Sex criminals to get Viagra?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Is the baby on the way thing affecting your judgement even more than usual, Spence? There are ammendments like this put in every big bill by both parties. The Dems have filled this 2700 page bill with more pork that a redneck 4th of July pig roast, yet you find fault with one conservative ammendment which most people here seem to be in agreement with? To quote a wise man, your post is "Lame".

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Is the baby on the way thing affecting your judgement even more than usual, Spence? There are ammendments like this put in every big bill by both parties. The Dems have filled this 2700 page bill with more pork that a redneck 4th of July pig roast, yet you find fault with one conservative ammendment which most people here seem to be in agreement with? To quote a wise man, your post is "Lame".

Yet again, you're completely missing the point.

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

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

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.

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

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

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


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

-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.

[scottw]

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

[basenjib123]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Yeah, "conservatives" are not perfect. They might even stoop to all manner of dirty, underhanded, unconstitutional, lying, promise breaking tricks to defeat or hamper a bill that was conjured in just those ways. Of course, I can see why you are annoyed with such a major "conservative" hypocrisy. After all, the Health Care Bill is "Centrist" and should make everyone happy.

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, why did they ever create such extra government to forbid something that is not enforceable? Maybe that's how Coburn got his idea.

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

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, "conservatives" are not perfect. They might even stoop to all manner of dirty, underhanded, unconstitutional, lying, promise breaking tricks to defeat or hamper a bill that was conjured in just those ways. Of course, I can see why you are annoyed with such a major "conservative" hypocrisy. After all, the Health Care Bill is "Centrist" and should make everyone happy.

I believe I simply found it ironic.

Oh, why did they ever create such extra government to forbid something that is not enforceable? Maybe that's how Coburn got his idea.

Huh?

Oh wait, the whole Health Care Bill is the problem. It doesn't lower costs. It raises premiums.

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.

It raises taxes. It costs taxpayers too much.

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.

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.

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 is more an income redistribution than it is a "health" bill.

It certainly is both.

It is unconstitutional.

That's for the Supreme Court to decide.

It is FAR more unnecessary and a FAR greater annoyance than Coburns little stuff.

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

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE DOING THIS. This should be in the domain of the States and the private sector.

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

[detbuch]

[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.

[detbuch]

[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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it.

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...

The States can create "programs" that suit the specific needs of their citizens. And they can be "models" for each other. And failures can be FAR more easily corrected at State levels than national. State legislators have to be more responsive to their constituents. Those national congressional representatives all come from the States. They don't magically get smarter or more competent when they put on federal suits. If anything, they become more contentious and obstructive.

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

"Wealth" is class warfare code for "shame on you." Our health care, pre the BILL, is better than Britain's, so poo on their opinion.

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.

Gobbledegook.

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.

Nobody says do nothing. Things have been evolving for a long time. Things have been, and are being tried. Festering is a good motivator to cure. A bad "cure" is often fatal and can delay real progress.

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

Good luck with that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

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.

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.

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

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. [/COLOR]

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

[Nebe]

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

[spence]

[QUOTE=detbuch;757762]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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.

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?

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.

Several?

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...

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.

Like illegals and people who avoid the mandate?

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.

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.

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.

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

[buckman]

[QUOTE=spence;757843]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I think the country has changed a lot in the past 200 years,

-spence

Ya think

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.


I apologize for not knowing what is lurking, unexpressed, in your mind.

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

Again, all so-called "conservatives" do not think in lockstep. Some are called Neo-cons, some are called Rinos, some are "hard core," some hate John McCain, some hate Rush Limbaugh. Again, the only bond that holds them together, insofar as they are together, is the Constitution and original intent.

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.

Not everything was done in public. Some things were exposed. And promises were made and broken. Reps were bought and abandoned. Special exemptions were promised. Procedures that they denounced were threatened to be used. An unrelated Education bill was inserted. Yes, not all was sneaky. Some was just blatant force to further the power of Federal Government. Of course, if you favor what they did, objection is not welcomed

Bush did what he thought was necessary when the Administration misrepresented the case for the Iraq war...they did what they believed was necessary...

Ah, the Bush card. I guess it's alright to trash what he did and how he did it, but then say it's ok if your guy does it, since Bush did it.

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

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.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;757843]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I didn't say it couldn't be enforced

I quote you: "If not . . . why have the law? It could never be enforced."

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.

Where does the term nouveaux riche come from. Isn't that applied to those who were not previously wealthy have become so. Isn't most of that new wealth a product of the desire, in a free market, to gain wealth? And how does that hurt you. You have the opportunity, in a free market, to gain wealth.

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

Any system that inhibits the power to accumulate wealth is not a free market system

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...

You're right. Those are several. At least one is a tax measure. And don't they all raise costs? Which is part of the reason taxes are to be collected for four years before the meat of the bill takes effect, to make it appear that it is paid for. Of course, there will not be further four year moratoriums to pay for it once it starts.


Like illegals and people who avoid the mandate?

There are too many illegals to fit into the category. As I said, not all that were supposed to be covered, will be covered. Maybe eventually. Who knows where this thing will go? It was not meant to be complete, transparent, all facts on the table. It was meant to PASS. To get the foot in the door, and THEN to be "fixed."

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.

Government can be a positive force. But hard core Constitutional objections are that this is not Federal Government business.

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

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.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=spence;757843]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

-spence

no...

[detbuch]

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Centrists" are leftists light.

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

[spence]

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