Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Irony, sweet irony...Oh yeah, "Yee Ha!" Have a pleasant evening

1OldGI, meet gugi, our resident progressive socialist fascist nazi communist liberal european intellectual with least emphasis on intellectual

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

1OldGI, meet gugi, our resident progressive socialist fascist nazi communist liberal european intellectual with least emphasis on intellectual

Charmed, I'm sure, Gugi. Where are you from? I've travelled extensively in Europe and I really must confess that as an American, of all the cultural differences between us, politics is perhaps the most perplexing. As I'm sure, most Conservative Americans are a bit of an oddity to European Socialists. Historically, Europeans have become very accoustmed to being taken care of by governments and monarchs. Conversely the people that founded my country had for the most part, had all they could stomach of benevolent leadership and wanted nothing more than to be left alone to make their own way. Not that one is necessarily better than the other, just different perspectives and different world views. In case you were wondering, I'm an educated man (BA in English/Sociology) but have always taken Mark Twain's advice to "Never let my schooling interfere with my education"

Yeah, don't fall for everything hoogla-Lee says, he pals around with charlatans.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Irony, sweet irony, while offering a condescending remark to enforce your own superiority, you paraphrase Robert Kennedy.

Yeah, the remark was condescending, but not to enforce my superiority, rather as an overarching point to the rest of my post. I think I should've left some more space between it and my previous sentence, so that you don't assume it is directed at you.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

You then lean back on the classic liberal talking points that conservatives: 1. Aren't sophisticated enough to understand and 2. Are heartless crumudgeons who would let grandma starve.

I don't think so. (1) I do much more than watching foxnews and reading WSJ, so I am reasonably well familiar with the conservatives' intellectual abilities. (2) That has nothing to do with conservatives. Grandma will starve only if she made poor life choices and ended up with not enough savings when she had nothing more to offer of value to the free market, and at the same time she's not personable enough to have her relatives or the good samaritans give her food. Of course, the conservative thought is that the later two groups do the job much better than a government which therefore just needs to get out of the way.

BTW I grew up in bulgaria, but do live in US, which means I like it here.

Slowly back to the topic though, it seems to me that the 'healthcare needs reform, but not this bill' is only a populist slogan. There really doesn't seem to be any serious alternative on offer.
The main issue with the american health system, or any other mostly market-driven system is that it is maximizing profits, not health. And when the medical bills of a person start approaching their networth the free market mandates that person should die.

Now from what I've read aside from all the politics, the healthcare law provides some important changes in the framework. So that the market can now offer different solutions where the profits are tied to the health, not to the services rendered. I read about few organizations who are trying to address the issue of the rising costs by concentrating on the very small number of patients that contribute most to this rise (in some cases 1% of the people use 30% of the total cost, and the standard market response is only making it worse).

And still moving towards the constitutionality, I think if people should not be burdened with a mandate to have health insurance, (other) people (even of the corporate type) should not be burdened with a mandate to keep a person alive before they have been compensated for the cost of doing so.

Of course, at the end of the day things seem to get decided by politics and the fact is that grandma always votes, she very much likes if she has to pay $20 less for her pills, and she doesn't have a problem when the president and congress get a loan from the chinese to ensure that happens.

I thought this was quite funny and fit this thread fairly well.

Originally Posted by gugi

Yeah, the remark was condescending, but not to enforce my superiority, but to enforce my undeniable humility.

Fixed that for you!

When did it happen that seeking a "profit" became a bad thing. A doctor should seek a profit, as should a hospital. If a medical professional is now no longer allowed to seek a profit, where will it stop? If free healthcare is a fundamental right, how much more so should be housing and food. Grocery stores should no longer seek a profit, and the people working there should be forced to volunteer their time, as no profit should be sought for the provision of fundamental necessities of life. When my roof needs to be repaired, the government should provide this, as shelter is a fundamental right. If my plumbing goes out, the government should fix it, and the plumber should not expect a profit, as he is only providing a basic necessity of life. Presently, when it comes to healthcare, you pay for everything you can, and once you reach a point where you can no longer pay, you go on medicaid, and obtain services. This is far from you notion that "when the medical bills of a person start approaching their networth the free market mandates that person should die." Your assertion has no basis in the pre-obamacare health care system.

As for the earlier post on "unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps." i would love to discuss this in a separate thread/PM, as this did not happen under the GWB administration's war on terror. (but this is off topic in this thread).

Gugi, I agree that Grandma has no issue voting, and throwing the future generations under the bus when it comes to obtaining handouts from the government. Don't touch the failing ponzi scheme that is Social security/Medicare because you will lose the geriatric vote.

Personally, I fully support a constitutional amendment that states "You don't have the right to vote unless you have paid taxes." Why should those that contribute nothing to the government have a say in where the government spends my money?

Matt

It is just as "constitutional" as public schools, and social security.

Originally Posted by mhailey

When did it happen that seeking a "profit" became a bad thing.

I imagine you can think of instances your self, but the phrase 'you can have too much of a good thing' should evoke the kind of examples I've got knocking about.

For example, if you're seeking profit regardless of the quality of the service you provide, that's a bad thing. If you seek so much profit that you don't pay your staff at a reasonable rate, because you know if they leave you can replace them tomorrow etc etc, that's a bad thing.

Basically, if you're screwing people over for money, in the name of the bottom line, then it becomes a bad thing. You can understand how a business like insurance would be particularly susceptible to that particular brand of greed.

The school system does seem to be a point that is not strongly challenged.

I have an idea. people who don't pay taxes can vote but they are only considered to be 1/3 of a person. Hmmm...where did I hear about something like that before?

Originally Posted by mhailey

Yeah, the remark was condescending, but not to enforce my superiority, but to enforce my undeniable humility.

Fixed that for you!

Classy, congratulations!

Originally Posted by mhailey

When did it happen that seeking a "profit" became a bad thing.

It didn't, it seems you just stop at 'making a profit', and ignore the qualifier 'at the expense of enslaving/killing another person'. Because I doubt you would defend the whole premise.

Originally Posted by mhailey

If free healthcare is a fundamental right

It isn't.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Presently, when it comes to healthcare, you pay for everything you can, and once you reach a point where you can no longer pay, you go on medicaid, and obtain services. This is far from you notion that "when the medical bills of a person start approaching their networth the free market mandates that person should die." Your assertion has no basis in the pre-obamacare health care system.

No it doesn't, because that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the 'free market'. When the medicaid kicks in that means the free market has written off the person and they are using the socialized government services that, as far as I understand you are against.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Gugi, I agree that Grandma has no issue voting, and throwing the future generations under the bus when it comes to obtaining handouts from the government.

Grandma is an example, and just about every person in america (including corporations) are the exact same way, just a different issue.
We've had threads here where a member would passionately argue for free market and against all social safety nets, and at the same time they're collecting unemployment benefits for years instead of taking a lower qualification/lower paying job.
The point is that everybody can talk big, but putting their money where their mouth is turns out to be quite challenging.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Personally, I fully support a constitutional amendment that states "You don't have the right to vote unless you have paid taxes." Why should those that contribute nothing to the government have a say in where the government spends my money?

Because the american system is political egalitarianism and economical meritocracy. But that doesn't need to remain the case.
You may like even better voting power proportional to the paid tax.

Has anyone found a clause yet that says yay or nay on the constitutionality of national health care?