Jump to content

Because Biden


nitflegal
 Share

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Harold Jones said:

No Federal mandate, it is well within the power of the states.

Nearly two years in and I don't think there has been the first bit of legislation at the state, local, or federal level granting, liberty stealing, executive authorization at any level of government specific to Covid-19. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Harold Jones said:

No Federal mandate, it is well within the power of the states.

Than let America federalism go to work and see what approach turns out to be the best. Though I am not expecting (m)any politicians to change their made up mind because of cold hart facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Nearly two years in and I don't think there has been the first bit of legislation at the state, local, or federal level granting, liberty stealing, executive authorization at any level of government specific to Covid-19. 

https://www.cato.org/pandemics-policy/state-police-powers-constitution#state-protection-individual-rights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Harold Jones said:

I'm not going to read the entire thing, if there is citation of a local municipality, state, or federal legislative actions granting emergency fiat powers to the executive, specific to the Covid "emergency" go ahead and post it.  If your implication is that 22 months after the outbreak of Covid-19 we should be living our lives under executive authoritarian rule, that's a hard sell, though I acknowledge that remains the case in most states.  It should be debated, it hasn't been, we too easily abdicate liberty for the pretense of security. 

Most frightening is that a handful of governors are being excoriated for standing up for liberty and freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Nearly two years in and I don't think there has been the first bit of legislation at the state, local, or federal level granting, liberty stealing, executive authorization at any level of government specific to Covid-19. 

Agreed, after close to two years it is unconscionable that any level of government is using emergency powers. They have had plenty of time to go to the legislature. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DKTanker said:

I'm not going to read the entire thing, if there is citation of a local municipality, state, or federal legislative actions granting emergency fiat powers to the executive, specific to the Covid "emergency" go ahead and post it.  If your implication is that 22 months after the outbreak of Covid-19 we should be living our lives under executive authoritarian rule, that's a hard sell, though I acknowledge that remains the case in most states.  It should be debated, it hasn't been, we too easily abdicate liberty for the pretense of security. 

Most frightening is that a handful of governors are being excoriated for standing up for liberty and freedom.

Agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

Debt ceiling question:

Apparently there is this thing called reconciliation that can be used to bypass the supermajority needed in the Senat. So why aren't Democrats just doing it that way? 

There is a limitation on how many times it can be done per year.  And the democrats don't want to waste one of those when they could be passing fundamental transformation level stuff instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mikel2 said:

There is a limitation on how many times it can be done per year.  And the democrats don't want to waste one of those when they could be passing fundamental transformation level stuff instead.

 During each fiscal year reconciliation can be used once for spending, once for revenue, and once for the debt ceiling.  The Democrats don't want to waste a debt ceiling reconciliation for two reasons.  One, they want the GOP to be co-owners for authorizing greater debt, which they dutifully did last month.  Two, the way spending has been rapidly increasing, authorizing one debt ceiling increase using reconciliation may very well leave congress wanting to increase the debt limit again during the current FY and having no other alternative, the Democrats would have to bargain with the GOP.  Something they are loath to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reconciliation was how they got Obama care. 

The bill was originally a defense spending bill (for housing, HR3590) as I recall. It had started in the house then, it had cleared the Senate. They then took that bill back over to the house, and in committee replaced ALL of the text in it with the Obamacare text (making it the PPACA), then passed that in the House where they had the better majority. Then they deemed it passed and "reconciled" the different versions and presented that to the President to sign. 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Reconciliation was how they got Obama care. 

The bill was originally a defense spending bill (for housing, HR3590) as I recall. It had started in the house then, it had cleared the Senate. They then took that bill back over to the house, and in committee replaced ALL of the text in it with the Obamacare text (making it the PPACA), then passed that in the House where they had the better majority. Then they deemed it passed and "reconciled" the different versions and presented that to the President to sign. 

Did it start in the House?  I thought it started in the Senate and that's why they couldn't call the tax for not having medical insurance a tax because all revenue and spending bills have to arise in the House.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

Don't you think people are not better off with Obama care though?

I'd rather have an state funded health care system over a private care system any time.

Good for you.  Some people would rather have had a choice or even to choose no insurance.  And, for the record, a state funded health care system is paid for by the patients as well.

Know what else is included in Obama Care, taxes on such things as tanning booths and medical devices.  Say you need, or would like a knee brace.  You can buy a quite cheap one at Walmart, you can buy a 2nd tier one from some medical device supply companies, but if you want a top shelf gold standard knee brace it has to be prescribed for you by a doctor.  Another example.  Let's say you're concerned about your blood sugar, you can buy an inexpensive reader, an inexpensive finger prick device, and inexpensive test strips.  The reader is slow, the finger prick device is the same, and the test strips require more blood.  However, the prescribed device gives results almost instantaneously and the strips need about 1/10 the amount of the cheap strips.  You have to ask yourself, who exactly is benefiting from preventing you from having the best medical devices unless some quack writes you a script?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

Don't you think people are not better off with Obama care though?

I'd rather have an state funded health care system over a private care system any time.

With private-paid insurers premiums doubling due to it, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, the US medical system has a lot of advantages. You probably have the best medical R&D system in the world and other countries benefit immensely from it (I have had the Pfizer jab). But on the other hand, if you look at this image of world lifespans. In 2015 the average lifespan in the US in 2015 was 79, in the UK it was 81 and In Canada it was 82. I'd rather stay live to be 81 rather than 79.

 

 

3-World-maps-of-Life-expectancy-e1538651

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DKTanker said:

Did it start in the House?  I thought it started in the Senate and that's why they couldn't call the tax for not having medical insurance a tax because all revenue and spending bills have to arise in the House.  

I think it started in the House. It was a House Resolution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

Don't you think people are not better off with Obama care though?

So in other words we make a farce of the legislative process. But if there's a good result that some want, it's no big deal? 

And to answer your question. No. I don't. It's bogged the system down with more costs. 

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

I'd rather have an state funded health care system over a private care system any time.

Fine. Enact it at the state level where there's legal authority for it if you take a sane reading of the constitutional powers of congress. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DKTanker said:

Did it start in the House?  I thought it started in the Senate and that's why they couldn't call the tax for not having medical insurance a tax because all revenue and spending bills have to arise in the House.  

To follow up:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590/text/ih

If you look closely, it's more or less that same bill on Home Buyers Credit until it's gutted like  Edgar in Men in Black by the house to get themselves the PPACA. 

Introduced in the House: (9/17/2009)

111th CONGRESS
1st Session
 
 
H. R. 3590

 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.




Engrossed in the House: (10/8/2009)

 

Engrossed in House No: 111-148 (10/08/2009)

 

111th CONGRESS
1st Session
 
 
H. R. 3590

AN ACT

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

Don't get me wrong, the US medical system has a lot of advantages. You probably have the best medical R&D system in the world and other countries benefit immensely from it (I have had the Pfizer jab). But on the other hand, if you look at this image of world lifespans. In 2015 the average lifespan in the US in 2015 was 79, in the UK it was 81 and In Canada it was 82. I'd rather stay live to be 81 rather than 79.

And you attribute those life expectancies solely to the state of respective nation's health care systems?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

But on the other hand, if you look at this image of world lifespans. In 2015 the average lifespan in the US in 2015 was 79, in the UK it was 81 and In Canada it was 82. I'd rather stay live to be 81 rather than 79.

You know that life expectancy has little to do with that, don't you?

There is, for instance the known sensibility to extreme values of the average of a distribution. I mean, lots of deaths among young people would reduce the average lifespan, but those that survive those ages could live quite a long time.

I wonder what kind of life expectancy figures would result of consider deaths by abortion...

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

And you attribute those life expectancies solely to the state of respective nation's health care systems?

Ok I agree, the average lifespan figures is just that an "average". But if you doubt statistics then all statistics are useless and that would result in anarchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different measures are available that exclude certain biases, but inevitably they introduce others.

More interesting than raw life expectancy at birth would be bracketed via income, for example, which I think is the main argument for socialised medicine.

Of course, that controls only the availability of a nominally common standard of medical care to all, it doesn't fix all of the other health issues associated with different incomes.

It should also be noted that the UK system does not force people who can afford "better" to use the NHS - private hospitals/specialists  are also available, and NHS staff can refer to private facilities if the consumer wants it (typically when you have corporate health cover). In most cases, though, corporate funded health insurance is a waiting list bypass rather than a significant quality of care improvement, although it can cover things like physiotherapy sessions which are not "free" in the NHS.

Going back to the statistics of life expectancy. Here's a little calculator from the UK Office of National Statistics:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/articles/lifeexpectancycalculator/2019-06-07

Interestingly, it thinks that I have a higher chance of living until I am 100 years old than someone who is already in their 80s.

(Comparing a 55 year old male in the UK with a similarly decrpit male in the US, the expected age of death is 82 for the UK and 78 for the US, and it should be clear that this number takes into consideration the early culling of the weak and hte stupid that dominates the first 25 years or so). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

Ok I agree, the average lifespan figures is just that an "average". But if you doubt statistics then all statistics are useless and that would result in anarchy.

Why don't you go looking at the pre-post health care of Obama Care. Surely, if it had an effect you'd see a change in expected life span? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...