be nice to Spence, he's probably suffering terribly from sympathy pain/cramping and morning sickness:rotf2:

Yet again, you're completely missing the point.

-spence

No, you're wrong. I got the point. He's slowing down a bill that he doesn't like by picking out one amendment in it. It's not a new concept in politics. Dems and Repubs have been doing it for years. I'm suprised you're have trouble understanding it in this instance, though. I figured you to be bright enough to pick up on that.

I think we moved past your point above on page 1.

The issue isn't about the amendment, it's the irony that a "conservative" would propose additional and unnecessary legislation to create more government...

But I know you know that and are just being a pain, sort of like Coburn.

-spence

How does barring something from this overloaded bill create more government?

You're creating another law to be enforced. Is the government going to run background checks on everyone who gets insurance, or perform audits on prescriptions by sex offenders to see if the law has been broken?

If not...why have the law? It could never be enforced.

-spence

Wouldn't the government just mandate that responsibility to the insurance providers?

Most laws are not 100% enforceable. Especially true of cheating on the government. Catching a percentage of cheats seems to be the acceptable mode of discouraging the law-breakers. If the responsibilty were to fall to the Government, the new IRS enforcers will just have a teeny blip of extra responsibility added to the mountain of junk the bill gives them to climb.

Besides, this "extra" government would "save" the tax payers money, just as how the HC bill will "lower costs.":biglaugh:

Passing the cost of regulation onto the consumer? Still not very conservative...

This assumes there's a problem to begin with. I'd be curious to know how much federally funded sex drugs actually make it to sex offenders. It's already verboten under Medicare and Medicaid.

Oh wait, this actually isn't the problem! Perhaps the bill is really an attempt to limit abortion drugs.

-spence

No, we didn't move past my point on page one.

Yes, I'm being a pain. But not like Coburn, more like you.:love:

with the way that anyone with a shread of decency is running from Obama and the democrats...they're gonna need every sex offender, pervert and illegal alien that they can muster up in November:rotf2:

Illegal aliens..
 

Watch and see how Obama tries to "LEGALIZE" Illegal aliens BEFORE his election in 2012.....30 million extra votes will come in real handy by then for this scumbag.

Oh wait, the whole Health Care Bill is the problem. It doesn't lower costs. It raises premiums. It raises taxes. It costs taxpayers too much. Except for collecting taxes, it doesn't go into effect for four years, and still won't insure all those it was supposed to cover. It is more an income redistribution than it is a "health" bill. It is unconstitutional. It is FAR more unnecessary and a FAR greater annoyance than Coburns little stuff. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE DOING THIS. This should be in the domain of the States and the private sector.

I believe I simply found it ironic.

Huh?

It's projected by the CBO to slow the increase and therefore deliver deficit reduction. I think there's a good argument that some of these savings are at the expense of State budgets.

On the wealthy and the HC industry. If it really delivers deficit reduction, than I'm not sure it can cost too much...strategic investments don't usually payback rapidly.

There are several provisions that are active within the first year, preexisting conditions for children being one of them. I believe they're targeting 95% coverage which would contain the bulk of the uninsured.

It certainly is both.

That's for the Supreme Court to decide.

Why don't you think Coburn was proposing these amendments a year or six months ago?

I'd like to see the states being a larger part of the solution, but don't believe a problem such as this can really be solved without Federal action. There's just no way the states could prioritize and coordinate activities in a meaningful manner...

Generally, I'd agree with the position taken by those pragmatic Brits at the Economist.

That:

A) A country as wealthy as the US should have affordable care available to everyone

and

B) That this bill, crappy as it is, is a necessary motivator to drive the follow-on solutions to better address the root causes of the issue. That doing nothing is actually worse, as it will delay the action and let the problems fester. That being said, the bill in it's current state will not adequately address the issue.

The bill as passed can accommodate for tort reform and state competition in the future. I fully expect these initiatives to be incorporated in the next 5 years.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;757699]I believe I simply found it ironic.


You "believe" you "simply" found it ironic? So you're not sure? And "simply" is disingenuous.

Your irony is founded on the false premise that to be "conservative" means to be be perfectly and slavishly bound by some narrow perception of "conservative" philosopy. And anyone who doesn't strictly follow the cookie-cutter mold is in conflict with the "guidelines." Since, in reality, everyone is unique, it would be difficult , if not impossible, to fit a large constituency into one mold. The basic tenet that binds most "conservatives" is adherence to, and preservation of, the Constitution and its original intent. "Conservatives," within whatever tent that label encompasses, argue with each other about all issues, economic, social, policy, the one common bond is the Constitution. Coburn did not violate that bond with his amendment.

Now, it is not ironic that, though you find irony in Coburn's amendment, you don't muster any objection to the sneaky way the Dems passed the bill. It is taken for granted that such would be. One cannot complain to a rattlesnake if it bites you and injects its venom in your veins. That is its nature. That is what it does. And it is the nature of the left to succeed by any means necessary. That is what they do.

[QUOTE=spence;757699]Huh?

You said Coburn's amendment to bar sex offenders from getting insurance paid Viagra was creating more government by creating another law to be enforced and that such a law could not be enforced. Then you said it's already verboten under Medicare and Medicaid. Ergo my question about why such extra unenforcable government (the Medicare and Medicaid restriction) was created.

It's projected by the CBO to slow the increase and therefore deliver deficit reduction.

Garbage in, garbage out.

On the wealthy and the HC industry. If it really delivers deficit reduction, than I'm not sure it can cost too much...strategic investments don't usually payback rapidly.

Taxes on the wealthy and, especially, on industry, eventually trickle down to consumers in higher costs.

Class warfare is a leftist tactic to gain support of the "masses." The wealthy are demonized as somehow hurting the not wealthy. This justifies taxing them at higher and higher rates in order to "level." How does it hurt you if someone is wealthier than you? Is not the drive to wealth a more positive than a negative factor in free market economies?

There are several provisions that are active within the first year, preexisting conditions for children being one of them. I believe they're targeting 95% coverage which would contain the bulk of the uninsured.

Several?

The 95% being "targeted" includes the 85% who already are covered which means that of the 15% that are not, only 2/3 are "targeted." Which means one third will not be insured. As I said, the bill won't insure all those who were the reason for its existence.

It certainly is both.

We agree. My contention is that it is more income redistributive in its intent than it is intended to distribute health care, which can be done by free market methods in concert with the will and consent of the people in their different state and local venues, and without harm either to original constitutional intent or to the pockets of the citizens whom that constitution protects.

That's for the Supreme Court to decide.

That is, for "conservatives," the problem. The Supreme Court has gone way beyond original intent in "interpreting" the general welfare clause. And as long as it continues to accede to whatever wishes the Congress desires to tax and spend for "the general welfare", the Federal Government will have nearly unlimited power over the States and the people. NOT THE INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS.

Good luck with that.

Attacking my method of speech? I say believe because it sounds more pretentious. As for simply, you're coming to quick conclusions for someone who doesn't know what I was thinking.

Conservatives also tend to oppose unnecessary Federal legislation, of which this amendment certainly is...

I don't think it was necessarily sneaky, they simply used whatever means were necessary to do what they believed was necessary, everything was done in public.

Bush did what he thought was necessary when the Administration misrepresented the case for the Iraq war...they did what they believed was necessary...although in the case of the health care bill the facts were on the table. That it didn't paint a clear picture is the reason for the lack of public enthusiasm, and the opening for the GOP to could the water with disinformation.

-spence

It looks like everyone is really hard up for something to complain about :hihi:

[QUOTE=detbuch;757762]I didn't say it couldn't be enforced, but that it would take spending to do so, or put the pressure on State governments and private business to comply. Aren't the exchanges going to be run by the states?

Perhaps if a person wanted viagra they should be forced to prove to the Feds are not a sex offender.

Simple, because the wealthy have most of the money--and as it "takes money to make money"--the wealthy are naturally going to stay wealthy.

A progressive system doesn't inhibit the free market when tempered by reality.

Of course, there are others...

Tax credits to small business to cover the Medicare Part D donut hole, allowing kids on parents health care until age 26, can't drop coverage due to health, lifetime caps, 85% spent on care etc...


Like illegals and people who avoid the mandate?

Like I said, I think it's both. I wouldn't expect the Dems to propose a free market approach to this problem. They would favor more proactive action under the belief that the government can be a positive force.

I think the country has changed a lot in the past 200 years, and why there's a judicial branch to help interpret how the Constitution should be applied to modern times.

This is why balance among both the Judicial and Legislative branches is a good thing...

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;757843]Ya think:love:

If the facts were on the table, the picture should have been clear. The lack of public enthusiasm is not as simplistic as you portray. Much of the displeasure is a response to what is now clear.

[QUOTE=spence;757843]The change has occured due to Court politics not balance. The balance was intended to preserve the Constitution, not to change it. It is not balance when the Court allows the Federal Government to tax and regulate without dissent when it is for "the general welfare." In that respect, the court has lost its function as arbiter and given all power over to the Federal Govenment. It has opened the door to eliminate separate States. If the trend toward Federal power is left unchecked, we can become, not the United States of America, but the State of America. For those "retrogrades" that insist on adherence to the Constitution, another Constitutional Convention (heaven forbid) might be necessary. Then, even a pretense of the Constitution as was founded, will be erased. Human nature has not changed in the past 200 years. The declaration of Independence and the Constitution were based on natural law, a creator, and human nature. Those have not changed.

[QUOTE=spence;757843]
no...

Spence, the irony is not in Coburn's amendment, which you say is more government that would cost more (as I said previously in this thread--"conservatives" are not perfect--they will also stoop to procedural tricks), but that you would point his amendment out as ironic but not complain about the cost of the HC bill. His amendment, which you say would, in contradiction to "conservative" tendency, cost money, was a procedural trick to impede the bill, to help pave a way to defeat it, which would SAVE money.

The great argument between "conservatives" and "progressives" is not about procedural tricks. It is about the struggle between the individual versus collective authority. The purpose in founding this country was to retain the power of individuals to seek their own "happiness" versus the power of the State to dictate how and what that happiness would be. It is an age-old struggle in which the State seems always to eventually win--perhaps, because most are too weak to resist it or perceive themselves as too weak to succeed on their own. Statists understand that weakness and win power because of it. I believe that the vast majority do have the ability to be self-sufficient, and are weakened to the extent that they are persuaded that they can't. The temptation to giver over the difficult portion of existence to a protecting power is great. But if it is resisted, one will be stonger. A nation of strong, self-directing citizens is a strong, free nation. The change in the 200 years, to which you refer, is a change towards weakness, of acceptance of social power over individual power. The "health care" bill is another step in that direction. The creation of this nation and its Constitution were the foundation from which movements, right and left diverged. The foundation was freedom. A move to the "right" from that foundation would be to even more personal freedom than the Constitution provided--a move toward anarchy. A move to the left of that foundation would be to less personal freedom and more power to the State. The move has constantly been to the left. And any "centrist" stance would be, always, in the middle of what remains of original intent and what has shifted to the left. So "centrism" is merely a middle aquiesence to whatever shift has occured. "Centrists" are leftists light.

I prefer to call them..."Limp Leftists" :rotf2:

Can't read all this crap on a BBery. I'll be back later this week.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device