Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Mar 30, 2012 10:23:11 GMT -5
Sad but true. We have two sets of people who populate a permanent ruling class, working mostly for self-preservation.
The beauty of our government at its formation was that it was created by and consisted of people who went home to their farms, law practices, print shops, etc...
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Mar 30, 2012 11:08:05 GMT -5
Sad but true. We have two sets of people who populate a permanent ruling class, working mostly for self-preservation. The beauty of our government at its formation was that it was created by and consisted of people who went home to their farms, law practices, print shops, etc... I've heard people argue against term limits by saying elected officials will then be much more corruptible since their power is on a clock. I don't see how it could get much worse. Between the influence of campaign donations, lobbying groups (ahem, sorry: Consultants) and the revolving door between government and interest/corporate groups, there is a huge disconnect between actual people and government policy. Not saying that term limits are necessarily the solution, but we need a larger discussion of what role government should play in our lives that goes beyond what the powers that be have allowed it to be. They're very happy to keep it as an abstract discussion between big and small government, and the wheels just keep on turning.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 30, 2012 11:40:11 GMT -5
Sad but true. We have two sets of people who populate a permanent ruling class, working mostly for self-preservation. The beauty of our government at its formation was that it was created by and consisted of people who went home to their farms, law practices, print shops, etc... I've heard people argue against term limits by saying elected officials will then be much more corruptible since their power is on a clock. I don't see how it could get much worse. Between the influence of campaign donations, lobbying groups (ahem, sorry: Consultants) and the revolving door between government and interest/corporate groups, there is a huge disconnect between actual people and government policy. Not saying that term limits are necessarily the solution, but we need a larger discussion of what role government should play in our lives that goes beyond what the powers that be have allowed it to be. They're very happy to keep it as an abstract discussion between big and small government, and the wheels just keep on turning. The problem with trying to have that "larger discussion" is that yuo get accused of wanting to push grandma off a cliff (as just one example). That's why I think Gerson's column on Paul Ryan in the WaPo made some good points.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 30, 2012 11:45:03 GMT -5
Elvado's theory met its fate in November 2010. The discussion at the time seemed to be surrounding just how unlikely electoral success would be in light of the HCR law.
Back against the wall, I could live with a law that only took care of the preexisting condition issue. But, I doubt the industry would swallow that if the HCR law meets its demise at SCOTUS.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Mar 30, 2012 11:52:43 GMT -5
Elvado's theory met its fate in November 2010. The discussion at the time seemed to be surrounding just how unlikely electoral success would be in light of the HCR law. Back against the wall, I could live with a law that only took care of the preexisting condition issue. But, I doubt the industry would swallow that if the HCR law meets its demise at SCOTUS. So HCR wasn't about the consolidation of Washinton power? Please
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 30, 2012 12:09:46 GMT -5
Elvado's theory met its fate in November 2010. The discussion at the time seemed to be surrounding just how unlikely electoral success would be in light of the HCR law. Back against the wall, I could live with a law that only took care of the preexisting condition issue. But, I doubt the industry would swallow that if the HCR law meets its demise at SCOTUS. What industry? The industry that gains 45 million new customers by government mandate?
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Mar 30, 2012 12:22:40 GMT -5
Elvado's theory met its fate in November 2010. The discussion at the time seemed to be surrounding just how unlikely electoral success would be in light of the HCR law. Back against the wall, I could live with a law that only took care of the preexisting condition issue. But, I doubt the industry would swallow that if the HCR law meets its demise at SCOTUS. The problem with picking specific items - especially this one - is that they will cause the cost of "insurance" to go significantly higher. In fact in several scenarios making "insurance" plans cover preexisting conditions makes it not "insurance" any more but rather simply a cost shifting mechanism for folks that choose not to carry insurance and jump on board when they get sick/injured. (note: not talking about portability of insurance). As much as I think this particular bill is a monstrosity - a real piece of crap, I am not heartened by this apparent impending decision to at least throw out the mandate. The logical eventual alternative to forcing people to buy insurance is to tax them for health care. No question the government has that right and at some time after this dustup settles down will likely use it. IMHO the employer model is not sustainable long term with increasing globalization. And having people have their own insurance without a mandate won't work either. Back to the first point, trying to pick and choose some seemingly positive or beneficial parts of the bill won't really work without the funding mechanism of the mandate part. Will just drive up the cost of "insurance" to even more unsustainable levels - if it really remains "insurance".
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 30, 2012 12:54:39 GMT -5
As much as I think this particular bill is a monstrosity - a real piece of crap, I am not heartened by this apparent impending decision to at least throw out the mandate. The logical eventual alternative to forcing people to buy insurance is to tax them for health care. No question the government has that right and at some time after this dustup settles down will likely use it The problem is that "universal health care coverage" polls a lot higher than "tax them for health care."
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Mar 30, 2012 13:14:03 GMT -5
As much as I think this particular bill is a monstrosity - a real piece of crap, I am not heartened by this apparent impending decision to at least throw out the mandate. The logical eventual alternative to forcing people to buy insurance is to tax them for health care. No question the government has that right and at some time after this dustup settles down will likely use it The problem is that "universal health care coverage" polls a lot higher than "tax them for health care." I have no argument that polling is like that. Looking forward though, if the rest of the bill stays in effect you will have a way out of reality minimum insurance policy required for every employee or a relatively small fine and dump them on Medicaid. When the eventual massive dumping of folks on government care happens and the bill for that comes due there will be no real alternative to a single payer system including everyone. Even if the rest of the bill gets struck the ever increasing cost of employer health care is going to eventually force this issue to the fore again with the court decision saying a mandate is not a legal option.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 30, 2012 13:14:25 GMT -5
I think it would be disappointing to see the mandate overturned. It seems like a sensible approach to attack the problem. That said, I can understand why it should be overturned on Commerce Clause grounds.
|
|
|
Post by nashvillehoyas on Mar 30, 2012 13:20:33 GMT -5
It's amazing that the President disagreed very stronngly with Hillary Clinton when she proposed mandated healthcare during the primary election. Better late than later.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Mar 30, 2012 13:24:07 GMT -5
It's amazing that the President disagreed very stronngly with Hillary Clinton when she proposed mandated healthcare during the primary election. Better late than later. BHO will never be confused with someone who has principle to which he is willing to stick. For that matter, neither will Mitt Romney.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Mar 30, 2012 13:36:44 GMT -5
This reaction is not surprising. It does, however, speak to a more sinister characteristic of the Left. Everything they do, repeat everything, is for the sole purpose of electoral victory and the accumulation of power. It is so very distasteful. I know you exaggerate for effect, but since this one is so over the top, I thought I'd remind you of this gem from Senator Mitch McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Obviously, governing the country in a responsible manner does not matter. To quote you, everything, repeat everything, is for the sole purpose of electoral victory.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Mar 30, 2012 13:46:57 GMT -5
Yes. You are right. However, removal of BHO is inherently good for the country.
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Mar 30, 2012 14:05:46 GMT -5
I think it would be disappointing to see the mandate overturned. It seems like a sensible approach to attack the problem. That said, I can understand why it should be overturned on Commerce Clause grounds. If the approach had been to mandate catastrophic coverage that kept cost shifting from happening but allowed a ton of ways to address routine care - including not having routine care coverage then it would have been fine - at least intellectually. But this approach was mandating a cadillac without doing anything to work on the cost of the cadillac. The way they did this made the wolves howl over the Commerce Clause implications. Probably would have anyway but IMHO they went way overboard on the approach.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 30, 2012 14:25:01 GMT -5
This reaction is not surprising. It does, however, speak to a more sinister characteristic of the Left. Everything they do, repeat everything, is for the sole purpose of electoral victory and the accumulation of power. It is so very distasteful. I know you exaggerate for effect, but since this one is so over the top, I thought I'd remind you of this gem from Senator Mitch McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Obviously, governing the country in a responsible manner does not matter. To quote you, everything, repeat everything, is for the sole purpose of electoral victory. How does that statement support an electoral victory for the GOP? Obama in office is the best medicine for Republican electoral votes. See 2010 midterm election results.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Mar 30, 2012 15:06:00 GMT -5
I know you exaggerate for effect, but since this one is so over the top, I thought I'd remind you of this gem from Senator Mitch McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Obviously, governing the country in a responsible manner does not matter. To quote you, everything, repeat everything, is for the sole purpose of electoral victory. How does that statement support an electoral victory for the GOP? Obama in office is the best medicine for Republican electoral votes. See 2010 midterm election results. If you can't see that McConnell et al. torpedoing the workings of gov't, just to oppose whatever was proposed by Democrats, no matter how reasonable, even if Republicans at first supported said proposal, is for the sole purpose of electoral victory, then I believe you purposely choose to close your eyes to reality. Or you just enjoy being the Social Assassin of HoyaTalk. Probably both.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 30, 2012 15:33:54 GMT -5
How does that statement support an electoral victory for the GOP? Obama in office is the best medicine for Republican electoral votes. See 2010 midterm election results. If you can't see that McConnell et al. torpedoing the workings of gov't, just to oppose whatever was proposed by Democrats, no matter how reasonable, even if Republicans at first supported said proposal, is for the sole purpose of electoral victory, then I believe you purposely choose to close your eyes to reality. Or you just enjoy being the Social Assassin of HoyaTalk. Probably both. Oh, I see what you're getting at. Like the GOP voting against Obama's budget Wednesday just because it came from the White House. Good thing all the Dems were able to vote in favor of the budget proposal.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 30, 2012 15:36:17 GMT -5
How does that statement support an electoral victory for the GOP? Obama in office is the best medicine for Republican electoral votes. See 2010 midterm election results. Or you just enjoy being the Social Assassin of HoyaTalk. At this rate, I'm going to have to start paying royalties to Larry David as often as people cite to my avi.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Apr 4, 2012 4:53:36 GMT -5
President Obama continues his run of classy behavior by calling out the Supreme Court on the health care issue. Nice visual Mr. President. The phony populist calling out the "unelected" branch of government.
|
|