever seen a publically traded corporation wheeling around their child in a stroller?

It’s the employees that deserve that option to opt in or opt out. It’s their rights you blindly trample over in your defense of an organization’s rights!

And you know what? This is a change from what was before, more so than the dropping of the co-pay that started this controversy.

Policy isn’t simply some politician spouting about what would be nice, or what’s evil, or whatever. It’s the rules and laws we actually set in place, and I’m interested in having an government that actually deals with that, as opposed to your paralyzed, lethargic system.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 25, 2014 4:00 PM
Comment #381434
Why does how YOU feel matter?

You asked why Stephen and others on the Left didn’t feel concerned. Of course my response is going to be centered around my feelings on the matter. I don’t think anyone ever becomes concerned when one believes another’s grievances are illegitimate.

Pre-existing conditions could have been addressed without creating another huge government mandate.
No, they couldn’t have. Any system without universal coverage would have a free-rider problem if the preexisting conditions were no longer considered. The only method I could see for doing this would be to permit people to sign an agreement to subject themselves to “preexisting conditions” clauses in exchange for an exemption from the individual mandate. At least that give people a choice, which I agree is a far more liberal position than what the PPACA offers.
It’s funny that you admit the vote was rushed before Brown could be sworn in, but still deny the dem Congress and President Obama weren’t trying to beat the 2010 election.
I’m not sure why you think I wrote that. Scott Brown was sworn into office on the 16th of February. The PPACA was voted upon and signed in March. The December 24, 2009 Senate vote occurred weeks before Brown’s Senate campaign became viable. All the polls conducted in 2009 showed Coakley with a 20+% lead. Senate Dems were not “rushing” to beat the election.

However, the election of Scott Brown is very important to explain why the PPACA contains these sorts of mistakes. Once Scott Brown was elected, there was no further room for negotiations because an amended bill could not pass the Senate due to the 41 GOP senators that had promised to filibuster any HCR bill. In February and March, Democrats only had two choices: Pass the PPACA in “as is” condition or kill the bill entirely. There’s no third option whereby Democrats could continue to negotiate and perfect the bill so it could be passed later in 2010.

The PPACA transformed our system, it did not just tweek it. That is not something you should do haphazardly in less than a year, unless you are up against a deadline. Deep down, you know this Warren, especially with all of the problems that the law is creating.
I agree that the PPACA was a transformation, not a tweak. However, most other transformative pieces of legislation were negotiated in a similar time frame (about 9 months). For instance, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (H.R. 3838 of 99th Congress) was introduced on Dec 03, 1985 and signed into law on Oct 22, 1986. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (H.R. 3734 of 104th Congress) was introduced on Jun 27, 1996 and signed into law on Aug 22, 1996 (caveat: it built upon two bills that had been vetoed in late 1995). Both of these laws were just as transformative and were also negotiated in a little less than a year.
Then WHY pass a bill they know needs a major overhaul? They either didn’t know what was in it, or they knew what was in the bill and knowingly passed a bad bill to beat their deadline. Which is it Warren?
Or maybe they passed the bill because they didn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? A future Democratic Congress always has the ability to tweak the bill further down the road to remove typos and imperfections.
Because it totally transformed our system into one that the vast majority of the country did NOT want, and the top priority should have been getting it right.
Firstly, a majority of the country did want this. Secondly, the law will be gotten right eventually. It just needs to be good enough to survive until the political environment cools down enough to allow Congress and the President to tweak it to remove silly mistakes.
It is if that tax isn’t Constitutional.
I’d like to discuss this in more detail as it actually brings out the differences in our ideology (everything else we are arguing is mostly semantics regarding procedure or partisanship). Why do you feel the tax is unconstitutional? The Constitution provides many precedents for forcing people to purchase things even if they don’t want to. For instance: Because I rent an apartment instead of owning a home, I pay higher taxes than other people do because I am not eligible for the mortgage interest tax deduction. Have my rights been violated because I am penalized for a decision I have made to rent rather than to own?
I said earlier that I hate polls.
No problem. Polls of all stripes are far more easily abused than used correctly. If I ever rely on a single poll to make my point, I’m usually not arguing seriously. However, I think that when polls from a wide variety of reputable organizations show consistent trends over a long period of time, then there is sometimes something useful that can be learned. The longtime trend for PPACA polls has been 40% support, 45% oppose because PPACA is “too liberal” and 15% are either undecided or oppose because PPACA is “not liberal enough”. I don’t think many of those 15% are voting for Tea Party Conservatives anytime soon.
I’m still not so keen on one side or the other forcing their individual beliefs onto others, especially when the numbers are so close like that. But hell, I’d probably be complaining even if it was 75-25, LOL!!!
This is genuine adherence to principled ideology, so I can’t argue with you. All I will say is that one of the fundamental aspects of living in a civilized nation-state is the trade-off we make with our rights in order to live in community with one another. We all inevitably force beliefs on one another. For instance, I believe it is necessary to have a standing army to protect our borders from an invading army. My neighbor might feel that we are better off abolishing our military like Iceland or Costa Rica have. But my neighbor is in the minority, we will force my beliefs onto him by making him pay taxes to support a military he never supported. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 25, 2014 4:23 PM
Comment #381435

Daugherty: “That’s your man’s claim. Is there anything more than that, anything that makes it more than one person’s word against another?”

Duh…that’s why it will be decided in court.

“You guys are constantly telling us what you think, we don’t need to develop mutant abilities in order to discover it.”

Any ability at all would help folks on the left who read, but don’t comprehend, listen, but don’t hear, pontificate but don’t believe.

“US GUYS” are not clones my untalented little friend. Where “US GUYS” agree comes from an abiding faith in the founding documents each colony signed to make us the United States.

The left is fond of referring to our Founders as “old white guys owning slaves”.

Listen my uninformed friend, who ruled the colonies before we revolted, and sanctioned existing slavery in the colonies? Are you really naive enough to believe that we would have a United States today if slavery was banned in our Constitution?

All the science training Daugherty claims to have is self taught. Since we know how limited your education is, we must doubt your science as well. Daugherty proclaims the tenets of science but fails to practice them himself. He is a parrot…not a thinker.

Daugherty: “This court decision would force them to pay more for that healthcare, or stop paying for it altogether.”

Well that’s fair. They pay less so we pay more. We WORK, THEY EAT! That’s leftist equality.

Warren writes: “The Constitution provides many precedents for forcing people to purchase things even if they don’t want to. For instance: Because I rent an apartment instead of owning a home, I pay higher taxes than other people do because I am not eligible for the mortgage interest tax deduction.”

That is not a cogent argument Warren. You make the choice to rent or buy a dwelling. You might as well make a silly argument about not getting a gas drilling tax credit despite owning no wells, or a charity tax credit while not giving to charity.

Warren writes: “All I will say is that one of the fundamental aspects of living in a civilized nation-state is the trade-off we make with our rights in order to live in community with one another. We all inevitably force beliefs on one another.”

Come on Warren, you are better than that. Confusing “inalienable rights” with “beliefs” is beneath your intelligence.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 25, 2014 4:56 PM
Comment #381436
That is not a cogent argument Warren. You make the choice to rent or buy a dwelling. You might as well make a silly argument about not getting a gas drilling tax credit despite owning no wells, or a charity tax credit while not giving to charity.
Why isn’t the argument just as silly when it regards someone paying more in taxes because they don’t purchase health insurance? The end result is the same; the government uses tax policy to guide buying habits.
Confusing “inalienable rights” with “beliefs” is beneath your intelligence.
I know the criteria that I use to draw the line between an inalienable right and a mere belief, but I do not know the criteria you or Tim use. Contriving absurd scenarios to test the boundaries of your thinking is the best way I know how to better understand where you are coming from. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 25, 2014 5:20 PM
Comment #381437

Warren: “The end result is the same; the government uses tax policy to guide buying habits.”

Not true in the examples I gave. In the first case, the tax credit is used to promote the general welfare thru greater energy production. Greater energy production yields greater taxes to the government and more employment.

In the second case the charity credit is used to save the government money by a WILLING and generous public using private resources for public good.

Warren: “I know the criteria that I use to draw the line between an inalienable right and a mere belief, but I do not know the criteria you or Tim use. Contriving absurd scenarios to test the boundaries of your thinking is the best way I know how to better understand where you are coming from.”

Warren, that is so lame. I am ashamed for you that you would try such an absurd spin. It makes absolutely no difference what anyone believes about “inalienable rights”. They exist and our founders defined them exactly.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 25, 2014 6:05 PM
Comment #381440

Stephen

All this complaining about the DC court ruling that the laws does not allow for subsidies from the federal exchange is childish. That’s what the law says. If they wanted to include the subsidies in the federal exchange it should have been written that way. The intent doesn’t matter. The ruling has to be based on the law as it is written.

Maybe if they had actually taken the time to thoroughly review and debate this piece of legislation that could have been addressed, but that wasn’t possible because they needed to ram it through in the middle of the night before the window of opportunity closed.

As Pelosi said we have to pass the bill to see what is in the bill. Guess what we also get to see what is not in the bill…….subsidies in the federal exchange. Sorry for your luck.

Posted by: dbs at July 26, 2014 8:26 AM
Comment #381441
Using political propaganda to arguing against a claim of political propaganda? Really?

Nope not at all kctim. You seem to have forgotten recent history or choose to ignore it. Trying to tell us it wasn’t until 2010 that the Birchers or the “Tea Party” as they are now known didn’t exist is just… well… just political propaganda.

Yes, there have always been people and representatives who are closer to the Constitution than others. As you would say, further right. But that group of people were not organized enough to have enough power to effect legislation until the Tea Party came about.

Perhaps in words but definitely not in deeds my friend. The right wing seeks to exclude many people from voting using a phony pretext, a plan from the Reagan era now well financed an executed by today conservatives intent on dominating this country against the will of the majority.

Besides, even if we were to disregard that fact and accept your opinion on the matter, what does that say about the liberal extremists claim that the Republican Party has moved so far to the right?

First you sling the word “fact” around as if it were a fact, it isn’t. In a nutshell the conservatives have been using the starve the beast strategy for years, why else would any fiscally intelligent group of people insist upon tax cuts during war time? Why would they increase programs without paying for them while cutting taxes? Oh they may have consolidated some power when they re-branded to the “Tea Party” but they have been trying to bring this country to its knees for years. Secondly liberal extremist! who exactly are we speaking of and what have they done to earn such a label other than identifying extremist on the right as such?

Third if you think the ranks of the far right extremist hasn’t grown over the years read this fact check on Reagan, he may not be conservative enough for the ascending JBS’ers er um I mean the “Tea Party”.
http://samuel-warde.com/2014/07/5-ways-to-annoy-republicans/

How in the hell can they now be further right than ever before, if they are supporting the same ideas that you say they have been controlling the country with for decades?

You make it sound as if only far right extremist ideas are the only bad ideas for governing this country but as we all know even some of the more moderate repubs this past 30 years, Reagan included, have brought forth laws and such designed to bring the country to its knees. Social security laws passed by Reagan being one example. Starve the beast , VooDoo economics and the socialization of debt in this country a few more. Remember it was Reagan who granted amnesty to illegals back in the day.

Sorry, but if we look at the actual history of this nation, the group who is foolish enough to have been indoctrinated to believe myths, are those who believe personal responsibility, low taxes, low debt and limited government are extreme radical beliefs that have never existed here.

I would think you are talking of the revisionist history of Glenn Beck and his ilk kctim, Conservatives seem to forget indentured servitude and slavery when they speak of personal responsibility, they turn to a different age, the age before the industrialization of the world and tell us it is their goal to return us to those times when the Aristocracy could do as they wish with those that labored for them. Then they claim the cloak of “personal responsibility” as they hide behind the corporate entity and lawyers. They seek to use the commons of this country and shift the burden of paying for it to the labor class as they have been doing since the days of Reagan. They tell us they seek to limit the government yet they have built a police state to keep us in line. This is truly “political propaganda” kctim.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 26, 2014 10:23 AM
Comment #381443
Not true in the examples I gave. In the first case, the tax credit is used to promote the general welfare thru greater energy production. Greater energy production yields greater taxes to the government and more employment.
OK, so you agree that it is OK for the government to use tax policy that affects the public’s buying habits so long as it promotes the general welfare?
It makes absolutely no difference what anyone believes about “inalienable rights”. They exist and our founders defined them exactly
Uh, what is an inalienable right and what isn’t is definitely an open question that the founders refused to answer. That’s why the 9th Amendment to the Constitution says that the people have rights that are not enumerated explicitly in the Constitution. Deciding what is and isn’t an right under the 9th Amendment is entirely up to us to figure out. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 26, 2014 11:24 AM
Comment #381444

Warren

“Uh, what is an inalienable right and what isn’t is definitely an open question”

Not really, inalienable rights are rights we are born with such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they require no one to do anything. Healthcare, when someone else is forced to pay for it is an entitlement not a right. Keep in mind that is only one example. There is a distinct difference between an entitlement and a right.


“That’s why the 9th Amendment to the Constitution says that the people have rights that are not enumerated”


That was put there to keep future gov’t officials from saying if it’s not listed in the constitution it doesn’t exist. Once again if it requires gov’t to take from others in order to provide, it is not a right, but an entitlement.

Posted by: dbs at July 26, 2014 12:34 PM
Comment #381445

Warren; “Uh, what is an inalienable right and what isn’t is definitely an open question that the founders refused to answer.”

Thanks for asking. “…they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Inalienable rights are those that come from our Creator as the founders stated. Such rights, if inalienable, can originate from man or man’s government.

If Warren demands that his “inalienable rights” be respected, he must first determine from whom the “right” originated.

dbs has it correct.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 26, 2014 2:55 PM
Comment #381446

Correction: “can

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 26, 2014 2:58 PM
Comment #381447

I’ll try one more time. Strike “can” and replace with “can’t”

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 26, 2014 3:00 PM
Comment #381461
ot really, inalienable rights are rights we are born with such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they require no one to do anything. Healthcare, when someone else is forced to pay for it is an entitlement not a right. Keep in mind that is only one example. There is a distinct difference between an entitlement and a right.
Fantastic, unlike Royal Flush you have actually answered my question So it appears that you use the construct of separating “rights” into two groups: Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty. Then, you declare that only the negative liberty rights are unalienable and dismiss positive liberty rights as mere entitlements. Have I gotten your position correct?
Inalienable rights are those that come from our Creator as the founders stated. Such rights, if inalienable, cannot originate from man or man’s government.
I can agree with this; however, it is not very useful for us to determine which rights are unalienable and which are alienable. It’s not like the Creator has given us a comprehensive list of all the rights He has endowed us with. We have a few enumerated rights listed in the Constitution, but the 9th Amendment tells us that there are many more unenumerated rights. I know how I make that determination, but I want to know how does Royal Flush? How do you decide whether or not a right is unalienable or not? Posted by: Warren Porter at July 27, 2014 11:55 AM
Comment #381462

Warren

“Fantastic, unlike Royal Flush you have actually answered my question So it appears that you use the construct of separating “rights” into two groups: Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty. Then, you declare that only the negative liberty rights are unalienable and dismiss positive liberty rights as mere entitlements.”

Inalienable rights exist with out anyone doing anything. You have the right to live your life as you see fit, and the right to protect your life and liberty from those who would to take them from you,. Once again a brief example.

You do not have an inalienable right to my personal property or the fruits of my labor. You seem to have difficulty discerning rights from entitlements. You then attempt to muddy the water by suggesting there is negative and positive liberty. This is just another way IMO of saying that if you need something I have, that you have a right to some of it, which you do not.

Posted by: d at July 27, 2014 12:21 PM
Comment #381463

Post #381462 should be dbs not d.

Posted by: dbs at July 27, 2014 12:23 PM
Comment #381464

dbs,

Firstly, the ideas of “Negative Liberty” vs “Positive Liberty” are philosophical constructs popularized by Isiah Berlin’s essay a href=”https://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/wiso_vwl/johannes/Ankuendigungen/Berlin_twoconceptsofliberty.pdf”>Two Concepts of Liberty. It’s not meant to muddy the waters, but merely to organize things. In Berlin’s terminology, negative liberties are necessitate the restraint, but not the action of others. For instance, the right to free speech is a negative liberty. I may say whatever I want with whatever means that I can afford, and others are prohibited from using coercion to censor my speech. On the other hand, the right to a soapbox to practice my speech is an example of positive liberty because it requires depriving someone else of a soapbox to give it to me. I think that you and I would both agree that the right to a soapbox ought to be considered an alienable one because practicing it deprives another citizen of his right to property (a negative right). This is going to be the case for most positive rights; they will violate someone else’s negative right, which means they aren’t unalienable. The question that remains for us is to determine if there are any positive rights worth protecting.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 27, 2014 1:23 PM
Comment #381465

We have a few enumerated rights listed in the Constitution, but the 9th Amendment tells us that there are many more unenumerated rights. I know how I make that determination, but I want to know how does Royal Flush? How do you decide whether or not a right is unalienable or not? Posted by: Warren Porter at July 27, 2014 11:55 AM

Reread the definition of an inalienable right as stated by our founders.

Rights conferred by government don’t qualify as inalienable. Governments pass laws to grant or deny rights on a myriad of things and activities as is their purpose. These are not inalienable…by definition.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 27, 2014 2:56 PM
Comment #381466
Rights conferred by government don’t qualify as inalienable. Governments pass laws to grant or deny rights on a myriad of things and activities as is their purpose. These are not inalienable…by definition.

OK, so are you saying that if a right comes out of the legislative process it must be alienable (such as the right to carry a concealed handgun without a permit), whereas other rights are unalienable (such as the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy in the first trimester) because they did not come into being through the legislative process?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 27, 2014 4:07 PM
Comment #381467

Warren, your question is not clear enough to answer. You could ask a hundred question about my ideas regarding inalienable rights. I like our founders definition best. “…endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”

What part of inalienable do you not understand?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 27, 2014 4:58 PM
Comment #381468

How do we know if a right was endowed by the Creator?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 27, 2014 5:19 PM
Comment #381472

Warren

“OK, so are you saying that if a right comes out of the legislative process it must be alienable (such as the right to carry a concealed handgun without a permit)”

Actually that would be an inalienable right. I have the right to defend myself, or protect my life from a criminal attacker. Gov’t in my opinion has violated that right by requiring permission.

” whereas other rights are unalienable (such as the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy in the first trimester) because they did not come into being through the legislative process?”

Inalienable or unalienable would depend on whether you believe an unborn human being has rights.

Posted by: dbs at July 27, 2014 6:29 PM
Comment #381473

Gee, what a brain-twister for you. I’ll make it simple for you Warren. In physics we have laws and theories and I will equate that to inalienable rights and laws of man or government.

Physical laws and inalienable rights are: True, Universal, Absolute, Simple, Stable, and Omnipotent.

Scientific theories and man’s law may be changed according to the dictates of the majority belief.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 27, 2014 6:48 PM
Comment #381489
Actually that would be an inalienable right. I have the right to defend myself, or protect my life from a criminal attacker. Gov’t in my opinion has violated that right by requiring permission.

So the creator has decided guns are the only way for one to defend oneself from a criminal attacker, why not the inalienable right to a baseball bat or tank?

The same creator, who if you are a christian, commands us not to kill also wants us to carry concealed weapons that kill. Are you guys sure about this?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20&version=KJV

Posted by: j2t2 at July 27, 2014 11:30 PM
Comment #381491

I suspect j2 you would let an attacker kill you or one of your family members? From your comment I take you don’t believe in defending yourself or your loved ones. Yes the creator tells us not to kill but he also doesn’t expect us to not defend ourselves, that’s the problem with picking one set of verses in the Bible and not reading the whole book. How we defend ourselves is not specified so that leaves it open to gun, knife, ball bat, spear, bow and arrow and yes even a tank.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 28, 2014 12:16 AM
Comment #381493

RF,

Gee, what a brain-twister for you.

I’m being intentionally obtuse in the hopes of learning how you think. I already have my own criteria for determining whether a right is unalienable or not. For me, I think the division of rights into “negative liberty” and “positive liberty” is a useful place to start. “Negative liberty” always concerns itself with unalienable rights whereas, “positive liberty” is typically more controversial.

Physical laws and inalienable rights are: True, Universal, Absolute, Simple, Stable, and Omnipotent.

Scientific theories and man’s law may be changed according to the dictates of the majority belief.

Bad example! Scientific theories are universal, absolute, simple, stable, etc… just like laws. A scientific theory is not subject to the dictates of majority belief. Instead, it is an artifact of natural phenomenon. The difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory is that the former can be derived directly from a priori mathematical principles whereas the latter is rooted in observable evidence.

dbs,

Actually that would be an inalienable right. I have the right to defend myself, or protect my life from a criminal attacker. Gov’t in my opinion has violated that right by requiring permission.

Firstly, the right to defend yourself or protect your life from a criminal attacker is distinct from your right to a carry a concealed firearm. Both rights may be unalienable (or not), but please don’t confuse the two.

Secondly, I’m getting the impression that you decided that these are inalienable rights merely as a result of your own individual diktat. For you, certain rights seem to be inalienable and others do not and you make the distinction purely as a matter of gut feeling. Or am I misreading you?

RF + dbs,
I bit of what I am trying to do here is extend a conversation I had with Weary Willie last week regarding liberal ideology. I think both liberals and conservatives both agree that it is self-evident that we have been endowed with certain unalienable rights; most of our disagreement concerns what is and isn’t an unalienable right. For instance, kctim alleged earlier that the tax authorized by the PPACA violated his inalienable rights, which he thought justified his declaration that the PPACA was ‘forced’ upon the citizenry even though a plurality of Americans seem to support most of it.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 28, 2014 12:59 AM
Comment #381502

Stephen

People had “real policies” before the ACA was implemented. To deny that is to deny reality. It is only your biased partisan opinion, based on your false belief that you know what is best for everybody else, that makes government mandated ACA policies better than policies we had before.
THAT, my friend, is an absolute.

The many silly mistakes statement refers to the FACT that the law has had to be changed MANY times since it became law. Mistakes that could have been properly addressed if it had not been hastily written to beat a deadline. So yes, democrats should have been less sloppy.
It is my opinion that ALL marketplace policies were designed to increase as time went by. Combined with more dependency on the program, and the tax increases to support it, it would become to expensive and people would beg for the government run single-payer you desire.

As you are willing to give up the individual rights and freedoms of ALL, for your own personal comfort and convenience, I know, not think, that you do not value them as you should. You finding that “grating,” means nothing to me.

Our Constitution is not complicated, Stephen. It only becomes so when we try and take shortcuts to change its meaning to satisfy our own personal desires.

Hate to break it to you, but I have absolutely no desire to “impress” or please you in any way. The only thing I do is present facts to your opinions, and give my own opinions of what I support and believe.
That is why I can talk about BOTH sides of the equation, instead of ignoring the side that does not support my position, as you do.

“It’s the employees that deserve that option to opt in or opt out. It’s their rights you blindly trample over in your defense of an organization’s rights!”

Are you seriously arguing that an employee is capable of choosing to opt in or out of a government mandated plan, but not capable of choosing to opt in or out of a plan offered by a business? You got to be freaking kidding me.

“Policy isn’t simply some politician spouting about what would be nice, or what’s evil, or whatever. It’s the rules and laws we actually set in place”

Except when it comes to marriage, right? Taxes? Guns?
Tell us Stephen, how can you preach about the need for rules and laws that support YOUR opinion, but don’t respect the right of others to do the same?

Posted by: kctim at July 28, 2014 11:02 AM
Comment #381503
The many silly mistakes statement refers to the FACT that the law has had to be changed MANY times since it became law. Mistakes that could have been properly addressed if it had not been hastily written to beat a deadline. So yes, democrats should have been less sloppy.

Fixing those mistakes can be done today with no more difficulty than if they were fixed in March, 2010. Which one of the two parties are responsible for the inaction for fixing these mistakes?

As you are willing to give up the individual rights and freedoms of ALL, for your own personal comfort and convenience, I know, not think, that you do not value them as you should. You finding that “grating,” means nothing to me.

Repeatedly, you assert that people have given up individual rights and freedoms without providing evidence or proof. I think it’s quite obvious that Stephen and I don’t believe that the ACA violated anyone’s rights or freedoms (otherwise we’d oppose the law). Both Stephen and I fully understand that a majority vote cannot strip a minority of its unalienable rights, however it remains to be proven that the individual mandate’s penalty actually prohibits anyone’s ability to buy the policy they want. Remember, that the consequences of buying a policy that doesn’t meet the PPACA’s coverage requirements are merely an increase in taxes levied, which no different from the increase in taxes levied against me for choosing to rent an apartment rather than own a home.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 28, 2014 11:15 AM
Comment #381504

Warren Porter, I purposefully avoided the health care law in our discussion because I understand it to be what I called a want, not a right.

The tax to support PPACA defines it as a want and not a right. You can not tax a right. You cannot tax speech, or religious liberty, or the right to defend yourself, which is what the 2nd amendment is all about.

If the government has to tax something to supply it to others it is not the people’s right to have it. You can’t take something from someone and give it to someone else and call it a right. It is a want, not a right.

How the PPACA was “forced” upon the citizenry was through deceit, bribery, and coercion. The “plurality” as you call it was not a majority, demonstrated by how Hillarycare went down in flames. The APPACA is nothing more than a desparate party’s power grab, and pandering toward the takers who are allowed to vote for their largess. The lies have been demonstrated by the increase in premiums of the people who already paid for insurance, the bribery was demonstrated by the states that received kickbacks for their votes, coercion is the tax and the involvement of the IRS.

Clearly there is no right to health care and this law clearly isn’t even a want.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 28, 2014 11:20 AM
Comment #381505

Warren

I didn’t ask why you feel concerned, I asked why you think why what you feel is more important than what she feels? If she knows she needs and wants A,B and C; why does your feeling that she needs and wants A,B,C,D and E matter at all?

“No, they couldn’t have. Any system without universal coverage would have a free-rider problem if the preexisting conditions were no longer considered.”

It wasn’t a huge problem. The number of people satisfied with their previous plan greatly outnumbered the number who were not. We could have at least tried numerous other things before we changed the entire system.

“I’m not sure why you think I wrote that.”

If I misread it, then I apologize.
From what I remember, Brown was not written off and democrats knew they would face the obstacles you mentioned. They did not wish to face them, so they accepted and signed a bill they knew was flawed.

“I agree that the PPACA was a transformation, not a tweak. However, most other transformative pieces of legislation were negotiated in a similar time frame (about 9 months).”

By only one side and in a totally partisan manner, with absolutely no support from the opposing side? Interesting. I will search more about that.

“Or maybe they passed the bill because they didn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? A future Democratic Congress always has the ability to tweak the bill further down the road to remove typos and imperfections.”

So, knowingly pass a bill with numerous mistakes and lack of support? Pretty shitty way to pass a bill, if you ask me.

“Firstly, a majority of the country did want this.”

No, they did not. IF that were true, the ACA wouldn’t have the lack of support it has today.
The majority of the country wanted reform, not another government mandate.

“Secondly, the law will be gotten right eventually. It just needs to be good enough to survive until the political environment cools down enough to allow Congress and the President to tweak it to remove silly mistakes.”

BS. It just needs to survive until enough people are dependent on it and have no other choice but to embrace it.

“Why do you feel the tax is unconstitutional?”

Because it trumps an individuals freedom of choice. Because government should not mandate what individuals purchase from a private business. Because. through government force, it takes from one against their will. Because it treats people unequally.

“The Constitution provides many precedents for forcing people to purchase things even if they don’t want to.”

Perversion of the Constitution has set those precedents.

“For instance: Because I rent an apartment instead of owning a home, I pay higher taxes than other people do because I am not eligible for the mortgage interest tax deduction. Have my rights been violated because I am penalized for a decision I have made to rent rather than to own?

IMO, yes, you are being penalized for your decision by the federal government. I understand, and can see, the argument that you are choosing to not be eligible for the deduction, but it is not governments job, so I side with you.

“This is genuine adherence to principled ideology, so I can’t argue with you. All I will say is that one of the fundamental aspects of living in a civilized nation-state is the trade-off we make with our rights in order to live in community with one another.”

I understand that Warren, but in a country based on individual rights and freedoms, that is the choice of the individual, not society.

“We all inevitably force beliefs on one another.”

We all have the desire to force beliefs onto others, which is why it is so important to adhere to the Constitution. When government starts imposing beliefs onto the people, people start using government to pick and choose which beliefs are to be supported, and which are to be condemned. Using government to do such a thing is VERY dangerous, which is why our founders made it so hard, and why people have to skirt around the Constitution to get their way.

Posted by: kctim at July 28, 2014 11:50 AM
Comment #381506
I purposefully avoided the health care law in our discussion because I understand it to be what I called a want, not a right.

I prefer to use the terminology of alienable vs unalienable rights. For instance, the right to a free pony is an alienable right. We don’t give free ponies to everyone because it would violate the unalienable rights of those people who currently own ponies or the rights of the taxpayers who would be forced to fund pony acquisition and distribution programs that have no external benefits. Consequently, our society makes no effort to protect or enforce the “right” right to a free pony.

You can not tax a right. You cannot tax speech, or religious liberty, or the right to defend yourself, which is what the 2nd amendment is all about.
Exactly true. These are unalienable rights and taxation would cause them to violated. Violation of an unalienable right should only occur under extreme circumstances in order to protect other unalienable rights.
The tax to support PPACA defines it as a want and not a right.
The tax enforces the individual mandate, but it does not fund the PPACA.
If the government has to tax something to supply it to others it is not the people’s right to have it. You can’t take something from someone and give it to someone else and call it a right. It is a want, not a right.
We already touched upon this with our discussion of the right to a free trial. In order to provide fair trials to its citizens, the government must levy taxes in order to fund the Courts, public defenders and other judicial infrastructure. The fact that a tax is levied does not make the right to a fair trial alienable (or a “want”, if I use your terminology). Posted by: Warren Porter at July 28, 2014 11:52 AM
Comment #381507

J2

You are starting to sound like Speaks now.
I did NOT say people with beliefs of limited government and lower taxes did not exist, I said they did not have the power they did in 2010. Yes, there were some reps who believed as such, and they may have had some influence over legislation here and there, but the FACT is that they did not have the power to move government until 2010.
That is fact, not the slinging of anything. It is only your opinion that there has been some super covert Tea Party conspiracy controlling the country since the 60s, 70s, 80s or whenever.

“In a nutshell the conservatives have been using the starve the beast strategy for years,”

Well, they are a lot closer to the Constitution than other party’s, so, IMO, you are correct that Conservatives support limited government and lower taxes.

“why else would any fiscally intelligent group of people insist upon tax cuts during war time?”

I don’t know. Maybe that’s why Bush didn’t get the devotion Obama has?

“Oh they may have consolidated some power when they re-branded to the “Tea Party” but they have been trying to bring this country to its knees for years.”

Constitutional, limited government and lower taxes will NOT bring this nation to its knees.

“Secondly liberal extremist! who exactly are we speaking of and what have they done to earn such a label other than identifying extremist on the right as such?”

Forcing an unwanted government mandate onto everybody, qualifies as doing something extreme. Labeling anybody who disagrees with gay marriage, higher taxes, amnesty etc… as racist and haters, is extreme. Especially when done so to promote a political agenda.

“You make it sound as if only far right extremist ideas are the only bad ideas for governing this country”

Um, not even close. The ideas of liberal extremist are what’s bad for the governing of this country and for the sorry position it is in today. liberalism and our Constitution cannot co-exist.

“I would think you are talking of the revisionist history of Glenn Beck and his ilk kctim,”

You think wrong, but your silly talk about aristocracy, evil ruling corporate entities, police state etc…, explain why you think as such.

Sorry J2, but we don’t have to give up our rights and freedoms to government, so that it may protect us from this 1% you guys wrongly fear so much. Especially when that 1% you fear is using that very same government.

Posted by: kctim at July 28, 2014 12:19 PM
Comment #381510

A right to a fair trail does not guarantee a full time judge, full time prosecutor, full time public defender, full time clerk, or a full time crime industry to support all of the above. A fair trial can be had without a penny spent and has in the past.

We want full time judges. We want full time prosecutors and full time public defenders. It’s apparent we want full time crime to support the full time justice industry.

We could reduce crime by actually punishing criminals to the extent it reduces recidivism. We could reduce crime by instilling the fear of getting caught again. We could also reduce the amount of superfluous laws that complicate the system. This would reduce the want of a full time judicial system without denying the defendant of a fair trial.

The idea that government must control everything is wrong! The PPACA is another example of government doing just that, trying to control everything!

Stephen Daugherty titles his post:
The Hypocrisy and Contradiction of Today’s Right

The hypocrisy and contradictions are saying this is still a free country while forcing laws like the PPACA down the people’s throats.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 28, 2014 3:01 PM
Comment #381512

j2t2 writes; “The same creator, who if you are a christian, commands us not to kill also wants us to carry concealed weapons that kill. Are you guys sure about this?”

If you happen to be a Christian or Jew, you understand that in this reference, “kill” means “murder”.

j2t2 writes; “So the creator has decided guns are the only way for one to defend oneself from a criminal attacker, why not the inalienable right to a baseball bat or tank?”

Many thanks to j2t2 for this great question.

Many folks here and elsewhere are confusing inalienable rights found in The Declaration of Independence with Constitutional Amendments which restrict or prohibit certain government actions.

Gun rights are found in the Fourth Amendment and are not included among the inalienable rights cited in the Declaration. The Ninth Amendment talks about “certain rights” that may exist that are not enumerated in “The Constitution” and does not refer to the inalienable rights found in the Declaration.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 28, 2014 3:33 PM
Comment #381513

“I’m being intentionally obtuse in the hopes of learning how you think.”

Thank you very much Warren for being a gentleman and asking interesting questions. I certainly am not a Constitutional scholar. I do study our founding documents and the lives and beliefs of the men who wrote and discussed these documents. After that, I am left with only my opinion as are you.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 28, 2014 3:39 PM
Comment #381514

“f the government has to tax something to supply it to others it is not the people’s right to have it. You can’t take something from someone and give it to someone else and call it a right. It is a want, not a right.”

Well said and easily understood. Thanks Weary Willie.

kctim writes: “Because I rent an apartment instead of owning a home, I pay higher taxes than other people do because I am not eligible for the mortgage interest tax deduction. Have my rights been violated because I am penalized for a decision I have made to rent rather than to own?”

Government often and regularly offers incentives for certain actions or behavior which it is promoting. kctime was not “penalized” for renting, he was simply not “rewarded” for renting.

One might as well say that people with no children are penalized as they don’t receive any deductions for children.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 28, 2014 3:55 PM
Comment #381515

SORRY kctim. I believe that quote above was from Warren and not you.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 28, 2014 3:58 PM
Comment #381518

Warren

The law was passed in 2010 by democrats only, but now it’s the Republicans at fault for not fixing the gross negligence of democrats, in 2014? Sorry, but the democrats didn’t want the Republicans help then, and they should not get it now.
Besides, if they help democrats, they deserve to be voted out.

“Repeatedly, you assert that people have given up individual rights and freedoms without providing evidence or proof.”

The ACA is all the evidence or proof that one needs. Well, that and taking a little time to read it and the integrity to acknowledge what it actually says.

You must purchase a policy that is ACA compliant, not what you know that you need. You have no choice in the matter, unless you want to pay for two policies.
If you do not have a policy that is ACA compliant, you are punished with additional taxes that will eventually become oppressive. You have no choice in the matter, even if you also purchase the plan that you know you need.

It is the furthest of reaches to try and say you do not lose your freedom of choice, because you can still buy additional plans.

There is no law that forces you to rent or to buy, as there is with the ACA.

Taxes are not levied onto you for not buying a home, because your are choosing to not take advantage of a benefit. Under the ACA, taxes are levied onto you for not buying insurance.

It is a mandate, Warren, not a suggestion. The severity of the punishment is irrelevant.

Posted by: kctim at July 28, 2014 4:28 PM
Comment #381531
A fair trial can be had without a penny spent and has in the past.

WW, unless you have volunteers (or slaves) to serve as judge/jury/etc, then I cannot imagine how a fair trial could be had without spending taxpayer money.

We could reduce crime by actually punishing criminals to the extent it reduces recidivism. We could reduce crime by instilling the fear of getting caught again. We could also reduce the amount of superfluous laws that complicate the system. This would reduce the want of a full time judicial system without denying the defendant of a fair trial.

You may reduce the costs of operating our judicial system with those policy prescriptions, but the cost will never be zero without substantial charitable contributions. The world will always have its murderers, its rapists, its thieves, etc and consequently we will always spend taxpayer money to administer justice.

I am left with only my opinion as are you.
RF, It is very honorable for you to have the humility to admit that we may all be blind here. As I alluded to before, I like Isaiah Berlin’s distinction between negative and positive liberty. The former are almost certainly unalienable whereas the the latter category is debateable. I brought this question up because kctim always emphasizes his belief that ACA violated his unalienable rights, which means that it would require a Constitutional amendment. I wonder why kctim is so adamant that he is correct in this regard? Why is the right to not purchase a PPACA policy unalienable? And if it is an unalienable right, wouldn’t it make more sense to amend the law to permit people who wish to waive their right to be protected from “preexisting conditions” clauses to exempt themselves from the individual mandate? This makes a lot more sense than repealing the rest of the law (which is very popular).
Well said and easily understood. Thanks Weary Willie.
Please see my comments to WW regarding the right to a fair trial (which I believe requires the expenditure of taxpayer money).
Government often and regularly offers incentives for certain actions or behavior which it is promoting
That is good and fine, but why isn’t the PPACA included in this? All the PPACA does is offer incentives for people to buy compliant health insurance. We still have the freedom not to buy such a policy (we just have to pay higher taxes as a result).

kctim,

The law was passed in 2010 by democrats only, but now it’s the Republicans at fault for not fixing the gross negligence of democrats, in 2014
It’s not Democrats’ fault that GOP intransigence prevented the law from being corrected during the 111th Congress, that fault remains with the GOP. With power, comes responsibility. Before the 112th Congress, the GOP didn’t have much power, but now they do, which makes them responsible for ensuring that the country operates smoothly. This includes patching sloppy language in an old law. If the GOP doesn’t patch the law, I take that to mean they must endorse it as it currently stands.

the democrats didn’t want the Republicans help then
Democrats desperately begged the GOP for support and votes throughout the 11th Congress. Just because the GOP wasn’t interested in negotiating in good faith doesn’t excuse them.
You must purchase a policy that is ACA compliant, not what you know that you need. You have no choice in the matter, unless you want to pay for two policies. If you do not have a policy that is ACA compliant, you are punished with additional taxes that will eventually become oppressive. You have no choice in the matter, even if you also purchase the plan that you know you need.
So you have already provided two pieces of evidence that show that one’s right to purchase a non-compliant policy is still permitted. One just needs to purchase a compliant policy in addition to the non-compliant one or one must forfeit the tax incentive that the PPACA provides to people with compliant policies. As you said, it is a stretch, but it is still the truth.

In addition, instead of repealing the PPACA lock stock and barrel, we can always amend it to permit people to waive their protection from “preexisting conditions” clauses in return for an exemption from the individual mandate. However, this simple fix is not advocated by many on the Right; so I conclude that this business regarding the violation of your rights is just a charade and that all this opposition is really a matter of playing politics rather than principled opposition.

The severity of the punishment is irrelevant.
No, the severity of the punishment is the only relevant thing. If we jailed anyone who didn’t comply with the individual mandate, your assertions regarding the violation of your rights may have some substance. However, the punishment for failing to comply is the forfeiture of a tax incentive and nothing more. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 28, 2014 10:27 PM
Comment #381536

I’ve always paid a tax on something I buy. This is the first time I’ve had to pay a tax on something I didn’t buy. To say I’m getting a tax break when I buy something is saying I’m being taxed for existing and then I pay less tax when I buy a plan. Add on the fact that some people are exempt from this tax and you automatically have a want and not a right. You can’t distinguish different people and call it a right. You can’t have one person pay a tax because they don’t have it, and then turn around and pay others because they don’t have it. Does that show you how wrong this law is?

I remember you saying the tax is not funding the PPACA. You said the tax is an incentive to purchase a plan. Your reasoning says my existence is being taxed and the PPACA is a reduction of an IExist tax.

Do you remember when it was called a fine? Why are you so adamant that it is a tax now? You should be arguing the court’s decision, not referring to it as if it’s been a tax all along, unless that was the plan all along!

Your argument leads me to believe it was a lie to call it a fine and it was a tax from the beginning. Do you remember when Obama said he would not raise taxes 1 thin dime? Another lie!

See the lies, Warren Porter? Why should we trust any part of this law? It’s fraught with lies and deception from the word go. Fool me once, shame on you!

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 29, 2014 12:18 AM
Comment #381537

Wearie Willie, do you pay income taxes?

Your reasoning says my existence is being taxed

No, your income is being taxed; not your existence. People with no income are exempt from the tax increase caused by the individual mandate.

Why are you so adamant that it is a tax now
Check the archives. I was adamant that it was a tax from day one long before Justice Roberts wrote his opinion two years ago.
Your argument leads me to believe it was a lie to call it a fine and it was a tax from the beginning. Do you remember when Obama said he would not raise taxes 1 thin dime? Another lie!
The case is stronger to claim that Obama broke that promise with the PPACA’s sin tax on tanning salons.
See the lies, Warren Porter? Why should we trust any part of this law? It’s fraught with lies and deception from the word go. Fool me once, shame on you!
This is the fallacy of composition at its finest. Your argument is unsound. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 29, 2014 2:15 AM
Comment #381538

The tax you were referring to was not the income tax, Warren Porter. What are you trying to pull here?

This law is one lie after another! How many more are coming? It’s your argument that is unsound? You are defending lie after lie and manufacturing facts to fit your argument. What has the income tax to do with PPACA? It doesn’t relate!

And if you knew this was a tax why didn’t you call Obama out when you heard him say it wasn’t a tax time after time after time?!

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 29, 2014 2:35 AM
Comment #381549
The tax you were referring to was not the income tax

The amount of tax you pay for not being in compliance with the mandate is 1% of your income, sounds like an income tax to me.

What has the income tax to do with PPACA? It doesn’t relate!
The income tax has everything to do with the PPACA. Paying an additional tax on income is the consequence of not having a compliant policy.
This law is one lie after another! How many more are coming?
This is a hasty generalization, which is an informal fallacy. This argument is unsound.
It’s your argument that is unsound?
Proof?
You are defending lie after lie and manufacturing facts to fit your argument.
And if you knew this was a tax why didn’t you call Obama out when you heard him say it wasn’t a tax time after time after time?!
Nobody has to pay the tax (they can comply with the mandate instead), which in my opinion adheres to Obama’s campaign pledge not to raise taxes on people with incomes less than a quarter million/yr. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 29, 2014 11:31 AM
Comment #381550

Warren

The dems had the power to pass the law, and the responsibility to pass a good law, not one they knew was flawed. That is not too much to ask of our representatives, is it?
And we both know President Obama and the dems will not let Republicans “patch” the law, unless it is in 100% agreement with how dems want to.

The dems insisted on a government final solution and wanted nothing to do with any idea that did not support that. IF you are serious about compromise, you don’t say this is the only way, but we will consider support of our views in making it better.

The ACA does not give one a tax incentive for purchasing ACA plans, it accesses a tax punishment for NOT purchasing a government plan. It punishes you for making what the government says is the wrong choice and no matter how you spin it, that is NOT freedom of choice.

The fact is, the ACA takes away choice and offers government approved options. Being a supporter of the ACA, you should be willing to accept that as truth.

“In addition, instead of repealing the PPACA lock stock and barrel, we can always amend it to permit people to waive their protection from “preexisting conditions” clauses in return for an exemption from the individual mandate.”

Will never happen for the same reasons the left won’t even consider giving people back their freedom of choice with social security: People would choose their own money over the program and the program would go broke.

“so I conclude that this business regarding the violation of your rights is just a charade and that all this opposition is really a matter of playing politics rather than principled opposition.”

That’s sad to hear, Warren. I figured you would be one willing to respect others with differing views and not make judgments from baseless stereotypes fed to you.
Losing our freedom of choice is not a charade. Defending, ignoring or excusing that loss for personal desires is the ONLY politics being played here.
And if wanting to protect the freedom of choice for ALL Americans isn’t a principled position, I don’t know what is.

“No, the severity of the punishment is the only relevant thing.”

So, freely give up our rights for a $100, but fight to keep them at $101? That sounds like something Speaks would say.

“If we jailed anyone who didn’t comply with the individual mandate, your assertions regarding the violation of your rights may have some substance.”

What happens to people now, when they “choose” not to pay their taxes? The government hunts them down and jails them.

“However, the punishment for failing to comply is the forfeiture of a tax incentive and nothing more.”

I’ve seen this talking point being thrown around a lot lately. Do you seriously believe that being forced to pay for not doing as ordered, is some kind of incentive? Do you realize what redefining it in such a way could lead to? Comply by praying and giving the government approved church 10%? Or decline that “incentive” and pay a tax to government do you don’t have to pray? That’s messed up, even for the left.

An incentive encourages behavior, not control it through intimidation and force.

Posted by: kctim at July 29, 2014 11:55 AM
Comment #381551
The dems had the power to pass the law, and the responsibility to pass a good law, not one they knew was flawed. That is not too much to ask of our representatives, is it?
Democrats in March, 2010 did not have the power to write and pass a new bill into law. They only had the power to pass bills that had already passed through the Senate before Scott Brown was sworn in.
And we both know President Obama and the dems will not let Republicans “patch” the law, unless it is in 100% agreement with how dems want to.
I disagree. Democrats have offered to compromise time and time again, only to be rebuffed each time by an intransigent GOP. House Republicans are openly hostile to the law, having voted to repeal it entirely dozens of times, but never voting for a patch. Why doesn’t John Boehner prove me wrong? He could pass a patch for the bill that fixes the minor problems without interfering with the wider architecture of the PPACA and we will see if Democrats dare block it.
The dems insisted on a government final solution and wanted nothing to do with any idea that did not support that. IF you are serious about compromise, you don’t say this is the only way, but we will consider support of our views in making it better.
Just because you say something, doesn’t make it so. Give me a quote from Obama, Pelosi or Reid insisting “on a government final solution”. To be honest, I don’t even feel that the PPACA as it currently exists is a “government final solution” because it leaves a private insurance market intact.
The ACA does not give one a tax incentive for purchasing ACA plans, it accesses a tax punishment for NOT purchasing a government plan. It punishes you for making what the government says is the wrong choice and no matter how you spin it, that is NOT freedom of choice.
No different than when the government says renting is the wrong choice and accesses a tax punishment on me for not owning a home.
Will never happen for the same reasons the left won’t even consider giving people back their freedom of choice with social security: People would choose their own money over the program and the program would go broke.
Let Boehner pass such a bill in the House. If Senate Democrats and Obama block it, then you might be right. However, the absence of such an action in the House indicates to me that the HOR cares more about embarrassing the Democrats than protecting Americans’ rights. Also, why in the world would someone waive their right to protection from “preexisting conditions” clauses in order to buy an inferior health plan?
Losing our freedom of choice is not a charade. Defending, ignoring or excusing that loss for personal desires is the ONLY politics being played here. And if wanting to protect the freedom of choice for ALL Americans isn’t a principled position, I don’t know what is.
The freedom to purchase the health care plan of your choosing is identical to the freedom to choose to buy or rent. Or the freedom to have or not have children. Or any of a multitude of other behaviors that the government incentivizes or disincentivizes with tax policy. If this was a principled position, you would protest the mortgage tax deduction and all those other incentives just as strongly. The only thing that makes this different is the politics because it enables you to score political points by embarrassing Democrats.
What happens to people now, when they “choose” not to pay their taxes? The government hunts them down and jails them.
This is not true in the case of the PPACA individual mandate:
(2) Special rules Notwithstanding any other provision of law— (A) Waiver of criminal penalties In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure. (B) Limitations on liens and levies The Secretary shall not— (i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or (ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.
Internal Revenue Code Title 26 § 5000A - Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage (paragraph g)
I’ve seen this talking point being thrown around a lot lately. Do you seriously believe that being forced to pay for not doing as ordered, is some kind of incentive? Do you realize what redefining it in such a way could lead to? Comply by praying and giving the government approved church 10%? Or decline that “incentive” and pay a tax to government do you don’t have to pray? That’s messed up, even for the left.
This doesn’t work because regulating who prays to who isn’t a legitimate function of government (whereas regulating the health insurance market is a legitimate government function). How do I know this? It is because there are external benefits derived from regulating the health insurance marketplace. On the other hand, the only benefits that could possibly come from prayer to a particular god are completely internal. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 29, 2014 12:50 PM
Comment #381554
Special rules Notwithstanding any other provision of law—

What does that mean?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 29, 2014 2:51 PM
Comment #381555

Paragraph G contains special rules. Those rules override any other provision of the same law.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 29, 2014 3:00 PM
Comment #381557

What are those special rules?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 29, 2014 3:20 PM
Comment #381558

I provided paragraph G in its entirety above. The special rules are: Nobody can be criminally penalized for failure to pay the tax penalty for failing to obtain compliant health insurance. The IRS cannot levy a lien against the property of any taxpayer who fails to pay the tax penalty.

The relevant text can be found here.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 29, 2014 3:42 PM
Comment #381561
What happens to people now, when they “choose” not to pay their taxes? The government hunts them down and jails them.
This is not true in the case of the PPACA individual mandate:

I think you forgot to quote this part:

(1) In general The penalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-F/chapter-68/subchapter-B

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 29, 2014 5:09 PM
Comment #381564

My apologies about my goof regarding paragraph 1 of section g. However, my point still stands:

(1) In general The penalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68

The exceptions listed in paragraph 2 clearly indicate that one cannot be prosecuted for failure to pay the tax penalty.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 29, 2014 5:21 PM
Comment #381567

Warren

Before March 2010, dems had the power to pass bills AND the responsibility to ensure those bills were not flawed to the extent that the ACA is. They only had to do it before Brown was sworn in, and the Nov. elections, if they were worried about losing power.

Democrats have offered to compromise only on certain parts of the law, not the law itself. Of course Republicans are openly hostile to it, trying to get rid of it and are not willing to fix it. They were shut out of the “wider architecture” of the bill, but now they are at fault for not caving in to “fix” the minor problems? I don’t think so.

“Just because you say something, doesn’t make it so.”

I would never be so bold to think so.
What we do know however, is that Obama, Reid and Pelosi all wanted to provide free or subsidized health care to their voters, and the only way to do that is through government. We also know that they would not consider any plan that did not do that.
We also know that the ONLY reason insurance companies were left in the equation was because of moderate democrats who would not agree to a public option, Medicare for all or single payer, system.

“No different than when the government says renting is the wrong choice and accesses a tax punishment on me for not owning a home.”

You are intentionally being obtuse here.

“However, the absence of such an action in the House indicates to me that the HOR cares more about embarrassing the Democrats than protecting Americans’ rights.”

Do you expect me to disagree? Just because Republicans are better at protecting our rights than democrats are, doesn’t mean they are doing all they should be doing. The only reason I sometimes vote Republican is in hopes of slowing the destruction of our Republic.

“Also, why in the world would someone waive their right to protection from “preexisting conditions” clauses in order to buy an inferior health plan?”

Because they value their rights and freedoms more than the dollar. Because the individual, not the left, is the ONLY one who knows what plan they want or need.

“The freedom to purchase the health care plan of your choosing is identical to the freedom to choose to buy or rent.”

No, it is not. You are not forced to rent or buy a home. You are forced to buy health insurance. You are not punished for choosing not to rent or buy a home. You are not punished for renting. You are not punished for owning. You are punished for not buying health insurance.
Tax law says you qualify for credits if you choose to buy a home. ACA law say you will pay extra taxes if you opt NOT to buy health insurance.

“If this was a principled position, you would protest the mortgage tax deduction and all those other incentives just as strongly.”

As I stated earlier: IMO, yes, you are being penalized for your decision by the federal government.

The topic is the ACA, if you want me to protest the unequal treatment of individuals on others topics, bring it up.
Don’t let the frustration of trying to defend an invalid point, lead you to trying to play the ‘gotcha game,’ Warren.
I am not trying to score political points to embarrass democrats, the hypocrisy of liberalism does a good enough job at that.

“This is not true in the case of the PPACA individual mandate”

As of now. Do you think those who created the widows and orphans fund envisioned those who did not pay would have their property seized and be thrown in prison as they are today? Maybe they did. I don’t know.
Do you really believe that if enough people start refusing to comply and pay the tax, that special rules won’t be added to address the issue?

But, I will admit that is only my opinion, based on our recent tax history.

“This doesn’t work because regulating who prays to who isn’t a legitimate function of government”

Some religious people would disagree with you. In fact, almost every religious person believes a strong belief in a God makes a person better, and creates a more safe, peaceful, happy, fair, society. Is the betterment of society an internal thing, Warren? Is it a “legitimate function of our government?”

“How do I know this? It is because there are external benefits derived from regulating the health insurance marketplace.”

We are not talking about regulating the health insurance market place, we are talking about individual rights and freedoms, things that should not take a backseat to anything in a free nation.

Posted by: kctim at July 29, 2014 5:35 PM
Comment #381577

Are those opposed to the ACA prepared to also repeal federal law requiring emergency medical care for those without insurance or the ability to pay?

Who do you think pays for those emergency by pass operations for the uninsured?

It’s the taxpayers. The federal government has provided massive support to hospitals providing emergency care for decades. Taxpayer funds from insured payers have been transferred for the care of uninsured taxpayers. Is that fair?

This free rider problem was a primary target of both the Romneycare and Obamacare plan. The “soft mandate”, a term used by the Heritage Foundation to describe the use of the tax code to create incentives and disincentives for purchase of insurance was simply designed to reduce the backdoor method used to care for the uninsured.

Can some one answer what would happen if both the fedral emergency care requirement was repealed along with ACA mandator requirements.

In almost all this discussion there is little discussion that deals with the dramatic consequences for the uninsured without a federal mandate requiring emergency hospital care.

Do we leave accident victims in the streets? Turn away a stroke victim?

Posted by: Rich at July 29, 2014 10:15 PM
Comment #381578
They only had to do it before Brown was sworn in, and the Nov. elections, if they were worried about losing power.

I thought rushing to get something done before Brown was sworn in would count as “forced upon the American people”. Also, recall that between the delay in Senator Franken’s swearing in and the death of Ted Kennedy, there was very little time when Democrats actually controlled 60 Senate seats.

Democrats have offered to compromise only on certain parts of the law, not the law itself. Of course Republicans are openly hostile to it, trying to get rid of it and are not willing to fix it. They were shut out of the “wider architecture” of the bill, but now they are at fault for not caving in to “fix” the minor problems? I don’t think so.

From start to finish, the GOP position was “Kill the Bill” regardless of what the bill actually contained; that is not an environment conducive to compromise. Nevertheless, Democrats offered to compromise on nearly anything except for two points: the law must put us on the road toward universal coverage and the law must put an end to the most egregious practices of the status quo (rescission and preexisting condition denials). Apart from that, Democrats were game for pretty much anything; be it tort reform or another right-wing policy idea. Baucus spent months negotiating in good faith with Republicans. Meanwhile, the GOP declared that their top priority was to ensure that Obama was not reelected and that they would make HCR “Obama’s Waterloo”. These don’t look like gestures that emanate from a party interested in negotiation and compromise. I dare you to cite similar language or behavior coming from Democrats before July 2009.

Because they value their rights and freedoms more than the dollar. Because the individual, not the left, is the ONLY one who knows what plan they want or need.
Just because a right exists doesn’t mean people will choose to exercise it. I am glad that Lawrence v. Texas protects my right to have sex with another man, but that doesn’t mean I actually have sex with other men in order to demonstrate how much I value my rights and freedoms. The fact that the waiver exists may increase one’s economic liberties, but that shouldn’t compel people to actually exercise those liberties unless they thought it provided them with an economic benefit. It is very clear that purchasing a non-compliant health plan in those circumstances is a very poor decision and one that very few people would make.
No, it is not. You are not forced to rent or buy a home. You are forced to buy health insurance.
I remain free to not buy health insurance; I just have to face the same consequence that people face when they don’t own a home (higher taxes).
You are not punished for renting.
Yes I am. The tax code penalizes renters in order to benefit owners.
Tax law says you qualify for credits if you choose to buy a home.
The result is the same as applying an extra tax on renters. To borrow your contrived example, would it be OK for government to give tax credits to people who prayed to a particular God?
Do you really believe that if enough people start refusing to comply and pay the tax, that special rules won’t be added to address the issue?
People won’t refuse to comply because refusing to comply is economic idiocy and most people aren’t idiots, so there will never be a reason for a future Congress to turn the soft mandate into a hard one. Notwithstanding the unlikelihood that a future Congress takes such an action, if there is a moment that justifies blowing a gasket in opposition to a bill, it will when that imagined future Congress attempts to transform the individual mandate from a soft mandate to a hard one. However, that moment has not arrived may never come.
The topic is the ACA.
No. The topic is the hypocrisy of the Republicans as exemplified by their reaction to the PPACA. Contrasting their reaction to the PPACA with their reaction towards other laws (such as the home mortgage tax credit) is a perfectly valid way to demonstrate the Republican’s hypocrisy. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 29, 2014 11:15 PM
Comment #381585

Warren

Come on man, could they have passed the law if they weren’t in power? No. It HAD to be passed when they had the power to get their way without compromise. THAT is what “prompted the panic in the Democratic party that lead to the procedural jujitsu that enabled the PPACA to be passed.”

“Democrats offered to compromise on nearly anything except for two points: the law must put us on the road toward universal coverage and the law must put an end to the most egregious practices of the status quo (rescission and preexisting condition denials).”

Which is basically what I said. Since when do Republicans support universal coverage (government controlled) on the health care issue?
Baucus spent months trying to get Republicans and moderate Dems to accept something they are fundamentally against. Those Dems took the perks they were offered, the Republicans didn’t.

“Just because a right exists doesn’t mean people will choose to exercise it.”

Then why fear respecting those rights? Why not let people exercise their rights and choose if they want to contribute to social security and ACA type programs?

The point, Warren, is that the individual has the choice whether to exercise the right or not.

“It is very clear that purchasing a non-compliant health plan in those circumstances is a very poor decision and one that very few people would make.”

It is a decision that they have a right to make, though.

“I remain free to not buy health insurance; I just have to face the same consequence that people face when they don’t own a home (higher taxes).”

Then why does the law access a penalty for not buying health insurance? Why is the mortgage deduction credit not referred to as a penalty?

“The result is the same as applying an extra tax on renters.”

It’s not even close. You don’t pay an extra tax to rent, you get a deduction if you choose to own. A deduction everybody is allowed to take advantage of. You are not forced to own a home. You are not mandated to rent or own a home, and you are not penalized for not doing so.

“To borrow your contrived example, would it be OK for government to give tax credits to people who prayed to a particular God?”

Uh, no. That is why I say I don’t support government giving tax credits like the mortgage one, and why I don’t support government penalizing people for not praying to a God.

“People won’t refuse to comply because refusing to comply is economic idiocy and most people aren’t idiots…”

Then why mandate it?

“No. The topic is the hypocrisy of the Republicans as exemplified by their reaction to the PPACA. Contrasting their reaction to the PPACA with their reaction towards other laws (such as the home mortgage tax credit) is a perfectly valid way to demonstrate the Republican’s hypocrisy.”

First, I don’t deny that Republicans are also guilty of hypocrisy. One of the reasons I support Republicans over liberals is because liberals are at least ten times more hypocritical.

Second, your inability to understand the difference between being penalized/punished for not complying with a mandate, and freely choosing not to take advantage of something, is not proof of hypocrisy. It is only proof of why one supports liberalism.

Posted by: kctim at July 30, 2014 10:17 AM
Comment #381587
I did NOT say people with beliefs of limited government and lower taxes did not exist, I said they did not have the power they did in 2010. Yes, there were some reps who believed as such, and they may have had some influence over legislation here and there, but the FACT is that they did not have the power to move government until 2010.

But they did kctim, in fact they had more power than they did in 2010 until today. All they have done since 2010 is stall and obstruct the workings of our government. They ran up the debt and went to war while lowering taxes amongst others. They have the power to influence people today much more than in the past. The re branding from John Birch Society to Tea Party has the gullible falling in line with the bumper sticker ideology of the group in record numbers. The propaganda has worked hasn’t it.

It is only your opinion that there has been some super covert Tea Party conspiracy controlling the country since the 60s, 70s, 80s or whenever.

Not covert at all, not Tea Party but JBS, follow the money kctim. Not conspiracy but political ideology.


Well, they are a lot closer to the Constitution than other party’s, so, IMO, you are correct that Conservatives support limited government and lower taxes.

So you agree the borrow and spend ideology is the right fiscal policy for the country? That is your idea of limited government! Conservatives like the lower taxes during war time and let the grand kids pay for it, I admire your courage to speak the truth on this issue but it is just wrong headed thinking kctim to back this type of fiscal policy.

Constitutional, limited government and lower taxes will NOT bring this nation to its knees.

But we are in debt by following the conservatives actions in governing us kctim.

Forcing an unwanted government mandate onto everybody, qualifies as doing something extreme. Labeling anybody who disagrees with gay marriage, higher taxes, amnesty etc… as racist and haters, is extreme. Especially when done so to promote a political agenda.

Health care reform was wanted and desperately needed kctim, We spend twice as much on health care as other nations do using the the free market approach you support. I also find it interesting that constitutional limited government is just a buzz word used by conservatives to mean for conservatives only, if you are gay or black conservatives don’t want you to have rights because your rights infringe upon their rights, how silly is that kctim. Seems the shoe fits on the racist and haters thing. I support higher taxes when the other option is the borrow and spend ideology of conservatives as well kctim.

liberalism and our Constitution cannot co-exist.

But that just crazy kctim, this notion that justice for all, liberty for all isn’t compatible with the constitution is just wrongheaded. The ideology of paying our way not putting the burden on the grandkids as conservatives have done instead of raising taxes to pay as we go hasn’t worked IMHO. It doesn’t take away from your liberty to have justice and liberty for gays, they aren’t in your church telling you to be gay for crying out loud, it ‘s conservative BS that we have heard for years that your rights are violated.

Sorry J2, but we don’t have to give up our rights and freedoms to government, so that it may protect us from this 1% you guys wrongly fear so much. Especially when that 1% you fear is using that very same government.

No but you do have to allow others the same rights and freedoms kctim, which seems to be the hard part for conservatives. Seems the difference between liberalism and conservatism is justice, or liberals want justice and conservatives want just us.

Paying your fair share is a good place to start, taxing labor at a higher rate than capital is wrong IMHO when the tax burden is shoved unto those that can’t afford it. The top 1% get preferential tax treatment IMHO under conservative philosophy. Starving the beast was and is a failure, those that benefited from it should pay to correct the debt problem.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 30, 2014 10:37 AM
Comment #381592
Come on man, could they have passed the law if they weren’t in power? No. It HAD to be passed when they had the power to get their way without compromise. THAT is what “prompted the panic in the Democratic party that lead to the procedural jujitsu that enabled the PPACA to be passed.”

Democrats could have easily have passed the law with fewer than 60 Senators if just a single Republican was willing to drop the “Obama’s Waterloo” ploy and compromise/negotiate. By the time March, 2010 came around, Democrats had spent months talking fruitlessly with Republicans. Apart from abandoning the entire endeavor, the only viable option was to commit legislative jiujitsu to pass a bill without GOP support.

Since when do Republicans support universal coverage (government controlled) on the health care issue?
Firstly, universal coverage does not necessarily imply government control. Secondly, Republicans have said on many occasions that that they supported universal coverage. For instance, this 2007 letter to George Bush was signed by Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Robert Bennett of Utah, Trent Lott of Mississippi, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and John Thune of South Dakota:
We would like to work with you and your Administration to pass legislation in this Congress that would:

1)Ensure that all Americans would have affordable, quality, private health coverage, while protecting current government programs. We believe the health care system cannot be fixed without providing solutions for everyone. Otherwise, the costs of those without insurance will continue to be shifted to those who do have coverage.


Link to letter


Baucus spent months trying to get Republicans and moderate Dems to accept something they are fundamentally against. Those Dems took the perks they were offered, the Republicans didn’t.
Republicans weren’t fundamentally against these things. They were part of John Chafee’s 1993 HEART bill. They were part of Herritage Foundation proposals. They were part of Mitt Romney’s reforms in Massachusetts. When many Republicans endorsed Romney for President in 2008, they advocated the nationwide adoption of Massachusetts’ reforms. As late as June 2009, Senator Chuck Grassley still spoke of a “bipartisan consensus” supporting the individual mandate.. Full transcript here. Coincidentally, DeMint declared that the GOP would make HCR Obama’s Waterloo just 3 days later.

Why not let people exercise their rights and choose if they want to contribute to social security and ACA type programs?
I have always remained open to reforming the PPACA to permit people to opt out of the individual mandate if they waive their right to the PPACA’s other protections (notably, the protection against denial of care due to preexisting conditions). Why don’t you join me in advocating that Republicans pass this simple fix that leaves the rest of the law intact?
It is a decision that they have a right to make, though.
Not if I have to pay for that decision..
Why is the mortgage deduction credit not referred to as a penalty?
Politics. It is simply a matter of semantics.
You don’t pay an extra tax to rent, you get a deduction if you choose to own.
The result of the current law is that renters pay an extra tax.
A deduction everybody is allowed to take advantage of
Just like how everyone is allowed to reduce their tax burden by obtaining a PPACA compliant health policy.
I don’t support government giving tax credits like the mortgage one.
Congratulations! Unlike the Republicans in Congress, you are not a hypocrite.
Then why mandate it?
Because I care about protecting the functionality of the PPACA’s prohibitions against unfair practices such as rescissions of coverage and denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions. In a hypothetical world where we used waivers of those protections to prevent the free-rider problem, then I would have no problem permitting people to have their choice. However, my hypothetical has not been supported by any notable conservatives. Also, even though those choices would be “economic idiocy” under my hypothetical, that would not be the case under the actual bills that House Republicans pass that do not attempt to do anything to prevent the free-rider issue. I conclude that the reason the free-rider issue is not addressed is because the Republicans would rather obliterate the PPACA entirely than make a few minor patches to make it work. For Republicans, embarrassing Obama is more important than securing the blessings of liberty or promoting the general welfare.
Second, your inability to understand the difference between being penalized/punished for not complying with a mandate, and freely choosing not to take advantage of something.
People freely choose not to have compliant insurance and pay more in taxes as a result. People freely choose to rent instead of own and pay more in taxes as a result. The end results are identical (except for slight differences in the magnitude of the tax penalty). Posted by: Warren Porter at July 30, 2014 12:00 PM
Comment #381616

Warren,

Kudos for tracking down the references to Republican support for legislation providing for universal health insurance in the model of Romneycare and Obamacare.

The duplicitous nature of Republican attacks on Obamacare is the worst form of political opportunism.

Something very similar is now going on with the border crisis. Republicans unanimously supported and a Republican president signed into law the Act which has unintentionally created the “crisis.” Now, they blame Obama for the problem and refuse to pass legislation requested by the administration to reform the Act and provide funds to alleviate the problem.

This obstructionist strategy of letting the President twist in the wind with any problem, regardless of cause, backfired in 2012. Given time, the American public eventually sorts out the truth from fiction.


Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2014 5:56 PM
Comment #381629

J2

So which is it? Has the Republican Party recently moved further right as liberals claim? Or have they always been “John Birch Society” members as you claim?

Look, people do not reject liberal policy because they have been brainwashed, they reject it because they believe individual rights trump the desires of society.

If you dropped the conspiracy stuff and took an objective look at things, you would see what is actually going on.
Our nation is at a crossroads. Our government is larger than it has been at any time in our history, it has more power and control over us, and more of us are dependent on it. The number of people who support this is now slightly greater than the number who do not.
Those who support a larger, more controlling government, are demanding more. Those who do not support a larger, more controlling government, have reach the limit on what they are willing to give up.
Nobody can logically deny that this is uncharted territory for our nation.

Now, you can blame it all on stupidity if you want, but I have more respect for, and more faith in, my fellow Americans.

“So you agree the borrow and spend ideology is the right fiscal policy for the country?”

Absolutely not, which is why I do not support liberalism, and why I do not support Conservatives who practice it.

“But we are in debt by following the conservatives actions in governing us kctim.”

No, we are in debt because of our excessive spending. Conservatives refuse to address it out of fear of losing at the ballot box, liberals want to address it by raising spending and taxes.
Our problems are due to the governing of both parties.

Forcing an unwanted government mandate onto everybody, qualifies as doing something extreme. Labeling anybody who disagrees with gay marriage, higher taxes, amnesty etc… as racist and haters, is extreme. Especially when done so to promote a political agenda.

“Health care reform was wanted and desperately needed kctim,”

Reform, yes. Transform, no. With almost 80% satisfied with their insurance, we could have reformed our system to address the problems. Instead, we transformed it to satisfy the desires of a few.

“I also find it interesting that constitutional limited government is just a buzz word used by conservatives to mean for conservatives only, if you are gay or black conservatives don’t want you to have rights because your rights infringe upon their rights, how silly is that kctim.”

Not receiving special treatment is not the same as having your rights infringed upon. Constitutional limited government treats everybody the same, not different.

“Seems the shoe fits on the racist and haters thing.”

No, it does not. Far-left extremists have redefined those words for no more than their own political advantage. There is nothing racist or hateful about not supporting special treatment for some, or for expecting people to be responsible for themselves.

“I support higher taxes when the other option is the borrow and spend ideology of conservatives as well kctim.”

Yep, today’s Conservatives need to grow a spin and start supporting Conservative ideology. Borrowing money because they are afraid of losing at the ballot box is freaking ridiculous.

“liberalism and our Constitution cannot co-exist.”

liberalism is not possible with a large, controlling government that places the desires of society over the rights of the individual.
It is fundamentally impossible for the two to co-exist.

“But that just crazy kctim, this notion that justice for all, liberty for all isn’t compatible with the constitution is just wrongheaded.”

Where is the justice in forcing one to do something against their will or beliefs? Where is the liberty in mandating peoples behavior?
liberalism is not about the justice or liberty of the individual, it is about creating a society that liberals define as “fair.”

“It doesn’t take away from your liberty to have justice and liberty for gays,”

NEVER said it does. I personally don’t give a crap if gays marry or not. But it is a cultural acceptance issue, not a rights issue.

“they aren’t in your church telling you to be gay for crying out loud,”

I am not a member of any church, nor do I attend one.

“it ‘s conservative BS that we have heard for years that your rights are violated.”

Yes, people who say gay marriage somehow violates their rights, are wrong. I think most people are talking about being forced to support the gay lifestyle, is violating their rights.

“No but you do have to allow others the same rights and freedoms kctim,”

Rights and freedoms are not the same as desires, J2.

“Paying your fair share is a good place to start, taxing labor at a higher rate than capital is wrong IMHO when the tax burden is shoved unto those that can’t afford it.”

We can’t afford our tax burden because it is too big, not because people get to keep more of their own money.

“The top 1% get preferential tax treatment IMHO under conservative philosophy.”

The wages we make put us into brackets. The more you make, the more you pay.
We all pay the same percentage on our investments and we all have access to the same loopholes. One’s inability to take advantage of such things does NOT mean somebody else is receiving preferential treatment.

Posted by: kctim at July 31, 2014 11:20 AM
Comment #381631

Warren

You yourself said dems insisted on universal coverage. Republican reps listening to their constituents did not support universal coverage. The ones who did not, lost their seats or narrowly survived.
A think tank idea, or the suggestion of one or a few Republicans, does not mean Republican voters supported universal coverage.
It wasn’t a ploy, it was principle.

“Firstly, universal coverage does not necessarily imply government control.”

Government is the only entity with the power to force compliance.

“Republicans weren’t fundamentally against these things.”

The lead up to, and the election itself in 2010, prove you wrong. When Republican voters tell and vote for Republicans supporting government mandates, then Republicans support government mandated universal coverage. Sadly, that is something that will probably happen over the next two or three election cycles.


Why not let people exercise their rights and choose if they want to contribute to social security and ACA type programs?
I have always remained open to reforming the PPACA to permit people to opt out of the individual mandate if they waive their right to the PPACA’s other protections (notably, the protection against denial of care due to preexisting conditions).

“Why don’t you join me in advocating that Republicans pass this simple fix that leaves the rest of the law intact?”

Sure. No problem here. I’ll opt out tomorrow. I’m not the problem though, am I? No, the problem will be the millions who opt out so that they have more money to spend on themselves. Not a big deal to me, but I honestly don’t think freedom of choice is important enough to you to support it.

“Just like how everyone is allowed to reduce their tax burden by obtaining a PPACA compliant health policy.”

EVERYONE does not reduce their tax burden by “obtaining” an ACA compliant policy.
Government does not mandate you to rent or own a home. It does mandate you to purchase the health insurance they approve.
Spin it however you want, the facts and commonsense do not support you at all.

“Because I care about protecting the functionality of the PPACA’s prohibitions against unfair practices such as rescissions of coverage and denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions.”

What you personally care about does not justify stripping individuals of their freedom of choice. Not for emotional reasons, not for monetary reasons.

” Republicans would rather obliterate the PPACA entirely than make a few minor patches to make it work.”

Isn’t that really the only way to get rid of the individual mandate?

“For Republicans, embarrassing Obama is more important than securing the blessings of liberty or promoting the general welfare.”

There is no liberty when one is forced to do something against their will. The general welfare of the nation is not based on the dollar.

“People freely choose not to have compliant insurance and pay more in taxes as a result.”

That is such a messed up way of thinking about freedom man.
Government puts a gun to your head and says buy this. You don’t buy what it says, they pull the trigger.
That’s equal to:
Government says if you choose to buy this, I will give you that.

Posted by: kctim at July 31, 2014 12:40 PM
Comment #381638
Republican reps listening to their constituents did not support universal coverage. The ones who did not, lost their seats or narrowly survived. A think tank idea, or the suggestion of one or a few Republicans, does not mean Republican voters supported universal coverage.
Earlier, I shared a letter cosigned by 7 Republican Senators. Three of those five Senators have won reelection since then (two still serve today!) and I don’t believe support for universal health care had anything to do with DeMint or Lott’s resignation. A generation ago, Chafee’s HEART act attracted 19 Republican cosponsors. These cosponsors were not backbenchers, but included Ranking members in several committees: Mark Hatfield of Oregon (appropriations), Pete Domenici of New Mexico (budget), John Danforth of Missouri (commerce), Orrin Hatch of Utah (judiciary) and Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas (labor and human resources). It seems that is quite possible for GOP Senators to embrace universal coverage and still be reelected. Republicans were not simply following their constituents’ wishes; if they were, then they would’ve supported the public option. Nearly all polls showed support for the public option; Some polls even showed majority support among Republican voters. No, the Republican opposition to the PPACA was politics and nothing else.
The lead up to, and the election itself in 2010, prove you wrong…Sadly, that is something that will probably happen over the next two or three election cycles.
But it already happened! 9 elections from 1992 to 2008 prove you wrong. Time after time, Republican Senators voiced support and won elections.
I’ll opt out tomorrow
Why? I am willing to bet that your old health plan was already PPACA compliant (and more affordable as a result), so why would you go to the effort to find a more expensive plan that isn’t PPACA compliant. Under the reform that I proposed, people who want to opt out at a later date would have opportunities to do so (probably restricted to the beginning of a calendar year, but that ought to be enough, right?). Are you seriously going to commit economic idiocy just so you can stick it to Obama? And don’t forget, you would be subjecting yourself to rescission and denials of coverage due to preexisting conditions.
No, the problem will be the millions who opt out so that they have more money to spend on themselves.
Americans won’t be stupid. Especially after a few years of mandates without an opt out clause changes the status quo and the associated behavioral norms.
EVERYONE does not reduce their tax burden by “obtaining” an ACA compliant policy.
This simply isn’t true. Obtaining complaint coverage will always result in a lower tax burden than not obtaining coverage (unless a person has a hardship that exempts them from the law).
What you personally care about does not justify stripping individuals of their freedom of choice. Not for emotional reasons, not for monetary reasons.
Yes it does. We already strip my freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater because we care about the safety of the occupants inside. This is because rights that violate the liberty of others are alienable. Not purchasing insurance, but making me pay for your inevitable care violates my rights. The PPACA corrects this by making every individual responsible for taking care of himself/herself.
Isn’t that really the only way to get rid of the individual mandate?
No, as I proposed above: Allow individuals to elect not to buy compliant coverage, but require them to waive the PPACA’s protections against rescission and denials of coverage due to preexisting conditions. This would also mean repealing EMTALA. Periodically (No more than once a year), people could be given the choice to switch from a compliant policy to a non-compliant policy. After a number of years with a compliant policy, the PPACA protections that were waived could be restored.

Alternatively, it would be trivial to remove the semantic difference between the PPACA and other tax deductions (such as the home mortgage tax credit). For instance, everyone’s taxes could be raised by an amount equal to the mandate’s penalty and with an equivalent tax credit for compliant coverage established alongside.

But seriously, the possibilities are numerous! Even single-payer would be less of an infringement on people’s rights than the mandate. We already use single-payer systems to administer justice and provide for the common defense

There is no liberty when one is forced to do something against their will.
So there is no liberty in compulsory jury service and compulsory taxation to support the military? Or are your absolutist pronouncements in need of a little nuance?
Government puts a gun to your head and says buy this. You don’t buy what it says, they pull the trigger.
Except you’ve forgotten that there’s no gun here. The law prohibits criminal enforcement of the mandate. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 31, 2014 3:58 PM
Comment #381639

What is the enforcement mechanism, Warren Porter? What’s stopping me from ignoring the whole thing if there is no way to enforce the law?

Will the irs agents work for the treating hospital? Will they be doing background checks on all of their patients when they check in? Will they be suing the patient for, what? The property and assets are protected, you say! What would the hospital sue for?

This prohibition of enforcement claim you make rings hollow to me.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 31, 2014 4:18 PM
Comment #381643

“No, the Republican opposition to the PPACA was politics and nothing else.”

Really? Promises were made but not kept.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 31, 2014 4:42 PM
Comment #381644
What is the enforcement mechanism, Warren Porter
There is none. This is a “soft mandate” that merely incentivizes and encourages without mandating and compelling.
Will the irs agents work for the treating hospital
No.
Will they be doing background checks on all of their patients when they check in?
No.
Will they be suing the patient for, what?
There will be no lawsuits from the government regarding the individual mandate.
The property and assets are protected, you say! What would the hospital sue for?
I cannot conceive of a situation where a hospital would sue someone with the PPACA in effect, but not if it were repealed.
This prohibition of enforcement claim you make rings hollow to me.
I showed you the law before, what else can I do? As I explained in your earlier column, the fundamental tenet of liberalism is protecting people’s right to live their own lives however they choose. People just need to take personal responsibility with their lives and accept the consequences of that choice. Republicans like to defend consequence-free decisionmaking, but those aren’t the principles that this country was founded upon. Posted by: Warren Porter at July 31, 2014 4:48 PM
Comment #381645
Promises were made but not kept.
Historian’s fallacy. Which promises were broken before June 2009 (when Republicans took negotiation off the table)? Posted by: Warren Porter at July 31, 2014 4:52 PM
Comment #381649

Which promises were broken before June 2009 (when Republicans took negotiation off the table)? Posted by: Warren Porter at July 31, 2014 4:52 PM

1) Obamacare will cut the cost of your health care.

2) Obamacare will not increase the deficit.

3) “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period.”

4) Obamacare will create jobs.

5) If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 31, 2014 5:29 PM
Comment #381651

#1, #2 and #4 were not broken.
#3 and #5 were broken after June 2009.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 31, 2014 5:47 PM
Comment #381652

Warren, I really don’t care enough to be right to provide the research links.

Millions of Americans who work and pay taxes will readily testify that the cost of their health care has risen.

obamacare will increase the deficit, we just haven’t experienced it yet. Read the CBO report.

Perhaps obamacare has created a few jobs and we don’t know yet how many have been or will be lost.

You did give me a good laugh however and I thank you. You agree that two major promises were broken no matter when that happened.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 31, 2014 5:54 PM
Comment #381655

Warren

I will agree Republicans support universal coverage when a Republican runs and wins on supporting universal coverage. Until then, I will go by past elections and they show people don’t want universal coverage.
As I said before, don’t worry man, the sheeple are already starting to turn and Republicans will be running on supporting such a government mandate soon.

“Nearly all polls showed support for the public option;”

Many of those polls also showed that not even half of those public option supporters were willing to pay to have it.

“Some polls even showed majority support among Republican voters.”

Then the next few elections will finally show that support. Lord knows the previous two didn’t.

“Why? I am willing to bet that your old health plan was already PPACA compliant (and more affordable as a result)”

Sigh, because I support the freedom of choice for ALL. Money never enters into the equation.
I don’t know if my old plan was ACA compliant or not. It was dropped and my new plan has higher premiums and deductibles. What I do know is that 2011 was not a good year for me at all, my insurance paid out the butt, worked with me and kept me on.

“Are you seriously going to commit economic idiocy just so you can stick it to Obama?”

“Sticking it to Obama” has NOTHING to do with it. I support freedom of choice and I would have no problem taking care of myself once again.

“And don’t forget, you would be subjecting yourself to rescission and denials of coverage due to preexisting conditions.”

That is a possibility, not an absolute like you are trying to portray it as being. As I said, I have a pre-existing condition and had no problem before the ACA.

“Americans won’t be stupid. Especially after a few years of mandates without an opt out clause changes the status quo and the associated behavioral norms.”

Then please answer the question I have posed to you many times now: If Americans agree with you, why must it be mandated to ensure compliance?

And you are correct, once Americans are dependent on the ACA, it will become the status quo.

“This simply isn’t true. Obtaining complaint coverage will always result in a lower tax burden than not obtaining coverage (unless a person has a hardship that exempts them from the law).”

I misunderstood. I was thinking you were saying everyone would save money. I got off track and made an error.

I have a question on what you have written here though. You said the low amount of the penalty makes it not a big deal, and that there is no way to enforce it. Wouldn’t that mean you would have a lower tax burden if you didn’t obtain ACA coverage and just ignored ever paying the penalty?

“Yes it does. We already strip my freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater because we care about the safety of the occupants inside.”

No, you agree to abide by the rules when you choose to enter the theater.

“Not purchasing insurance, but making me pay for your inevitable care violates my rights.”

So the answer is to make me pay for your care? Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.

“Isn’t that really the only way to get rid of the individual mandate?”

No, the ONLY way to get rid of the individual mandate is to make people responsible for themselves.

“Alternatively, it would be trivial to remove the semantic difference between the PPACA and other tax deductions (such as the home mortgage tax credit).”

For you, yes. I understand the difference between being punished for doing something, and choosing not to take advantage of a perk.

“Even single-payer would be less of an infringement on people’s rights than the mandate.”

Not if it also forces compliance.

“We already use single-payer systems to administer justice and provide for the common defense”

Then make health care a right and give it the same protections of an amendment. That leaves me with only a couple small arguments.

“So there is no liberty in compulsory jury service and compulsory taxation to support the military?”

No, there is not.

“The law prohibits criminal enforcement of the mandate.”

Then I will never have it. Great news.

Posted by: kctim at July 31, 2014 5:59 PM
Comment #381657

“Not purchasing insurance, but making me pay for your inevitable care violates my rights.”

You guys who oppose the PPACA always ignore the above point.

I have asked on many occasions if you are willing to repeal federal law requiring hospitals receiving Medicare to provide emergency medical care without regard to ability to pay. You never answer.

Why do you think that government should guarantee and pay for catastrophic emergency medical care for those who had the ability to purchase medical insurance but refused to do so? Don’t you think that in exchange for that guarantee that it is reasonable for government to incentivize purchase of a basic insurance package to reduce such outlays and spread the risk among all taxpayers? That it is reasonable to collect additional taxes from those that chose to go bare in order to offset future outlays for such persons?

My head almost explodes when I hear conservative politicians argue that the PPACA is unnecessary since we already have de facto universal health care via the hospital emergency room care system. Well, who do you think pays for that?

Posted by: Rich at July 31, 2014 6:05 PM
Comment #381661
because I support the freedom of choice for ALL. Money never enters into the equation.
There’s a difference between fighting to protect an option and actually electing to choose that option. I support the freedom to choose who I have sex with, but I don’t go around having homosexual sex just to prove my support. Likewise, once your freedom to not enroll in a compliant policy is ensured, your decision to enroll or not enroll ought to be completely financial. If it isn’t, then you are just sticking it to Obama.
Then please answer the question I have posed to you many times now: If Americans agree with you, why must it be mandated to ensure compliance?
I think we are confusing two situations. There is the hypothetical legislation that I proposed (let people exempt themselves from the individual mandate in exchange for waiving the PPACA’s other protections). And there is the current status quo, where a mandate is needed to prevent free riders. In the former situation, it would be idiocy to enroll in a non-compliant plan because one would lose PPACA’s protections against rescission and preexisting conditions. Also, such a plan is likely to be more expensive and contain fewer benefits. However, in the latter situation (the PPACA as currently enacted), the mandate is necessary because the decision to not buy a compliant policy is not idiotic (In fact it becomes highly incentivized). In this case, one could choose not to buy a policy today, but instead choose delay purchasing a policy until one becomes sick (taking advantage of the PPACA prohibition against denials of coverage due to preexisting conditions). This is the dreaded free rider problem. I only support legislation that: 1) Provides protections against rescission and preexisting coverage denials. 2) Prevents free riders from passing their health costs onto others. 3) Makes healthcare more affordable by reducing the rate at which costs are increasing. 4) Puts us on the road toward undoing the status quo arrangement where most people receive health benefits as compensation from their employer.

The PPACA satisfies all four of those points. Amending the PPACA to give people greater flexibility to responsibly choose to be uninsured would make the law even better, but it must be done in accordance with those four points.

So the answer is to make me pay for your care?
No, the answer is to make you pay for your care while I continue to pay for my own.
No, the ONLY way to get rid of the individual mandate is to make people responsible for themselves.
This is a non sequitur. Without an individual mandate, people are not responsible for themselves. With the individual mandate are responsible for themselves. The only other way to achieve this level of personal responsibility would be to repeal EMTALA.
Then make health care a right and give it the same protections of an amendment,
Health Care isn’t a right. Just like a common defense isn’t a right.
Then I will never have it. Great news.
Even if purchasing a compliant health policy is in your best financial interest? Posted by: Warren Porter at July 31, 2014 11:31 PM
Comment #381662

Without the individual mandate, are NOT responsible for themselves, with are????????? That statement shows you must need government to hold your hand and to make every decision for you because you refuse to???? I agreed some people refuse to accept responsibility for themselves but to mandate everyone for the few is a bit much. EMTALA repeal may be an answer but I doubt it. IMO kctim is making a good argument a whole new law was NOT the answer. Preexisting conditions could have been addressed and that other popular aspects of the ACA could have been also. But to enact a new law that a majority are against was not the answer.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 1, 2014 8:14 AM
Comment #381663

Rich

First, it is not inevitable for all. Many people never need care or are able to handle getting the care they want, themselves. Most people chose to be responsible and have insurance before the ACA, so your comment really only applies to those few who chose not to have insurance. You know, the people the left had “compassion” for and used them to help justify the ACA? Funny how the left supports their unwillingness to get insurance, but now condemns those who simply want choice.

Either way though, why is the possibility of you paying for my care worse than mandating I pay for your care? Warren is trying to take the easy way out with his answer, maybe you can do better?

“I have asked on many occasions if you are willing to repeal federal law requiring hospitals receiving Medicare to provide emergency medical care without regard to ability to pay. You never answer.”

I could be wrong, but I believe I have answered before.
Yes, repeal the law and create a new law to address actual life saving measures as needed.

Government should not guarantee and pay for catastrophic emergency medical care. Governments job is only to run government.

A mandate is not an incentive, it is an order to comply.

“My head almost explodes when I hear conservative politicians argue that the PPACA is unnecessary since we already have de facto universal health care via the hospital emergency room care system.”

Mine also, but at least we still had freedom of choice.

“Well, who do you think pays for that?”

The people who were responsible enough to have insurance BEFORE the ACA. The people who are now fighting for their freedom of choice.


Posted by: kctim at August 1, 2014 9:32 AM
Comment #381664

Warren

Bad example. I support freedom of choice, it would be detrimental to that support for me to contribute to the taking of it. Not to mention unprincipled and hypocritical.
It would be ridiculous to contribute and use the ACA while fighting to end it.

“Likewise, once your freedom to not enroll in a compliant policy is ensured, your decision to enroll or not enroll ought to be completely financial. If it isn’t, then you are just sticking it to Obama.”

There is no freedom of choice involved with a mandate. You either pay for the plan as mandated, or you pay a penalty.
Neither Obama or money has anything to do with this. If it did, I would not have stated that I am willing to pay more in order to retain the freedom. If it did, I would not have been posting on here for the past 10 years in support of our rights and freedoms. Obama has been President for 5 1/2 years.

“I think we are confusing two situations.”

Possibly. You posted that Americans would not be “stupid enough” to opt out of the ACA and social security types of programs. IF that were the case, there would be no need for a mandate to force compliance. So why do we have those mandates?

“In the former situation, it would be idiocy to enroll in a non-compliant plan because one would lose PPACA’s protections against rescission and preexisting conditions. Also, such a plan is likely to be more expensive and contain fewer benefits.”

The problem is that you believe those to be absolutes, which they are not. SOME people could be subject to rescission and pre-existing condition limits, but not all as you suggest. Wasn’t like that before the ACA, wouldn’t be like that now.
You also fail to acknowledge that under this hypothetical opt-out, insurance companies would be competing with the ACA government plans and those two things would have to be addressed by the insurance companies.

“The PPACA satisfies all four of those points.”

I don’t care about any of those points. I only care about our freedom of choice. If you can get those points addressed without infringing on my freedom of choice, then more power to you.

“Amending the PPACA to give people greater flexibility to responsibly choose to be uninsured would make the law even better, but it must be done in accordance with those four points.”

And I believe those four things MUST be addressed with respect to our individual rights and freedoms. They come first, desires come after. Such is the difference between left and right.

“No, the answer is to make you pay for your care while I continue to pay for my own.”

I DO pay for my own care, your problem is with those who are not responsible enough. You know, the people you were trying to “help” BEFORE the ACA. If you want to help them then help them. Don’t use a government mandate to force them to help for you to make yourself feel better.

“Without an individual mandate, people are not responsible for themselves. With the individual mandate are responsible for themselves.”

The majority were responsible enough to have insurance before the mandate. The mandate benefits the minority who were not responsible.
People who WANT to be responsible, are responsible.

“Health Care isn’t a right. Just like a common defense isn’t a right.”

Then Constitutional procedures to create a new amendment and give it the protections that common defense has.

Points for acknowledging it is not a right. That is rare.

“Even if purchasing a compliant health policy is in your best financial interest?”

Yes, Warren. Money has absolutely NOTHING to do with our individual rights and freedoms. If I am willing to risk my life for our individual rights and freedoms, I sure as hell am willing to do so with my “financial interests.”

Posted by: kctim at August 1, 2014 10:40 AM
Comment #381665

KAP

“But to enact a new law that a majority are against was not the answer.”

It is if the goal is “free” government ran health care. MORE dependency, MORE control.

Posted by: kctim at August 1, 2014 10:45 AM
Comment #381666

Right on kctim, more free stuff, more votes for the Democrats. Some people are to stupid to realize that more government control equals less freedom.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 1, 2014 11:47 AM
Comment #381667
Bad example. I support freedom of choice, it would be detrimental to that support for me to contribute to the taking of it. Not to mention unprincipled and hypocritical. It would be ridiculous to contribute and use the ACA while fighting to end it.
I’m sorry if I was unclear before, but I said this within the context of my hypothetical opt-out plan.
IF that were the case, there would be no need for a mandate to force compliance.
I believe there is still confusion here (including confusion over the word mandate). Mandates exist on a continuum from hard to soft. Military conscription, jury service and the income tax are all “hard mandates”. The mortgage income tax deduction is a “soft mandate”. The PPACA exists in between, but I think it is more soft than hard. That said, let me clarify once again: the PPACA as it currently stands contains a fairly soft mandate, but it can be made even softer under two proposals that I shared before. One proposal for softening the mandate would be allow people to choose not to have health insurance, but they would have to explicitly waive the PPACA’s protections against rescission and denials of service for preexisting conditions. A person who takes this route is very foolish because he/she is gambling with his/her health. There is a chance the person might be lucky and not face a recession or denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions, but most people are risk averse enough not to gamble like that. This is why I said only fools would take that route. However, the statement was restricted to the hypothetical scenario and does not apply to today’s situation with the PPACA as it is currently enacted.
I don’t care about any of those points. I only care about our freedom of choice. If you can get those points addressed without infringing on my freedom of choice, then more power to you.
The PPACA as it currently exists grants us all our freedom of choice, but those choices are not free of consequences. One may pick from a wide variety of health plans offered on a PPACA exchange or they can enroll in a compliant employer sponsored plan or they can choose not to have any coverage at all and pay a tax to fund EMTALA health services. You even have the choice to laugh off that tax without risking criminal prosecution. So many choices!

I have even proposed allowing for even more choices by permitting people to choose to waive their PPACA protections in order to exempt themselves from having to fund EMTALA services, yet you fail to embrace it. Alternatively, in addition to repealing the PPACA we could also repeal the EMTALA entirely and treat health benefits as ordinary income, which would increase choices even further!

But no, you don’t embrace any of those scenarios. You want to return to 2009 when we had fewer choices. Back then, we forced insured people to pay for visits to the emergency room by the uninsured. Back then, we forced people to maintain continuous employer sponsored coverage in order to prevent denials due to preexisting condition instead of giving people the choice to choose insurance independent of their employer. You support these restrictions on choice and have the audacity to come here and claim that you are fighting to protect choice? I don’t think so.

There are many ways to accomplish my 4 points and maintain people’s freedom of choice (within reasonable means, we can’t protect people’s right to choose to violate another person’s rights).

People who WANT to be responsible, are responsible.
And people who are irresponsible need to bear the consequences of their decisions. Likewise, responsible people should not be penalized for being responsible.
Then Constitutional procedures to create a new amendment and give it the protections that common defense has.
Health Care is just as an integral part of promoting the general welfare as an air force is to providing a common defense. This doesn’t mean the government has to fund healthcare for Americans (just like how the government doesn’t have to fund an air force). But it means that promoting universal health care (but not necessarily providing it) is an essential government function. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 1, 2014 2:19 PM
Comment #381671

Warren

No confusion on my part. The mandate we have been talking about forces compliance by penalizing non-compliance. The income tax and the ACA are examples.
The “mandate” you are talking about is basically nothing but a set of requirements that you must meet in order to be given something. Your choice to not meet these requirements, is not a penalty accessed onto you by someone else.

“A person who takes this route is very foolish because he/she is gambling with his/her health.”

But they are guaranteeing themselves hundreds of dollars each month.

Hypothetical or not, the fact remains that SS and ACA supporters are unwilling to allow freedom of choice to opt-out because their voters would choose money over the programs and the programs would fail.

“The PPACA as it currently exists grants us all our freedom of choice, but those choices are not free of consequences.”

No, it does not. That is what started this whole discussion. We are mandated to purchase health insurance and we are penalized, punished, taxed, for non-compliance. That insurance plan MUST be of the governments choosing, not of your own choosing. If it is not, you are penalized. Government forcing you to pick from what they have chosen, is NOT having choice, it is being given options to select from.

“But no, you don’t embrace any of those scenarios. You want to return to 2009 when we had fewer choices.”

We had more choices, there was no mandate in 09.
We are still forced to pay for the uninsured, but now we give them tax payer “subsidies” and call them insured. Basically, in the hope that insurance companies will now pick up a larger portion of the tab. Taxes will go up to pay for those subsidies, and premiums will increase to compensate for the lost revenue.
Oh, and there are still 30 or 40 million who are uninsured.

“Back then, we forced people to maintain continuous employer sponsored coverage in order to prevent denials due to preexisting condition instead of giving people the choice to choose insurance independent of their employer.”

Um, no. Back then, you were not forced to maintain anything, you chose to maintain it with your employer, or you chose to find coverage elsewhere, or you chose not to have insurance at all.

“You support these restrictions on choice and have the audacity to come here and claim that you are fighting to protect choice? I don’t think so.”

The unwillingness, or lack of ability, has NOTHING to do with being denied freedom of choice. I know you do not like to hear that, but it is fact.
You were free to choose ANY plan in the world, Warren, your inability to pay for it means nothing.

“There are many ways to accomplish my 4 points and maintain people’s freedom of choice (within reasonable means, we can’t protect people’s right to choose to violate another person’s rights).”

What is reasonable to one, is not always reasonable to others. Unfortunately, you believe you get to define reasonable for all of us.

My keeping my freedom of choice in no way violates another persons rights. You yourself have admitted health care is not a right, and I am pretty sure you believe freedom of choice IS a right.

“And people who are irresponsible need to bear the consequences of their decisions.”

Awesome, we are in total agreement. So why the need for government involvement in health care? Why not just fix the problem with abuse and let the irresponsible actually bear the consequences of their decisions?

“Likewise, responsible people should not be penalized for being responsible.”

And yet, we are penalized EVERY day.

“Health Care is just as an integral part of promoting the general welfare as an air force is to providing a common defense.”

To some, not to all. Others believe preserving our rights and freedoms the most integral part.

“But it means that promoting universal health care (but not necessarily providing it) is an essential government function.”

Mandating is NOT promoting, especially when it trumps our rights and freedoms.

At most, governments job on this is to promote the importance of health care and having health insurance.

Posted by: kctim at August 1, 2014 3:57 PM
Comment #381672

“Well, who do you think pays for that?”

The people who were responsible enough to have insurance BEFORE the ACA. The people who are now fighting for their freedom of choice.”

Kctim,

The federal government has spent billions per year of taxpayer dollars reimbursing hospitals for uncompensated care. Sure, those with insurance bear part of the cost but the majority is paid by the federal government through the Medicare/Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) programs. In addition, local taxpayers pick up a significant percentage of uncompensated care in large county hospital systems.

“I could be wrong, but I believe I have answered before.
Yes, repeal the law and create a new law to address actual life saving measures as needed.”

“Government should not guarantee and pay for catastrophic emergency medical care. Governments job is only to run government.”

Perhaps you did answer in the past, Kctim. But, look at how you answered the question. Yes but no. You want to repeal the current law and replace it with a law that says essentially the same thing. The current EMTALA only requires hospitals to stabilize a person not to provide ongoing and follow up care. So, maybe an emergency bypass operation but not ongoing chemotherapy. The problem is that hospitals need to conduct a thorough examination to determine the nature of the problem and in many cases need to provide extensive and expensive care in order to achieve a stable medical condition, e.g., severe trauma accident.

In terms of cost, you want a medical life saving mandate but don’t want government to pay for it. Well, who is going to pay for it? Catastrophic care by definition is costly.

If we as a society are unwilling to let those without insurance or who are indigent die from catastrophic conditions, then it is inevitable that we collectively will have to pay for their care.


Posted by: Rich at August 1, 2014 4:16 PM
Comment #381683

” let the irresponsible actually bear the consequences of their decisions?”

That’s the problem, Kctim. Its illogical to say on the one hand that no person shall be denied emergency medical care and on the other hand let them fend for themselves.

Let me point out one additional fact about government involvement in health insurance. Employees enjoy an enormous tax deduction for the cost of such employer sponsored systems. It is the largest tax break in the tax code far exceeding home mortgage deductions. Sixty percent of Americans receive their insurance through such systems.

Do you not think that those on the individual market (self employed, unemployed, small businesses, etc. should have tax parity with those benefiting from employer based tax deductions? The PPACA brings a bit of parity to the individual market, including tax advantages, subsidies, etc. It also brings many of the pre-existing condition prohibitions, portability, etc. that have been enjoyed by employer group insurance since the HIPPA law which was only applicable in group insurance policies.

Posted by: Rich at August 1, 2014 10:52 PM
Comment #381689

Rich

Are you suggesting that self employed individuals be able to deduct the cost of their health insurance ? If so I whole heartedly agree. If we are going to be forced to purchase health insurance, I would take it a step further and say all should be able to deduct the cost of their insurance from their tax burden. I would make it more like a credit so it could be taken on top of your standard or itemized deductions.

Posted by: dbs at August 2, 2014 6:31 AM
Comment #381716

Rich

“But, look at how you answered the question. Yes but no. You want to repeal the current law and replace it with a law that says essentially the same thing”

I want to repeal the current law and give people back their freedom of choice. I want government out of the health care business, but, to satisfy those who legislate by emotion, I am willing to compromise in order to have life saving emergency care addressed.
Ideally, the individual would be responsible for any care they receive and they pay for it until the debt is settled.

Government money has created the waste and abuse, and it is a big reason why costs are so high. Make people responsible for themselves, and the costs will come down.

Posted by: kctim at August 4, 2014 11:44 AM
Comment #381723

Kctim,

Once again you argue for the current arrangement. ER services are not free. People who use ERs are responsible for their debts and the debt is vigorously pursued. One of the principal weapons available in almost all jurisdictions is a hospital lien. Such liens are routinely filed and without the necessity for lengthy court proceedings. But, many who use ER services are in the words of the legal profession, judgment proof, in the sense that they have no assets or income to satisfy the debt. If you own a house, though, it would be advisable to avoid a significant hospital debt.

Posted by: Rich at August 4, 2014 6:59 PM
Comment #381731

Rich

I wasn’t arguing for the current arrangement before and I am not arguing for it now. What I suggest in both cases is personal responsibility and our current arrangement is NOWHERE near that. In fact, our current arrangement is one of dependency.

“Judgment proof” or not, you use the ER, you are responsible for the bill until you have paid it in full. $1, $5, $10 a week, a month or whatever, you are responsible.

Right now, they really only pursue debt on those they know will pay. Sure, they may try to collect from others, but they are mostly “written off” and the costs are passed on. THAT is why people abuse our ERs.

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2014 9:22 AM
Comment #383106

What a laugh, whenever these sort of claims of hypocrisy from the right extremists somehow exceed the hypocrisy of the left extremists, and especially coming from someone whose leftist extremism is well documented on this site.

At any rate, the voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , until perhaps someday, when rewarding hypocrisy, corruption, and incompetence finally becomes too painful?

Posted by: d.a.n at September 13, 2014 11:17 AM
Comment #383137

A huge cause for higher and higher medical costs is government meddling, government corruption, 50-to-80+ Billion per year in Medicare fraud, etc., etc., etc.

All the government ever had to do (aside for also providing welfare for the truly needy) was provide elective, non-profit health insurance, for those that cannot afford private health insurance, and adjust the monthly premiums periodically to cover all costs. This should be (if properly managed), the cheapest and most efficient non-profit health insurance available. Then there is welfare for the truly needy.

However, if the incredibly incompetent federal government is unable to manage such a system cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector, then it would prove again (as usual) that it sucks at running such systems, and the odds are extremely high that the federal government will fail miserably again, as is the usually the case with the many things the federal government mismanages.

So, the best thing is to let the free markets drive the industry, with some common-sense regulation and enforcement to prohibit abuses.

But of course, all of that would make too much sense.

So, what we now have is too many people wanting something for nothing (essentially, at the expense of someone else), or choosing to be irresponsible. And pandering politicians are eager to make promises that cannot be kept, or promises that are already doomed to be broken.

So, as a result, too many people are riding in the wagon, and too few people are pushing the wagon, and the end result is what? Health insurance and health care are now become unaffordable for most of the population.

It wasn’t always that way for the majority of people, so what has changed?

Today, healthcare costs are ridiculous.
An x-ray can costs many hundreds, or thousands of dollars.
Recently, while traveling, a two hour visit to an ER to simply receive two simple IV bags and two Ondansetron pills for nausea and dehydration (from a norovirus) in New Mexico cost $5,239 . And that was after the health insurance company beat them down on the price from $6,111 .

That is ridiculous.
My part, after insurance, was $2,041.
The insurance premiums for the year are $1,092.
$1,000 was contributed to an MRA.
The maximum deductible is $1,500,
and the co-insurance maximum is $1,250.
Prescriptions are partially covered too.
It is no wonder this is unaffordable for many people.
But guess why?
Mostly because of government meddling, waste, fraud, etc.
For example, how much medical care can $50-to-$80+ Billion in Medicare Fraud per year alone buy?

Some people think health care is a right.
But most things are NOT free.
So, if it is a right, then who are you going to sue or attack for not giving you what you want?
There are way too many people who think they have rights to force others to give them something.
And there are governments who think they have the right to force others to enforce that by taking from others and giving to others.

I think most people are OK with paying taxes for the truly needy, but it has gone way beyond that today. The irony is that the government meddling will lead to higher costs and lower quality of health care for more people. Especially when the nation is already so ridiculously in debt beyond nightmare proportions.

At any rate, the voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , until perhaps someday, when rewarding hypocrisy, greed, corruption, and incompetence finally becomes too painful?

Posted by: d.a.n at September 13, 2014 12:30 PM
Post a comment