Sex criminals to get Viagra?

[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.

[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]

[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...