Derby Trail Forums - "What are conservatives trying to conserve"?

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)

- The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - "What are conservatives trying to conserve"? (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46103)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 848878)

Make no mistake: I am firmly anti-abortion. Where we differ is that I do not want to give the government unlimited power over individuals to force current legislators personal morality on American citizens. You want government control. I want individual freedom.

Why then do you support Obamacare? Last I checked supporting Obamacare doesn't involve individual freedom

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiphan (Post 848960)

Why then do you support Obamacare? Last I checked supporting Obamacare doesn't involve individual freedom

because it's obama care. if it was bush care, she'd be against it. no, that's not really true.

thing is, it's got nothing to do with logic at all. it's illogical to complain if it's knocked down as unconstitutional, but the same people complaining about that ruling are all for other rulings-altho another group would argue that other rulings (such as roe v wade) are incorrect. you know, like gun control. it's constitutionally protected-but suddenly what was once so clear (privacy is a right, freedom of religion is a right) suddenly isn't quite so clear, is it??

bah, yet another type of argument used by both parties and their supporters. each uses the constitution to support their pov, and then tries to show why it shouldn't be used in others.

and those of us who try to apply it across the board....we're genuises or morons, depending on the particular topic and who agrees or disagrees. it's great.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 848973)

well said. I just want less government. People have to live with their own choices and the government can't protect stupid people from making stupid choices. The less government involvement in my life the better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiphan (Post 848960)

Why then do you support Obamacare? Last I checked supporting Obamacare doesn't involve individual freedom

Actually it does: the mandate, requiring individual personal responsibility for one's health care costs, rather than putting your cost on others, by purchasing your own insurance is a staunchly Republican- and conservative- created idea for the past 20 years.

The mandate = personal responsibility. No freeloading off others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 848973)

because it's obama care. if it was bush care, she'd be against it. no, that's not really true.

Actually, yes, I was for the Obamacare plan when it was the Heritage Foundation-created Republican-offered Gingrich-care presented as a personal freedom, free-market solution by the GOP against Hillarycare in the 1990s.

The Republicans are just pissed they couldn't get it passed, and Obama stole their plan and did pass it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 848904)

While we have never met, I am in favor of abortion. Too many unwanted kids out there as it is. I am also against fertility treatments for the same reason.

I am personally against abortion. But I don't think it's my place, or big government's place, to tell you what to do regarding your family planning. That's between you and your doctor.

Yes, I would much rather a woman have an abortion, then later welcome a child into her life when she can take good care of it.

The government forcing women to birth the babies conceived out of rape or incest, or carry defective babies to term, is just sick torture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 848985)

I am not talking republican/democrat. I am specifically pointing out that on the one hand you want individual freedom from the goverment on one topic and then on another you want a government mandate. That is all. Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiphan (Post 848992)

I am pointing out that being responsible for purchasing one's own health insurance, rather than living off everyone else's $$$ by us paying your costs of going to the ER when you're sick and uninsured, is plenty of individual freedom and responsibility. That is all. Thanks.

Here is an excellent analysis piece on the legislative history of the "individual mandate" - it's been around since Ronald Reagans first unfunded universal health care requirement mandate:

Quote:

"The Tortuous Conservative History of the Individual Mandate"

... snip ...

Before we get to Stuart’s piece, let’s first step back and discuss the history of the individual mandate. It all started with a piece of legislation passed in 1986 by a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and signed by Ronald Reagan, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA.

(EMTALA was passed as part of a larger budget bill called the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, which is best known for allowing those who have lost their jobs to continue buying health insurance through their old employer’s group plan.)

EMTALA, one of the great unfunded mandates in American history, required any hospital participating in Medicare—that is to say, nearly all of them—to provide emergency care to anyone who needs it, including illegal immigrants, regardless of ability to pay.

Indeed, EMTALA can be accurately said to have established universal health care in America—with nary a whimper from conservative activists.

Continued ....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...idual-mandate/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 848988)

I am against the federal government forcing anyone to do anything other than pay a reasonable tax to support infrastructure, military defense and a system of currency.
Let the states make a few laws and regulations and compete for the citizens and businesses that are looking for homes. It wasn't just the landscape that moved me to Colorado.

What do you suppose a couple who weigh a combined 800lbs because they've done nothing but eat, with pre-existing conditions of diabetes, high blood pressure and heart trouble, each needing knee replacements will be quoted on a policy?

What amount will they be supplemented with?

Will the taxpayer ultimately paying for their insurance receive preferential treatment or will they be treated equal to the couple they're paying for?

Obamacare is nothing but a guise for socialized healthcare. Where individuals will no longer be charged based on individual needs but rather the needs of others even if the need others may have was self induced.

Any sense of equality be damned as you will no longer pay based on individual health/risk but rather how healthy your bank account is.

Just another reward given out for bad behavior, similar to welfare, section 8 housing and food stamps. Instead of encouraging women to wait till marriage to have babies, we pay them to have babies before marriage and the more babies the more :$::$:. :zz:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 849013)

How about auto insurance?

So if you don't want the government to mandate insurance then I assume you are good with paying astronmical rates for yours as Hospitals pass the cost of all those that don't have insurance but show up to the Emergency room that they have to treat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 849021)

How about auto insurance? .

How about being forced to supplement a three time DUI offender because he/she can't afford the 20K a year for SR2 insurance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 849013)

Hope you are not near the wildfires!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 849032)

Hope you are not near the wildfires!

Not too far, but safe, thanks. The whole area is covered in smoke, it looks pretty bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 849021)

in the case of auto insurance you are voluntarily seeking to drive your car, nobody is forcing you to drive a car. Having insurance as a precondition to driving your car is not the same as requiring that you purchase health insurance just because you are alive. if you don't want to buy auto insurance you have alternatives, whereas with health insurance they're saying that you either buy it or pay a penalty.

part of the problem is that nobody can define why it's okay for government to mandate that you buy insurance, but not okay for government to say mandate that you buy only American made products. they are trying to claim that health insurance is a special case, but the arguments don't hold up. the idea behind our constitution is to protect us from government tyranny like this awful health care legislation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 849034)

Not too far, but safe, thanks. The whole area is covered in smoke, it looks pretty bad.

Watch the lungs on the horses and dogs - and you - and stay safe :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78 (Post 849036)

The government commerce clause argument is that everybody uses health care, thus everybody is a consumer of health care. It's a good one, and has already been upheld by two very conservative and well-respected district court judges. The odds are great that the Supremes will do the same in June.

A study was released yesterday that says only like 2-5% of people will be affected by the mandate. Most Americans are exactly as they are now - completely unaffected by Obamacare except for increased consumer protections they now enjoy. I'll try and find it.

Found it:

Quote:

In fact, the mandate would be most likely to hit about 25 million people when it takes effect in 2014 — many of whom are younger, healthier people who were taking the chance of going without health insurance even though they might have been able to afford it — according to MIT economist Jonathan Gruber. That’s out of 272 million nonelderly people.

Quote:

And here: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412...al-Mandate.pdf

By Jennifer Ng’andu, Deputy Director, Health Policy Project, NCLR

If there’s one thing that people know about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it’s that the nation’s health care law includes an individual mandate, or requires that all Americans obtain health insurance beginning in the year 2014.

If there’s one thing that people don’t know about the ACA, it’s that this responsibility will not apply to most Americans, including most Latinos.

Since the day of the ACA’s passage, there has been misinformation leading many to believe that this requirement will be far reaching and leave many Americans vulnerable to serious penalties. Luckily, the Urban Institute has come forward to clear this matter up. Yesterday, they released a brief that shows, for all intents and purposes, that only about 7 percent of non-elderly Americans would actually face the mandate in any real way.

The facts are that most Americans will either already have insurance; others will be able to get it with new options. Here’s the breakdown:

* Most Americans, including Latinos, are insured and will still be insured after the Affordable Care Act’s enactment. NCLR often discusses the point that Latinos are the most uninsured community in the country, because we fight for those with the least access to health care. Still, nearly seven in ten Latinos already have insurance.

* In fact, in accordance with President Obama’s classic line, “you can keep what you have,” most people will still get insurance through their employers and nothing will change. This includes about four in ten Latinos who have employer-sponsored insurance.

* Half of the uninsured would soon gain health care through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program through new coverage in the Affordable Care Act. This will be critical for Latinos; one in four uses those programs today.

* The other half would have ready access to a new insurance marketplaces, exchanges, and anyone under 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) would get a tax benefit to help pay for coverage.

Where the challenge lies is with those who remain uninsured after the ACA is fully carried out, a good 23 million Americans by Congressional Budgetary Office (CBO) estimates. What will happen to them? Most will have the ability to claim an exemption from any responsibility to purchase health coverage. The Affordable Care Act contained safeguards that said that if you cannot afford to pay, face hardship, have religious beliefs that dictate you remain uninsured, or are among a series of people who were prohibited from buying insurance or to whom the law did not apply—you will not be penalized if you remained uninsured.

That’s a lot of the 23 million. In fact, this was one of the conditions of NCLR support for the Affordable Care Act. A mandate is only fair if the people who don’t have means to fulfill it are free from repercussions.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States spent hours in hearings to decide whether or not the mandate was constitutional, and will soon decide whether or not the fate the entire ACA is tied to this part of the law. Why does this matter to Americans if it applies to only a select group? Without the mandate, the estimates of the number of Americans who would go uninsured after health reform would increase from the original 23 million to between 40 and 42 million—an increase of nearly 40 percent over the mandate projections. This result has a lot to do with the likelihood that those Americans who chose uninsurance would be the healthiest Americans…at the time. And those who chose insurance would more likely have a greater need for health care and would be more expensive to cover. Urban Institute estimates that health insurance premiums would increase between 10–25 percent, putting affordable health insurance out of reach for many more Americans.

If the justices decide that the mandate does not hold up to our forefathers’ vision, the Affordable Care Act can still move forward—but at what consequence?

Here's a great article, which quotes in depth Ezra Klein's analysis of R-Paul Ryans budget plan, including his privatization of Medicare. Ryans "premium support" Medicare plan? Turn Medicare into Obamacare. Same thing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ization-Dream-

"What are conservatives trying to conserve"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 849038)

Don't bet on it; the only question in my mind is how far the Supremes will go. Entire ACA or just parts of it?

Time to go for the single-payer system like just about every other modern nation in the world. Unconstitutional to force "commerce" on someone, but perfectly constitutional to provide a needed service to that same someone using powers that already exist.

Ocala Mike