U.S. Politics, 16

[TerraPrime]

Do continue.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Min

I know.

I was just recently talking to a co-worker who hates the ACA. He believes in all the stereotypes of a UHC, such as having to wait for months to get anything done. I told him that it is not my experience, seeing as I grew up under UHC. In fact, with the HMO system that I have here in the U.S., I have to wait longer to get non-urgent care. For instance, when I called my doctor to set up a general check-up, I'm scheduled 7 to 9 months out.

But, the unknown is scary, doncha'know? And god damn it, as Ser Scot showed, it's not so much that what the government mandates you to do is the wrong thing, no. It's that the government is mandating it. So, if the government passes a law that says that you must breathe in oxygen and release carbon dioxide, why, we ought to fight that law, too! It's the principle of things.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

So, you're cool with laws telling you what you must eat? You want the Government to have that much control over your person?

[Lord O' Bones]

Dang it! The other thread closed 19 posts early and the quote function no longer functions in closed threads to just transfer them over. :tantrum:

I feel like I'm watching the 49ers all over again.

[MinDonner]

TP,

So, you're cool with laws telling you what you must eat? You want the Government to have that much control over your person?

But who does that?? We certainly don't. Nor do we have any rules about (say) whether or not smokers can get coverage for smoking-related illnesses. The ones who do that are the private insurance companies. Is control over your dietary habits only acceptable if it comes from private businesses?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

I've never had to take a physical to get coverage. The last time I was without coverage I was 29.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

My point is that I'm not comfortable with the possiblity of Government having that kind of power whether it is used or not.

[Lord O' Bones]

Copy, meet paste.

Tabs are your friend.

But, it's so inelegant.

Also, moar typing out quote tags.

[TerraPrime]

Oh oops. I did close it too early.

Muwahahahahahahahahah!!!!

Re: Ser Scot

TP,

So, you're cool with laws telling you what you must eat? You want the Government to have that much control over your person?

If I agree with the law, then yes, I'd be cool with it. If they mandate that I must eat twinkies, then no, I'd find it unacceptable.

But this is a bad comparison, because eating habits and their relations to health are personal behavior issues, wherein laws are not good tools for correcting that behavior. Witness, for instance, the prohibition era. In contrast, the health insurance is an economic issue and a societal issue. For that, the law is much better in effecting changes.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

(Damn I miss my edit button)

Finally, if I don't do what my insurance company wants the worst thing they can do is drop my coverage. If I ignore a government mandate to eat X it has the power to fine and even imprison me. Hence, I'm more comfortable with the people without the guns telling me what to eat.

And what TP said.

[MinDonner]

Like I said, this is just weird. Now the government is going to imprison everyone for not eating their veggies, if we don't resist? Which universe have I stepped into? :stunned:

Edited to add extra incredulity:

:lmao: :stunned: <_< :wideeyed: :blink: :mellow:

[alguien]

Its the US Politics thread. Using unrealistic hypothetical situations to argue for one's stance is par for the course.

(says myself, a black kettle ;) )

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If I agree with the law, then yes, I'd be cool with it. If they mandate that I must eat twinkies, then no, I'd find it unacceptable.

But this is a bad comparison, because eating habits and their relations to health are personal behavior issues, wherein laws are not good tools for correcting that behavior. Witness, for instance, the prohibition era. In contrast, the health insurance is an economic issue and a societal issue. For that, the law is much better in effecting changes.

So presumably, directing everyone to buy GM cars because it will help the U.S. economy and UAW workers, and because the government has an investment in GM but not Ford, would be a valid exercise of government power?

Cutting Medicare should be a top priority of any deficit hawk or any younger American. The ACA attempts to do that in the most major way in the program's history.

Cutting Medicare is worthless if you take the money saved and moved it directly over to fund a new entitlement. It's like cutting $100/month from a car lease payment on your first car by taking a more stripped-down model, and then spending $100/month more for your lease on a second car because you wanted leather. The bottom line remains unchanged, so you really haven't saved anything.

[awesome possum]

TP,

So, you're cool with laws telling you what you must eat? You want the Government to have that much control over your person?

Scot,

Can you name laws outlawing people from eating certain foods? You keep referring to New York, and then you proceed in exaggerating what happened there to try and fit your point. The fact of the matter is, there are already laws on the books outlawing people from doing certain things, and the government hasn't used these laws to go on an ban rampage.

Your argument fails.

[Lord O' Bones]

Oh oops. I did close it too early.

Muwahahahahahahahahah!!!!

:fencing:

FLOW: "Well, did you look at the folks in Congress who voted against the stimulus and ACA? Disproportionately red-staters."

See, I think one was possibly necessary, while the other is embarrassing in that we didn't do even more.

FLOW: "Hey, don't make me feel more like a geezer than I already am! But anyway, you always fight one battle at a time. Admittedly, it can be demoralizing as hell trying to find legislators who consistently stand up for limited government. All Republicans certainly do not fit in that mold. But we can still support those who are generally consistent on that issue, and look to find/support others.

What other option is there?"

I'm probably closer to your age than you think. Just much newer here. And the problem for me is that I loathe Republicans exactly like an ex-smoker loathes cigarettes. Except cigarettes were always going to harm your health.

The thing is, I'm a California-style (former) Republican. And I'm now purple. I'm pro: gay marriage, strong defense, UHC, States right's (non-racist division), better public education, lowered as much as possible Federal power, and possibly, all police abolished except for the FBI if community policing could be enforced.

I just want things to make sense without shitting on anyone.

Rear Admiral (lower half): "It looks like states with higher per capita incomes subsidizing states with poorer people. Which makes sense given our progressive tax structure. If it upsets you, join me in advocating for the abolition of the income tax."

This logic doesn't fly.

ETA: Though I'd be down for the States to do what they like if it were up to them. Props to Texas for this to some extent btw. /edit

And side with oil barons over leaders in technology? Pass.

And I still can't believe we're still arguing about Constitutionality, when even the Constitution is no longer Constitutional.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Like I said, this is just weird. Now the government is going to imprison everyone for not eating their veggies, if we don't resist? Which universe have I stepped into? :stunned:

Edited to add extra incredulity:

:lmao: :stunned: <_< :wideeyed: :blink: :mellow:

Min, the whole idea of limiting government power is so that it doesn't do things you don't like when the political winds blow in a different direction. We saw the Court consistently chop down various War on Terror actions and commissions even though those actions had majority support in Congress. Sometimes, in regular criminal cases, guilty people are set free becaused the government didn't follow the rules in trying to bring them to justice. Aren't we all better off if those guilty people are kept in prison? How is that "bad" to keep a murderer locked up?

Well, it's bad because if we give the government the power to do those actions when we like the result, that power remains even if it is exercised in a way we don't like. It's the path down to pure majoritarianism. So the first question must be "does the government have the right to do this", not "do I like the result the government is trying to achieve?"

[TerraPrime]

So presumably, directing everyone to buy GM cars because it will help the U.S. economy and UAW workers, and because the government has an investment in GM but not Ford, would be a valid exercise of government power?

So we're done with the dietary restriction analogy now?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

I have real problems with the Government telling chefs what seasonings the may and may not have in the food they serve their customers. I certianly dpon't want to see that writ large.

[Lord O' Bones]

So presumably, directing everyone to buy GM cars because it will help the U.S. economy and UAW workers, and because the government has an investment in GM but not Ford, would be a valid exercise of government power?

I bought a Ford a couple months ago in no small part because they required no bailout.

Cutting Medicare should be a top priority of any deficit hawk or any younger American. The ACA attempts to do that in the most major way in the program's history.

Cutting Medicare is worthless if you take the money saved and moved it directly over to fund a new entitlement. It's like cutting $100/month from a car lease payment on your first car by taking a more stripped-down model, and then spending $100/month more for your lease on a second car because you wanted leather. The bottom line remains unchanged, so you really haven't saved anything.

Sure. But the Republicans (or more like, their moronic human victims) can't see how "UHC = Socialism AND DON'T FUCK WITH MY MEDICARE!" is far more repugnant just because it's so goddamned stupid?

[MinDonner]

Ser Poss.,

I have real problems with the Government telling chefs what seasonings the may and may not have in the food they serve their customers. I certianly dpon't want to see that writ large.

But, presumably you're OK with telling them they can't add, say, arsenic, or roadkill? No matter how good it tastes or how much money they can save by doing so?