08 Mar 17
Originally posted by whodeyI know.
Not everyone will agree with what is "good" health care.
That is why allowing individual states to decide their own health care is superior to forcing all of them to adapt to a one size fits all approach.
Sorry, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Disagreement doesn't go by state. I know you are used to seeing an election map with 'red' states and 'blue' states, but that's not really how things work.
08 Mar 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat is better, letting conservative and liberal states govern themselves or forcing half the country to be outraged every 4 years?
I know.
[b]That is why allowing individual states to decide their own health care is superior to forcing all of them to adapt to a one size fits all approach.
Sorry, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Disagreement doesn't go by state. I know you are used to seeing an election map with 'red' states and 'blue' states, but that's not really how things work.[/b]
08 Mar 17
Originally posted by whodeyFalse dichotomy. Conservative and liberal states are not a real thing as I already pointed out (and you tried to ignore).
What is better, letting conservative and liberal states govern themselves or forcing half the country to be outraged every 4 years?
Besides, the issue here is not about whether people will be outraged at each other. Currently, nearly everyone wants Obamacare to stay - except a few rich people in the insurance industry and the politicians in their pocket. Most people also want it improved upon (except for the same set).
My guess is you are one of those in the pocket of the rich. If not, I feel sorry for you working so hard for free.
08 Mar 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI disagree.
False dichotomy. Conservative and liberal states are not a real thing as I already pointed out (and you tried to ignore).
Besides, the issue here is not about whether people will be outraged at each other. Currently, nearly everyone wants Obamacare to stay - except a few rich people in the insurance industry and the politicians in their pocket. Most peop ...[text shortened]... e one of those in the pocket of the rich. If not, I feel sorry for you working so hard for free.
As Bill Clinton pointed out, Obamacare is a crazy scheme that is destroying the Middle Class. We have only seen the tip of the ice burg in terms of premium increases.
Now the GOP wants to do is remove the mandate to buy it, which will only make premiums go up more.
That is no answer.
Originally posted by whodeyThe States miserably failed to provide adequate health care for tens of millions of US citizens prior to 2010 despite having 220+ years to figure out how to do so. The situation was a national crisis affecting the entire economy - health care costs had soared to 17% of GNP and were constantly rising yet 50 million still had no health insurance.
Not everyone will agree with what is "good" health care.
That is why allowing individual states to decide their own health care is superior to forcing all of them to adapt to a one size fits all approach.
Obviously, the GOP is no different that the Dims in this regard.
America will remain as divided as ever now.
So leaving such a matter of national import to the States wasn't "superior"; it had become a disaster.
09 Mar 17
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd States like California failed to keep their dams up to code so that they fail as well.
The States miserably failed to provide adequate health care for tens of millions of US citizens prior to 2010 despite having 220+ years to figure out how to do so. The situation was a national crisis affecting the entire economy - health care costs had soared to 17% of GNP and were constantly rising yet 50 million still had no health insurance.
So leaving such a matter of national import to the States wasn't "superior"; it had become a disaster.
Why have state government at all since they are soooo inept?
IF states did not have a sugar daddy to constantly run to for funds and bail outs perhaps this would change.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Mar 17
Originally posted by whodeyWhy stop at the state level? Whatever your logic is, doesn't it support having health care regulations decided at the county level? Or better, recognize congressional districts as governmental entities and have them define and enforce their own regulations? Where's the logic that gives the state absolute power to dictate regulations?
What is better, letting conservative and liberal states govern themselves or forcing half the country to be outraged every 4 years?
09 Mar 17
Originally posted by whodeywhy have police officers since some criminals go free?
And States like California failed to keep their dams up to code so that they fail as well.
Why have state government at all since they are soooo inept?
IF states did not have a sugar daddy to constantly run to for funds and bail outs perhaps this would change.
Originally posted by JS357I would not have a problem with that.
Why stop at the state level? Whatever your logic is, doesn't it support having health care regulations decided at the county level? Or better, recognize congressional districts as governmental entities and have them define and enforce their own regulations? Where's the logic that gives the state absolute power to dictate regulations?
The Amish are able to opt out of Obamacare because they take care of their own.
They are much happier and wealthier for it.
09 Mar 17
Originally posted by whodeyBuild a time machine, go back to 1787 and tell Washington, Madison, Hamilton et. al. not to bother then.
And States like California failed to keep their dams up to code so that they fail as well.
Why have state government at all since they are soooo inept?
IF states did not have a sugar daddy to constantly run to for funds and bail outs perhaps this would change.
They, unlike you, recognized that the national economy might have problems that could only be resolved by a national government. That's the main reason they spent that summer in Philly, not because they liked cheesesteaks.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Mar 17
Originally posted by whodeySo how many US states, counties, or voting districts, and how many of us individuals are willing to take up the Amish way of life to get the opt-out option?
I would not have a problem with that.
The Amish are able to opt out of Obamacare because they take care of their own.
They are much happier and wealthier for it.
Originally posted by no1marauderI stand by this prediction: despite the loud bleating from the ultra-right Freedom Caucus, every Republican on the House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees voted to advance the AHCA. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/obamacare-revision-clears-first-hurdle-in-house-committee-early-thursday/2017/03/09/579586b4-04c2-11e7-b9fa-ed727b644a0b_story.html?utm_term=.57b313f2461d
Looks to me like this is more political gamesmanship; the House will wind up voting for it with a few cosmetic changes and then the Senate will balk. Republicans in the House get to say they voted to repeal Obamacare to appease the base. ACA stays in effect anyway.
Rinse, lather, repeat - this game's been played since 2010.
So I doubt that there will be enough Republican "no" votes in the full House to kill it; heck they might pick up a few Red State Democrats.
As for the Senate Tom Cotton (R-ARK) had this to say earlier today:
“I don’t think the Senate would vote on that bill,” he said. “The bill that was introduced Monday night cannot pass the Senate. And I don’t think it will be brought to the Senate for a vote.”
Interesting .................