User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 171

  1. #111
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    We need health care reform.

    We spend roughly 17% of our GDP on Health Care. If we spent 12% like Switzerland the savings would be the size of the entire Defense budget.

    Will the ACA diminish that percentage?

  2. #112
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    We need health care reform.

    We spend roughly 17% of our GDP on Health Care.

    Will the ACA diminish that percentage?
    This is the big question, and I think the answer is probably no. What we need to do is educate the population on how to make better personal health decisions. The thought, with regard to the fiscal impact of ACA, is that providing more healthcare to people will allow and entice them to seek preemptive medical care and education, which in turn will reduce the costs of major treatments down the line (diabetes, etc).
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  3. #113
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    A movement that Roberts joined, thereby implying that he at least adheres to its most basic principles....which is reinforced by his statements regarding the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
    I'm pretty sure he won't be invited to any FedSoc barbecues for about a year or so. Also, the man is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He doesn't "adhere" to principles. He agrees with them or he does not. He may contemplate them when making decisions, but he's the one who decides, and not the principles.

    That's my point, and its in fundamental conflict with even the most minimalist possible interpretation of Conservative jurisprudence, as defined by the movement he is a card-carrying member of.
    Not at all. I've spent a lot of time explaining to you how his decision-making falls within conservative principles of constitutional interpretation, even though it does not coincide with "conservative" policy aims. As far as we know, he wanted to overturn the law on a policy basis, but his legal reasoning told him that it could not be done. That is precisely the kind of determination that a judge is supposed to make. A judge, empowered by the Constitution and the acquiescence of the people to make these decisions, and not an organization that deigns to make that decision for him.

    As for the power of percieved legitimacy, I am not convinced even in the slightest that a temporary image problem would result in the other two branches of government ignoring the letter of the law as determined by the Supreme Court. Hell, Republicans considered the Supreme Court as essentially an arm of the progressive wing of the Democratic party for decades without challenging its Constitutional authority.
    Well, that's because you seem to think that the statute should have been overturned on a policy basis, or as you put it, "adherence to conservative principle."

    What I'm trying to say is that it is not at all about what the decision was, but how the decision was made. The image problem would be less about enforcement (though Andrew Jackson did set that precedent), and more about lawyers who would adapt their appeals strategies with the assumption that the Court would be a right-wing rubber stamp, with little in the way of pure interpretive analysis and considerable overturning of long-established precedent, along with the creation of constitutional principles from whole cloth (something Scalia particularly enjoys doing. Because he's smarter than everyone else, and he knows it. Why can't the rest of us just understand that?) It would stifle jurisprudence as lawyers would have to increasingly look at there clients as either "liberal" or "conservative," instead of "plaintiff" or "defendant." It would essentially mean that the Court had become a political body, troubling because it is inherently a countermajoritarian, antirepresentative, and antidemocratic body.

  4. #114
    Senior Member Eileen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6?
    Posts
    2,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    We need health care reform.

    We spend roughly 17% of our GDP on Health Care. If we spent 12% like Switzerland the savings would be the size of the entire Defense budget.

    Will the ACA diminish that percentage?
    We need to reform the cost and approach of health care. This bill doesn't really seem set up to do so. I mean, I do think it should be the law that everyone has insurance (but I don't think that it should be framed in this particular way as it's so negative--it should be understood as both a right and a responsibility) but the problem is the HUGE COSTS and the relative lack of focus on prevention.
    INFJ

    "I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

  5. #115
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default


  6. #116
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Ain't this the truth. In the name of personal liberty we must allow a person to do gradual and irreparable harm upon his own person, but in the name of mercy and benevolence we must provide him medical assistance if he needs it (regardless of whether he has insurance or not).
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  7. #117
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Not at all. I've spent a lot of time explaining to you how his decision-making falls within conservative principles of constitutional interpretation, even though it does not coincide with "conservative" policy aims.

    Well, that's because you seem to think that the statute should have been overturned on a policy basis, or as you put it, "adherence to conservative principle."
    The policy aims are irrelevent, what matters is their Constitutional basis. And we've already established that we have different opinions regarding what constitutes conservative jurisprudence. Don't look now, but some of those 'radical' principles are now precedent.

    Like I said, policy preference is irrelevent; the I think the ACA should have been overturned because I think its unconstitutional.
    Last edited by lowtech redneck; 06-29-2012 at 01:06 PM. Reason: There was apparently some confusion?

  8. #118
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    If the ACA were a hyper-partisan program, it would have been single payer. It was made worse because Obama was foolish and tried to work with republicans.
    Any program that passes on a party-line vote is hyper-partisan....and the people Obama had to appease were moderate Democrats.

  9. #119
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    because I think its unconstitutional.
    And, apparently so do Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. But alas, the 5 other justices disagree with you, and thus it is deemed constitutional. In the end, the constitution is a document, much like the bible, crafted by mortal men for antiquated purposes. Both have much to admire, and both have provided good things, but we needn't look to them as gospel. We can think for ourselves.


    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Any program that passes on a party-line vote is hyper-partisan....and the people Obama had to appease were moderate Democrats.
    Fair enough. Although if I recall, the House version had a public option, and the Senate version removed it to get a filibuster proof majority.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #120
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    And, apparently so do Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. But alas, the 5 other justices disagree with you, and thus it is deemed constitutional.
    No kidding.

    You kind of missed my point....would it help if put 'I think' in front of ACA?

Similar Threads

  1. Should the US move towards universal health care?
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 12-30-2009, 04:41 PM
  2. US House + health care bill
    By Usehername in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 11-15-2009, 04:23 PM
  3. Chuck Norris does not Approve of the Health Care Reform.
    By Gewitter27 in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-30-2009, 03:45 PM
  4. SCOTUS affirms Heller decision!
    By Oberon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-26-2008, 09:40 PM
  5. Single Payor Health Care
    By INTJMom in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-24-2008, 09:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO