 |
The concept of equality of outcome is not to be found (thank goodness) in the Constitution. The only equality I know of there is found in the concept of equal protection of the law, which is completely different.Quote:
Too complex, what ever happened to equality
Is not the ACA a law? Therefore if it doesn't afford individuals equal protection from excessive charges it is unconstitutional, same goes for what ever followed it
There is no constitutional protection from "excessive charges".Quote:
Is not the ACA a law? Therefore if it doesn't afford individuals equal protection from excessive charges it is unconstitutional, same goes for what ever followed it.
Yes there is. The process of law delegates the regulation of the insurance industry to the states and they are tasked with approving those rate hikes, or excessive charges as you put it. The insurance companies have states over a barrel as they can always leave, but in this they act together when requesting or apply for those rate hikes. You have seen Big Biz in general employ this tactics at state federal and local levels. It's called a lobby, and is worth big bucks in the goal of maximizing profitability of their companies with favorable laws on all levels, to legalize those excessive charges. Walmart has done this for years, getting all kinds of tax breaks and subsidies from locals to build and employ citizens. They are not alone and the insurance industry does it just as well.
Think Amazon and GM for perfect examples of this strategy, that create huge revenue streams for years and decades that WE pay for. Think how the big box retail stores partner to manufacture it's goods overseas and ship them here for higher profits, or close existing facilities here for overseas "CHEAPER" labor costs and less regulations. It's a systemic problem those excessive charges, but its entirely LEGAL. I submit we have the evidence of what happens when companies gets a financial windfall from government that is indicative of a broken business model, that allows for citizens to get nickeled and dimed to death.
So by definition there is no such thing as excessive charges since the markets bear them and passes them along to consumers, and consumers have the right to walk away from them. Why don't they?
Specifically to this thread I ask what good is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if you ignore the need for good health?
No, there is not. You went through a long, wordy explanation in which you never referred to the Constitution. Why? Because there is no constitutional protection from "excessive charges". You even admit that, " It's a systemic problem those excessive charges, but its entirely LEGAL.". Well, if it's legal, then it's legal.Quote:
Yes there is.
You might notice that there are very few companies that market their products as "100% made in America". Why? Because people are not willing to pay the higher costs of products made in America as opposed to being made in a foreign country. I've actually tried to buy American in the past, and I found that it's a very difficult thing to do. Just finding clothes, for instance, made in America is difficult. When buying tools, I notice that the relatively few American made tools will be two to four times the price of the imported ones. I'm not sure what the answer is to that. If we restrict imports, then the libs give Mr. Trump heck for doing so and prices will go up.
But there is no constitutional guarantee against "excessive charges". It's nonsense.
Wrong, The Bill of Rights clearly outlines the right to redress greivances.
https://constitution.com/bill-rights/
Amendment IShould have used this link before, sorry. So gather your EVIDENCE to prove your claim of EXCESSIVE charges and go to court as laid out in the constitution. SIMPLE!Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This has become comical. I say, "You can't quote the Constitution as to a guarantee against excessive charges." You reply, "Yes, I can. Look at the Bill of rights. It says we can petition the government for a redress of grievances." Really?? Well, that is very impressive, but where does it say we have a guarantee against "excessive charges"? And why didn't you say we also have freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms? They have about the same relevance to being protected against excessive charges, which is to say NO RELEVANCE.Quote:
Wrong, The Bill of Rights clearly outlines the right to redress greivances.
You have no evidence at all. None, period. There is no constitutional guarantee against excessive charges. If there was, then you would have quoted it.
The great protection against excessive charges is the free market. That's why I can't sell a 12 ounce Coke in practically any place in America for 10 dollars. Why? Because the store down the street will sell them for 95 cents. It's a great system. It generally only breaks down when the government establishes protectionist policies such as New Jersey not allowing people to pump their own gas, and thereby guaranteeing that people will pay more for gas. It also breaks down when monopolies are formed by private businesses.
Your free market solution hasn't stopped those excessive charges. Must be some loophole in your logic.
That's sort of my point. There is very little free market in the health care field. Prices are not posted or advertised. A doctor sends me for tests. I have no idea what they will cost, and there are few alternatives to check out.Quote:
Your free market solution hasn't stopped those excessive charges. Must be some loophole in your logic.
We make the same point almost as there is very little free market anywhere except the MO'MONEY part, with plenty of loopholes to hide behind. It's a pervasive systemic problem, illustrated by deficit spending for permanent tax cuts for the rich and temporary consumer tax cuts for the middle income citizens.
Bread, bicycles, guns, furniture, soft drinks, televisions, tires, flashlights, shoes, jackets, washing machines, windows, hats, and thousands of other items all benefit enormously from free market competition. That is not true of nearly all of the health care business.Quote:
We make the same point almost as there is very little free market anywhere except the MO'MONEY part, with plenty of loopholes to hide behind. It's a pervasive systemic problem, illustrated by deficit spending for permanent tax cuts for the rich and temporary consumer tax cuts for the middle income citizens.
There is no such thing as a permanent tax cut for anyone. Deficit spending cannot be fixed by taxing the rich. No way, no how. You could double the taxes on the rich and still have deficits. TOO MUCH SPENDING.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Your argument is flawed.
In the northeast, full-serve New Jersey is the second cheapest in gas prices - only Maine is slightly lower. Nationwide, New Jersey is cheaper than 20 states - all of which are self-serve.
There are many factors effecting the price of gasoline - a free market being only one. Adam Smith's free market represented the economies of late 18th century England where business tended to be small entities - cottage industries and mom and pop outfits. The world has changed since then.
Economies are enormously complex these days and cannot operate efficiently without appropriate government regulation.
Yes, but thanks to the government mandate against self serve, it is plainly higher than it would otherwise be.Quote:
In the northeast, full-serve New Jersey is the second cheapest in gas prices - only Maine is slightly lower. Nationwide, New Jersey is cheaper than 20 states - all of which are self-serve.
Yes, but the price and quality advantages reaped from the free market have not changed. It's still just as effective and likely much more so.Quote:
Adam Smith's free market represented the economies of late 18th century England where business tended to be small entities - cottage industries and mom and pop outfits. The world has changed since then.
Free enterprise does not need a complete absence of government regulation, but that it should be minimal and not grant competitive advantages to one group above another. For instance, there should be strict laws against monopolies. It works best where competition is allowed to flourish. Thus we see an enormous problem in the field of health care. There is but little competition with price, and the consumer typically never knows what the price will be until the medical care is finished.Quote:
Economies are enormously complex these days and cannot operate efficiently without appropriate government regulation.
So has anyone reached the conclusion that BO created the conditions for the perfect storm in health care costs
As much as I would like to say yes, I have to admit it was an enormous problem long before 2009. Now did he do anything to curtail it? No.Quote:
So has anyone reached the conclusion that BO created the conditions for the perfect storm in health care costs
I see your issue now. You equate stuff with good health outcomes. Not unusual for someone without a health issue. I think those that NEED health care would beg to differ. You mix apples and oranges and expect the same strategy to work. Let me ask why is there no competition in the health insurance business and whose fault is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Corporate tax cuts are permanent according to the bill passed by repubs. Individual tax cuts expire in 5 years.Quote:
There is no such thing as a permanent tax cut for anyone. Deficit spending cannot be fixed by taxing the rich. No way, no how. You could double the taxes on the rich and still have deficits. TOO MUCH SPENDING.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.cbb3b06782d5
And
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...permanent.html
[QUOTEThe 20 percent corporate rate in the Tax Cut and Jobs Act will be statutorily permanent but politically provisional—and thus temporary. In refusing to court Democratic support for the process, Republicans further unravel their already dicey argument that this permanent 20 percent corporate rate will dramatically and broadly bring prosperity. If corporations really do need the certainty of permanence before acting on a 20 percent tax rate, they won’t find it here, making the bill little more than a temporary cash transfer to stockholders.
[/QUOTE]
I guess nothing can be considered permanent when a future congress can change things So I will concede your point.
Corporate taxes are not simply taxes on the rich. Tens of millions of people profit from investments in corporations. Anyone on a retirement plan would be one of them.Quote:
Corporate tax cuts are permanent according to the bill passed by repubs. Individual tax cuts expire in 5 years.
I am familiar with the theory, but the facts of your statement have to be verified by facts after an outcome and so far I doubt seriously if the data backs up your theory. My theory is that the tax cuts as structured, without closing high end loop holes as incentives to invest in economic growth offer more options for the recipients than they do for the general economy, trillions in deficits, and point to GM's corporate decision to close old non profitable plants in America and build new ones in Mexico as an example of poorly structured and poorly implemented policy.
So tell those workers losing their jobs how great those tax cuts work for them since having no paycheck leaves nothing to tax in the first place. GM stock went up after the announcement. Yeah I'm sure that's great for Americans.
"In an April 2012 Gallup poll, 53 percent of respondents said they had money invested in the stock market. That was the smallest percentage in any poll since Gallup began tracking the number. The high was 67 percent in June 2002."
What should I tell the people who love 3.7% unemployment??
Maybe we should see how those towns in 3 states are affected and if they are as thrilled as you are. The same thing happened to those plants in Indiana after they got their tax cuts from the state to keep them. Are we seeing a pattern here?
And let's see now. Whose idea was it to give billions of borrowed dollars to GM? Oh yeah. It was that famous democrat pres, wasn't it?
I really don't know what your point is about GM. They did a lousy job of anticipating future trends in the auto business and it has jumped up and bitten them. When companies do a lousy job in the free enterprise system, it ends up bad. However, when companies do well, as many are doing now, they prosper and their employees keep their jobs. The democrat pres you admire so much tried to prop them up and it hasn't turned out too well. So much for government interference.
That doesn't explain why GM is moving to Mexico after the great tax cut windfall from the Dufus, and his sycophants, does it?
GM is moving some production from Canada to Mexico. They are moving some truck production from Mexico to Flint. The beat goes on. In the meantime, unemployment is at 3.7%. Whining and complaining seem somehow out of place.
But none of this impacts the cost of health care.
Obviously you have never seen what happens to towns when plants move out, or have any sympathy for those losing there jobs... AMERICANS!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
https://www.vox.com/business-and-fin...-tariffs-trump
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/20...generalmotors/
YUP! The beat goes on, for some anyway.Quote:
The company said Monday that it will stop production at five plants next year. The affected plants are Detroit-Hamtramck and Warren Transmission in Michigan, Lordstown Assembly in Ohio, Oshawa Assembly in Ontario, Canada, and Baltimore Operations in Maryland.The closures will affect some 3,300 workers in the U.S., and another 3,000 globally.
I have great sympathy for those who lose their jobs, but I don't plan on living in some sort of fantasy land where everything always turns out wonderful. When unemployment is as low as it is now, it borders on indecent to find the nothing but the negative to gripe about. I know what it's like to be unemployed. Did that for fifteen months in my younger days. We just got busy and made it through. It's life.
You mean you don't live in the great american utopia made great by the great american dope
If it takes a dope to get to historic lows in unemployment, then we need a lot more of them.
Obama got him most of the way.
The whole thing is interesting, what is a taxation, in the form of tariff, led recovery. BO sought to also use taxation to reform health care. How Trump can reduce the tax to the rich and tax the poor in the form of tariffs eludes me, obviously a great man of the people
That's one way to look at it. Another way is the use of tariffs to protect American jobs.Quote:
tax the poor in the form of tariffs eludes me, obviously a great man of the people
I think you will find that those protections will be short lived, he is likely to do more damage than good
Could be. I am not a big fan of Mr. Trump, but I do like the fact that he does not sit idly by while foreign competitors are allowed unfair advantages over American companies. We'll see if he can do much about it or not, but at least he is giving it a go.Quote:
I think you will find that those protections will be short lived, he is likely to do more damage than good
He's a dufus and tariffs have been tried before and failed. Even conservatives are wondering What the FARK!
https://markets.businessinsider.com/...-12-1027805823
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#15e293074b88
Glad you like the bluster and hell raising but he ain't done squat.
Now, Tal, be fair he hasn't been idle. He has worn his finger to the bone on twitter announcing policy on the run. Every idea that has crossed his path no matter how bizzaire has feature in his twitter. Twitter on little bird, but watch out for the snare
Well repubs are at it again...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oba...by-texas-judge
Seems after controlling congress for 8 years, with the WH the last 2, they would have finally figured out a plan. They didn't. Of course dems will appeal.
This latest conservative antic will surely save us all a bunch of money.
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...P9VRUrjWlw--~C
Obama ran up nearly ten tril in debt in only eight years. Please don't try and tell me you are concerned about the national debt. You only look for a convenient brick to throw at Trump.
You really cannot see that running a debt during a recession is a MUST for governments? You really cannot understand that bringing out and adding to the budget not one but two wars was a GREAT move to shed light the TRUE costs of such endeavors, so as to be dealt with responsibly? Hey dude just look at where we were before and after Obama! Something worked pretty good if the dufus inherited a great economy and MANAGEABLE debt. It's still manageable, but repubs are notorious for not doing that well with the people's money. YES there is much evidence of that. So get off blaming Obama and stay on the dufus because even you must admit there is much more to throw at him than praise him for.
I mean lets start with what has the dufus done with the debt and deficit, or repubs in general the last two years? Be warned I have FACTS, EVIDENCE, and plenty of bricks, so what have YOU got? FAIR as I can get?
Yeah. More than doubling the national debt was a really responsible move. But so much of it was absolutely essential spending such as giving out free cell phones and bailing out your beloved GM.Quote:
You really cannot see that running a debt during a recession is a MUST? You really cannot understand that bringing out and adding to the budget not one but two wars was a GREAT move to shed light the TRUE costs of such endeavors, so as to be dealt with responsibly? Hey dude jut look at where we were before and after Obama!
So you would rather have hundreds of thousands of your fellow Americans unemployed during a time when we were losing jobs at a fantastic pace already? Bailouts were a LOAN that has been repaid, and that's not a good move? You did know that those loans had a jobs program for the states and tax relief for many Americans don't you or do you need some links to the facts and evidence... AGAIN?
In the meantime while you mull that over, MORE BRICKS!
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...DcMpyNFxlw--~C
The had a cell phone program before Obama got there.
https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/
Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?created as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to "ensure all Americans, including low-income consumers and those who live in rural, insular, high cost areas, shall have affordable service and [to] help to connect eligible schools, libraries, and rural health care providers to the global telecommunications network." The USAC includes four programs to serve rural areas, high cost areas, rural health care providers, and schools and libraries. Since 1997, USAC has provided discounted land line service to low-income individuals. (A more limited program to offer assistance to low-income individuals was created a decade earlier; the telecommunications act expanded and formalized it.) According to Eric Iversen, USAC director of external relations, the Universal Service Fund more recently began funding programs that provide wireless service, such as the pre-paid cellular SafeLink program mentioned in the chain e-mail.
A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.
This informal practice was codified when the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) was
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Funny how a little truth clears up so many right-wing falsehoods. Trump could use a moral bath and scrub himself with a truthbrush.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:17 PM. |