Boehner swells in House rank

"Obamacare" is budget positive.

My other signature is a Gundam.

Keyboard fixed, so you can stop talking like a lolcat?

I will say this again. Both the main political parties as a whole suck. There are some folks in them who do some good work but they are few and far between.

Who watches the watchmen?

Source?

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

Did you know that you can find a good politician by setting a politician on fire? Good politicians are flame retardant. I've tested this, so far I haven't set a single good politician on fire.

Fight smart, not fair.

Deboss: that amused me.

Who watches the watchmen?

^^^ The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the health care reform bills "will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period."

I feel this statement deserves some additional analysis. You are correct, Tom, that people are generally against "reckless" spending. However, you are Begging the Question by assuming that the current Democratic spending is reckless. I think we can very easily establish that it is directed at (a) improving the general quality of life for Americans, (b) mitigating the negative effects of the recession, (c) stimulating economic recovery. So, calling these things reckless is saying that the goals they are targeted at are reckless. Since I would assert that Republicans have these exact same goals, the only basis on which you can accuse the Democratic programs of being "reckless" is ideological.

In simpler language, they are only reckless because you say they are and are backed by a well-funded propaganda machine designed to convince Americans of this. In no way does the statement reflect anything resembling reality. It's more like this: "The things Democrats want are wrong." "Democrats want to spend money on healthcare reform, tax relief, and economic recovery." "Therefore spending money on healthcare reform, tax relief, and economic recovery is wrong."

edited 5th Nov '10 9:01:52 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I hate to say it but I hope health care changes stick except the YOU have to have part. I could really use some health care coverage but I fall in between affording it and not affording aid in my state.

Hmm I just realized I am aiding gin OTC derail. Ok back to this Boehner Fellow what is his track record to date?

edited 5th Nov '10 9:27:10 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

Regarding the unpopularity of the individual mandate: I don't particularly like it either, but I certainly understand the reasoning behind it. 1) Expand the insurance pool, to more easily pay people who need expensive treatments, and 2) Prevent people from exploiting the ban on denial for pre-existing conditions via waiting until their sick and signing up for insurance then.
Now, I'm not sure if an alternate proposal (such as allowing people to opt-out of the mandate but also the protections for five or ten years) would do enough in that respect. I don't even know if Congress considered them at all. However, I certainly don't mind personally (if I didn't get employer-based insurance I'd probably end up trying to get individual coverage anyway), so I can's say I'm too fussed about this. Really, I'm more upset that they didn't even try for any sort of single-payer system (although in fairness it probably wouldn't have stood a chance).

^ Unfortunately the biggest problem the individual mandate has is not the fact it's forcing people to buy shit, it's the fact Congress never did anything like it before and it very possibly falls outside the scope of the US Constitution. Should the mandate fall in the court (and given the layout of the SCOTUS it probably will), no mandate can be tried again without being effortlessly struck down politically owing to precedent.

I don't know if Boehner is aware of that, but if he is it might throw a few wrenches into repealing Obamacare if the mandate is struck down by the courts.

^ Well here's the problem with that — I don't favor the mandate either, but the constitution does not prohibit it, and there is ample room to interpret an allowance for it under Section 8. But what bothers me with your argument is what bothers me about the whole core of the far-right ideology, that it is not motivated by any genuine moral imperative, but is simply a more modern permutation of enlightened self-interest — any citations of individual liberty or constitutional loyalty are strictly matters of convenience, and quickly dropped in favor of other justifications when their logic becomes questionable, which is to say *often*.

I was against the mandate because it's a terrible idea, one that failed in Massachusetts when Romney implemented it, and I have no idea why the administration thinks that it won't fail again.

^^ Section 8 is of very dubious standing as an argument in favor of a mandate. The Commerce Clause is neither unlimited nor infallible from Lopez vs United States alone. It can regulate commerce not force it.

"Promote the General Welfare" was never used in the context of provide a handout of any kind to every citizen. The modern context of "welfare" does not apply to a 220 year old usage. What it was used in context for is to provide defense from foreign invasion or domestic insurrection, recover from natural or man-made disasters such as a tornado or bridge collapse brought on by negligence, and ensure the rights of the populace are protected against all entities be they private industry, government reach or foreign powers.

The Federalist Papers provide ample evidence that was more their intention than pamper every citizen with a government handout from birth to death.

More strawmanning, Tom. And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Fighteer, please keep in mind what you said via PM.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

Attack the argument, huh? That is a strawman, which makes serious discussion awfully hard. Actually if I really wanted to put on my mod hat, about 75% of this thread would be thumped as off-topic.

edited 6th Nov '10 7:41:19 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

It is a strawman, yes, but that's no reason to say that you don't take someone seriously.

For the record, I think the mandate is probably constitutional, but it's far from a settled question.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

If you wanted to put on your Mod Hat, you'd note that the topic is a lame pun about boners and the thread should be locked or moved to Yackfest ;P

Would gloating about how Bobby Bright  ^*

lost be considered on-topic, or not?

I think it would. I think it was brought up in the other threads (by you?) as well as on MSNBC, on how a lot of the Blue Dogs lost whereas very few of the more liberal Democrats did.

Pretty much, it seems like if voters want a conservative, there's really no reason for them not to just vote for the Republican.

Hodor

I don't think, from what I understand of the US constitution, though I am not a lawyer, that it is illegal for the Federal government to provide healthcare. The mandating of insurance might be illegal but providing money for it shouldn't be.

In any case, a public option is your base case and one of the easiest ways to reduce the deficit. Public healthcare is just such an easy way to reduce costs in your budget.

Also, as a post above mentions, it's the blue dogs that lost. The liberals did not. So it seems to me it's not some big shift toward conservatism at all. In fact, if anything, sounds like people wanted better stronger healthcare reform because the blue dogs were the main obstacles to that. But I don't think I can justify that view.

EDIT:

On that note, have you guys ever calculated the business costs of healthcare? Employer healthcare costs them like anywhere from 3k to 10k per worker per year. If I were a business and it cost literally 20x less per worker to provide them the best damn dental/eye/pharma that any American could ever wish for, in Canada, my business costs are much lower.

In fact, if you calculate income tax, Canada is sometimes even lower than America in terms of taxation. For instance, tech jobs in california pay more tax than tech jobs in ontario.

It's a total myth that USA cannot afford healthcare.

edited 6th Nov '10 1:28:29 PM by breadloaf

^ Technically there's already a public option in existence called Medicaid. It's one of the biggest money sinks and causes of deficits in the US Federal Budget alongside the other "public option" Medicare.

@breadloaf: Do note that the US has higher budgets for other programs, though.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

Tom, you're basically defining healthcare as a "money sink". Care to tell us how people are supposed to get it if nobody pays for it?

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"