|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 10 2014 04:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 03:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Jim DeMint, former senator and current president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, insisted last week that it was the U.S. Constitution that ultimately freed the slaves.
"Well the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution, it was like the conscience of the American people," DeMint said on "Vocal Point" with Jerry Newcombe of Truth In Action Ministries, as recorded by Right Wing Watch. "Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to 'all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights' in the minds of God."
DeMint dismisses the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment to argue that the Constitution just ultimately led the country in the right direction.
The Heritage chief also seems to confuse the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The line "all men are created equal" comes from the latter.
DeMint added that "big government" did not end slavery, a Republican did. Source I'm not sure what the point of the article is- any way you slice it, the Constitution DID end slavery, just not immediately. It could have continued far longer without it. Either you count the 13th amendment, "preserving the union," or the Constitutional mechanics in place through Congress (including the provision to allow Congress to halt slave importation), it did lead there. Though admittedly the Dred Scott decision was disastrous in this regard. But that's what happens when justices get the final say, and it's widely regarded as one of the worst decisions ever. So that really doesn't argue against his point, either. Only a dense person would assume that Demint meant "The 1787 Constitution banned slavery."
Only a dense person would say that a document containing this:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
ended slavery. You might even say that the Constitution preserved slavery.
|
On April 10 2014 08:37 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 04:45 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 03:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Jim DeMint, former senator and current president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, insisted last week that it was the U.S. Constitution that ultimately freed the slaves.
"Well the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution, it was like the conscience of the American people," DeMint said on "Vocal Point" with Jerry Newcombe of Truth In Action Ministries, as recorded by Right Wing Watch. "Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to 'all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights' in the minds of God."
DeMint dismisses the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment to argue that the Constitution just ultimately led the country in the right direction.
The Heritage chief also seems to confuse the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The line "all men are created equal" comes from the latter.
DeMint added that "big government" did not end slavery, a Republican did. Source I'm not sure what the point of the article is- any way you slice it, the Constitution DID end slavery, just not immediately. It could have continued far longer without it. Either you count the 13th amendment, "preserving the union," or the Constitutional mechanics in place through Congress (including the provision to allow Congress to halt slave importation), it did lead there. Though admittedly the Dred Scott decision was disastrous in this regard. But that's what happens when justices get the final say, and it's widely regarded as one of the worst decisions ever. So that really doesn't argue against his point, either. Only a dense person would assume that Demint meant "The 1787 Constitution banned slavery." Only a dense person would say that a document containing this: Show nested quote +Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. ended slavery. You might even say that the Constitution preserved slavery.
Notice the lack of the word "slave" ANYWHERE in the document- it was intentional. I already outlined the other aspects in a single sentence. Slavery would have lasted longer had something like the Articles of Confederation still been in place.
The point is that the Constitution as designed provided an out- first by direct amendment, or through the fact that states could not just leave the union (I don't take to the crazier arguments in favor of the South), or that Congress could later undo it.
So his statement is wrong only if you ignore what he was actually saying and insert your own ideas. They WERE freed under direct amendment, the 13th. In the most narrow, yet still sensible reading, he's right.
That's the issue with these super left-leaning democrat talking points machines. "Demint ignored the 13th amendment, the Civil War" etc. That's garbage and you have to read it in ONE particular way to gather that from what he said.
Edit: Moreover, people were outraged by the Scott decision. The dichotomy was evident to many at the CC and later, they saw the inconsistency with what they were trying to do in the Constitution and the issue of slaves. But they had to compromise and set up a system that would deal with it later.
|
On April 10 2014 08:35 Nyxisto wrote:Thanks, no offense taken  I completely agree with what you're saying, socialized healthcare in whatever form is probably the only way for big developed nations to guarantee good healthcare for everybody. Funny that I' getting mistaken for a conservative here, I'm actually a member of our social democratic party :D
 Haha yeah. I don't think the kind of ridiculous rhetoric and wild insinuations we have in the US are comparable to Germany, Maybe they are just around other issues? But while I'm speculating, your population seems to be quite a bit more informed, and reasonable. The pains of freedom endure graciously. 'Merica!
|
This seems like a horrible argument to have. You can't legislate a government that always acts in the way you wish it to. The law will avail you nothing if there is not virtue. Nor should you become a radical who insists that every unfavorable outcome, no matter how fairly adjudicated, is a travesty, or that a favorable outcome, no matter how egregiously administered, is just.
|
On April 10 2014 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 05:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 05:30 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Citizens with private insurance:
Canada: about 66%
Australia: about 50%
France: nearly 90%
UK: 10%
Your premise is inescapably flawed.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2013/Nov/1717_Thomson_intl_profiles_hlt_care_sys_2013_v2.pdfI don't know if you're just making numbers up here, but that publication states that basically every country on the list has a public spending rate of at least 75-85%.
I meant that if people were not getting their health insurance through an employer than there would be more of an incentive for society to set up a health care system that is independent from employment... unlike Germany's (though Germany still covers everyone.) I guess Germany is technically single payer but Germans buy their insurance from sickness funds right?
We have both private and public insurance, but 85% of the population are publicly insured(sickness funds). You're free to opt out if your income is above a certain threshold. If you're unemployed the government pays for all your medical expenses, if you're employed what you'll have to pay depends on how much you earn, and half of that is covered by your employer. Sweet lord.. The numbers I posted are in the damn report you linked.... So 10-90% of people spending 15-25% of a particular type of spending going into a specific sector, in your eyes is 'the basic elimination' of said sector? Or does that only apply to healthcare? It's ok for you to just admit you were wrong and move on, but if you prefer, you can continue to hopelessly explain how private healthcare has 'basically been eliminated' in 'single-payer' systems.... Seems like you're trying to bait people over a nitpick just to call them "wrong". There's no substance to anything you're posting on this topic. He said " As far as I'm aware when people are talking about single-payer systems they're referring to the idea that there is only one insurer,most of the time in form of the government." He was not aware of the truth so I offered it to him. He already learned more by actually researching in order to refute my claims (unsuccessfully), than he knew about 'single payer' before I responded. I think that indicates substance. You are one of the last regular posters that should be accusing people of baiting, nitpicking, or a lack of substance. (throwing stones in a glass house). You realize your nitpick on 'single-payer' looks even more ridiculous now? Private insurance, as it exists in a multi-payer system, ceases to exists. For the vast majority of healthcare transactions there is only one single payer. It's a simplification to say that "private insurance and healthcare disappears" but for the most part its a correct understanding. Not sure what you mean by 'as it exists' so I can't agree with that yet. With rhetoric what it is and voters information being as low as it is in the general discourse, it's a fairly important distinction. That's a fair point that the rhetoric can get pretty crappy. By as it exists I mean that now you rely on insurance for the majority of your healthcare. In a single payer you don't. It becomes an optional add-on rather than the main deal. edit: The only people I bait are the dumb-asses that talk about Marxism. They deserve it  This just keeps getting funnier and funnier... You should visit the old 'Venus Project' thread Depends on what you mean by 'rely' on insurance for a majority of your health care. As I mentioned Private insurers only account for 38% of all healthcare spending and a little over 50% of 'care'. A lot of the people receiving 'care' from a private insurer often have high out of pocket expenses. these are often referred to as the 'under-insured' contributing to the ~11% of health costs paid out of pocket by people with insurance or people who can afford to pay cash. So if you mean that there will be less people between you and your health care under a model like I've outlined or many other 'single-payer' options then yes. But again the potential interpretations of such a vague understanding is begging for all sorts of problems in constructive discussion and comprehension. (Government doesn't belong in healthcare But don't touch my medicare/caid) Anything good in that Venus thread?
If you have employer paid health insurance that health insurance pays the majority of your healthcare. In a single payer system that would no longer the case. A public option is not a single payer system it's just a government option in a multi-payer system.
Venus thread is full of weird, 'pie in the sky' econ.
Edit:I imagine you came across the numbers in the US and see that our spending is out of control. The easiest and most simple way to lower the cost of insurance is put everyone in the pool who want's to have insurance. That can be accomplished through a variety of mechanisms and management organizations, almost none of which were on the table for conservatives. I'd be hard pressed to actually name any (besides the mandate they were for before they were against it) but perhaps a conservative could?
You want to lower the cost of insurance by getting those who don't want it to have it (i.e. the young and healthy). That doesn't do much to lower the cost of healthcare though, so it's a bit of a different issue.
Also, conservatives don't have a problem with HMOs (management organization) beyond apolitical gripes.
|
On April 10 2014 08:47 Jerubaal wrote:
This seems like a horrible argument to have. You can't legislate a government that always acts in the way you wish it to. The law will avail you nothing if there is not virtue. Nor should you become a radical who insists that every unfavorable outcome, no matter how fairly adjudicated, is a travesty, or that a favorable outcome, no matter how egregiously administered, is just.
What are you talking about in particular?
|
On April 10 2014 08:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 08:47 Jerubaal wrote:
This seems like a horrible argument to have. You can't legislate a government that always acts in the way you wish it to. The law will avail you nothing if there is not virtue. Nor should you become a radical who insists that every unfavorable outcome, no matter how fairly adjudicated, is a travesty, or that a favorable outcome, no matter how egregiously administered, is just. What are you talking about in particular?
Your and Igne's conversation in general.
|
On April 10 2014 08:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 08:37 IgnE wrote:On April 10 2014 04:45 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 03:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Jim DeMint, former senator and current president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, insisted last week that it was the U.S. Constitution that ultimately freed the slaves.
"Well the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution, it was like the conscience of the American people," DeMint said on "Vocal Point" with Jerry Newcombe of Truth In Action Ministries, as recorded by Right Wing Watch. "Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to 'all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights' in the minds of God."
DeMint dismisses the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment to argue that the Constitution just ultimately led the country in the right direction.
The Heritage chief also seems to confuse the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The line "all men are created equal" comes from the latter.
DeMint added that "big government" did not end slavery, a Republican did. Source I'm not sure what the point of the article is- any way you slice it, the Constitution DID end slavery, just not immediately. It could have continued far longer without it. Either you count the 13th amendment, "preserving the union," or the Constitutional mechanics in place through Congress (including the provision to allow Congress to halt slave importation), it did lead there. Though admittedly the Dred Scott decision was disastrous in this regard. But that's what happens when justices get the final say, and it's widely regarded as one of the worst decisions ever. So that really doesn't argue against his point, either. Only a dense person would assume that Demint meant "The 1787 Constitution banned slavery." Only a dense person would say that a document containing this: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. ended slavery. You might even say that the Constitution preserved slavery. Notice the lack of the word "slave" ANYWHERE in the document- it was intentional. I already outlined the other aspects in a single sentence. Slavery would have lasted longer had something like the Articles of Confederation still been in place. The point is that the Constitution as designed provided an out- first by direct amendment, or through the fact that states could not just leave the union (I don't take to the crazier arguments in favor of the South), or that Congress could later undo it. So his statement is wrong only if you ignore what he was actually saying and insert your own ideas. They WERE freed under direct amendment, the 13th. In the most narrow, yet still sensible reading, he's right. That's the issue with these super left-leaning democrat talking points machines. "Demint ignored the 13th amendment, the Civil War" etc. That's garbage and you have to read it in ONE particular way to gather that from what he said. Edit: Moreover, people were outraged by the Scott decision. The dichotomy was evident to many at the CC and later, they saw the inconsistency with what they were trying to do in the Constitution and the issue of slaves. But they had to compromise and set up a system that would deal with it later.
I just listened to about 2 minutes of what he said around this. Is there more relevant bits that better puts into context what he was saying?
Because from what I heard what he was saying just didn't make much sense and contradicted himself almost immediately.
What I understood him to be saying is that government didn't free the slaves A mis-referenced Declaration of Independence quote and 'the people' did? I mean there is just so much wrong in that snippet I don't even know where to begin...
His logic is impossible to follow. I just don't know if that's by accident or design?
|
On April 10 2014 08:54 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 08:51 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 08:47 Jerubaal wrote:
This seems like a horrible argument to have. You can't legislate a government that always acts in the way you wish it to. The law will avail you nothing if there is not virtue. Nor should you become a radical who insists that every unfavorable outcome, no matter how fairly adjudicated, is a travesty, or that a favorable outcome, no matter how egregiously administered, is just. What are you talking about in particular? Your and Igne's conversation in general.
My argument is just that A) slavery, while obviously abhorrent, would have lasted longer with something like the Articles of Confederation, B) that they eventually were freed on Constitutional grounds (by amendment and the fact that, imo, war was justified- states cannot leave the union.)
We could discuss the mindset of the people at the time as well, but that's a LONG discussion.
So I never made any claim relevant to your statement, so far as I can tell. The court acted badly, this is a fact that is universally accepted today. The reaction and eventual end of slavery was through the mechanisms operations and of the Constitutional system.
|
On April 10 2014 09:01 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 08:54 Jerubaal wrote:On April 10 2014 08:51 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 08:47 Jerubaal wrote:
This seems like a horrible argument to have. You can't legislate a government that always acts in the way you wish it to. The law will avail you nothing if there is not virtue. Nor should you become a radical who insists that every unfavorable outcome, no matter how fairly adjudicated, is a travesty, or that a favorable outcome, no matter how egregiously administered, is just. What are you talking about in particular? Your and Igne's conversation in general. My argument is just that A) slavery, while obviously abhorrent, would have lasted longer with something like the Articles of Confederation, B) that they eventually were freed on Constitutional grounds (by amendment and the fact that, imo, war was justified- states cannot leave the union.) We could discuss the mindset of the people at the time as well, but that's a LONG discussion. So I never made any claim relevant to your statement, so far as I can tell. The court acted badly, this is a fact that is universally accepted today. The reaction and eventual end of slavery was through the mechanisms operations and of the Constitutional system.
How on earth did they get rid of slavery in England without the Constitution?
|
On April 10 2014 09:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 08:42 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 08:37 IgnE wrote:On April 10 2014 04:45 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 03:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Jim DeMint, former senator and current president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, insisted last week that it was the U.S. Constitution that ultimately freed the slaves.
"Well the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution, it was like the conscience of the American people," DeMint said on "Vocal Point" with Jerry Newcombe of Truth In Action Ministries, as recorded by Right Wing Watch. "Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to 'all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights' in the minds of God."
DeMint dismisses the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment to argue that the Constitution just ultimately led the country in the right direction.
The Heritage chief also seems to confuse the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The line "all men are created equal" comes from the latter.
DeMint added that "big government" did not end slavery, a Republican did. Source I'm not sure what the point of the article is- any way you slice it, the Constitution DID end slavery, just not immediately. It could have continued far longer without it. Either you count the 13th amendment, "preserving the union," or the Constitutional mechanics in place through Congress (including the provision to allow Congress to halt slave importation), it did lead there. Though admittedly the Dred Scott decision was disastrous in this regard. But that's what happens when justices get the final say, and it's widely regarded as one of the worst decisions ever. So that really doesn't argue against his point, either. Only a dense person would assume that Demint meant "The 1787 Constitution banned slavery." Only a dense person would say that a document containing this: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. ended slavery. You might even say that the Constitution preserved slavery. Notice the lack of the word "slave" ANYWHERE in the document- it was intentional. I already outlined the other aspects in a single sentence. Slavery would have lasted longer had something like the Articles of Confederation still been in place. The point is that the Constitution as designed provided an out- first by direct amendment, or through the fact that states could not just leave the union (I don't take to the crazier arguments in favor of the South), or that Congress could later undo it. So his statement is wrong only if you ignore what he was actually saying and insert your own ideas. They WERE freed under direct amendment, the 13th. In the most narrow, yet still sensible reading, he's right. That's the issue with these super left-leaning democrat talking points machines. "Demint ignored the 13th amendment, the Civil War" etc. That's garbage and you have to read it in ONE particular way to gather that from what he said. Edit: Moreover, people were outraged by the Scott decision. The dichotomy was evident to many at the CC and later, they saw the inconsistency with what they were trying to do in the Constitution and the issue of slaves. But they had to compromise and set up a system that would deal with it later. I just listened to about 2 minutes of what he said around this. Is there more relevant bits that better puts into context what he was saying? Because from what I heard what he was saying just didn't make much sense and contradicted himself almost immediately. What I understood him to be saying is that government didn't free the slaves A mis-referenced Declaration of Independence quote and 'the people' did? I mean there is just so much wrong in that snippet I don't even know where to begin... His logic is impossible to follow. I just don't know if that's by accident or design?
That's because liberally minded people do this funny thing where they confuse government with society, and vice versa.
As to your question- I don't know, I haven't looked. I take him to be making a more general point about the system. It wasn't because some government official decided "this is wrong!" It was because the people in the North hated slavery, either because of the economics of it or (for a large %) it was seen as immoral. At this time the country was inevitably marching towards the war, and they kept electing politicians who had their views. This did not take place in a vacuum, the independently minded people were at a disagreement.
We could get into the weeds about the relationship of the DoI and the Constitution, but I don't care to do that with Igne because he really doesn't seem to care much for either document. He is convinced that it was set up for the perpetuation of the power of the rich.
The Article assumes that the only people interested were those in government.
I don't feel I explained that terribly well, but I take him to be talking about our system and how the people elected those against slavery. I could be wrong.
Edit:
Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to ‘all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights’ in the minds of God.
he never said that was in the Constitution, but that the Constitution was written with that in mind.
|
On April 10 2014 09:03 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 09:01 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 08:54 Jerubaal wrote:On April 10 2014 08:51 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 08:47 Jerubaal wrote:
This seems like a horrible argument to have. You can't legislate a government that always acts in the way you wish it to. The law will avail you nothing if there is not virtue. Nor should you become a radical who insists that every unfavorable outcome, no matter how fairly adjudicated, is a travesty, or that a favorable outcome, no matter how egregiously administered, is just. What are you talking about in particular? Your and Igne's conversation in general. My argument is just that A) slavery, while obviously abhorrent, would have lasted longer with something like the Articles of Confederation, B) that they eventually were freed on Constitutional grounds (by amendment and the fact that, imo, war was justified- states cannot leave the union.) We could discuss the mindset of the people at the time as well, but that's a LONG discussion. So I never made any claim relevant to your statement, so far as I can tell. The court acted badly, this is a fact that is universally accepted today. The reaction and eventual end of slavery was through the mechanisms operations and of the Constitutional system. How on earth did they get rid of slavery in England without the Constitution?
That's not relevant. At all. I'm not saying "only the Constitution could get rid of slavery." I AM saying that compared the the AoC, it was miles ahead in that regard.
Also, the Constitution WAS the method by which it was abolished, through their elected representatives.
Edit: Demint is saying that many of the people at that time were Constitutionally and DOI-ly minded, and refused to accept slavery. That is what I take to be the barest summary of what he said.
EDIT AGAIN: This is the problem here- no one is spending more than a few minutes reading what was said and is then interpreting it through their framework. You take his statement at the most absurd reading, instead of the most reasonable reading. Try to do the opposite. Maybe you can't, which would be too bad.
|
Well, this is general discussion; so it's not like high standards of analysis are enforced.
Sadly the standards in congress really aren't any better. Personally, I think congress should have better moderation.
|
On April 10 2014 09:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 09:03 IgnE wrote:On April 10 2014 09:01 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 08:54 Jerubaal wrote:On April 10 2014 08:51 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 08:47 Jerubaal wrote:
This seems like a horrible argument to have. You can't legislate a government that always acts in the way you wish it to. The law will avail you nothing if there is not virtue. Nor should you become a radical who insists that every unfavorable outcome, no matter how fairly adjudicated, is a travesty, or that a favorable outcome, no matter how egregiously administered, is just. What are you talking about in particular? Your and Igne's conversation in general. My argument is just that A) slavery, while obviously abhorrent, would have lasted longer with something like the Articles of Confederation, B) that they eventually were freed on Constitutional grounds (by amendment and the fact that, imo, war was justified- states cannot leave the union.) We could discuss the mindset of the people at the time as well, but that's a LONG discussion. So I never made any claim relevant to your statement, so far as I can tell. The court acted badly, this is a fact that is universally accepted today. The reaction and eventual end of slavery was through the mechanisms operations and of the Constitutional system. How on earth did they get rid of slavery in England without the Constitution? That's not relevant. At all. I'm not saying "only the Constitution could get rid of slavery." I AM saying that compared the the AoC, it was miles ahead in that regard. Also, the Constitution WAS the method by which it was abolished, through their elected representatives. Edit: Demint is saying that many of the people at that time were Constitutionally minded, and refused to accept slavery. That is what I take to be the barest summery of what he said. EDIT AGAIN: This is the problem here- no one is spending more than a few minutes reading what was said and is then interpreting it through their framework. You take his statement at the most absurd reading, instead of the most reasonable reading. Try to do the opposite. Maybe you can't, which would be too bad.
That's great. Miles ahead of some racist slave-owning people who would have preferred the AoC. Miles behind European abolitionists.
|
On April 10 2014 08:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 05:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 05:30 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2014 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Citizens with private insurance:
Canada: about 66%
Australia: about 50%
France: nearly 90%
UK: 10%
Your premise is inescapably flawed.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2013/Nov/1717_Thomson_intl_profiles_hlt_care_sys_2013_v2.pdfI don't know if you're just making numbers up here, but that publication states that basically every country on the list has a public spending rate of at least 75-85%.
I meant that if people were not getting their health insurance through an employer than there would be more of an incentive for society to set up a health care system that is independent from employment... unlike Germany's (though Germany still covers everyone.) I guess Germany is technically single payer but Germans buy their insurance from sickness funds right?
We have both private and public insurance, but 85% of the population are publicly insured(sickness funds). You're free to opt out if your income is above a certain threshold. If you're unemployed the government pays for all your medical expenses, if you're employed what you'll have to pay depends on how much you earn, and half of that is covered by your employer. Sweet lord.. The numbers I posted are in the damn report you linked.... So 10-90% of people spending 15-25% of a particular type of spending going into a specific sector, in your eyes is 'the basic elimination' of said sector? Or does that only apply to healthcare? It's ok for you to just admit you were wrong and move on, but if you prefer, you can continue to hopelessly explain how private healthcare has 'basically been eliminated' in 'single-payer' systems.... Seems like you're trying to bait people over a nitpick just to call them "wrong". There's no substance to anything you're posting on this topic. He said " As far as I'm aware when people are talking about single-payer systems they're referring to the idea that there is only one insurer,most of the time in form of the government." He was not aware of the truth so I offered it to him. He already learned more by actually researching in order to refute my claims (unsuccessfully), than he knew about 'single payer' before I responded. I think that indicates substance. You are one of the last regular posters that should be accusing people of baiting, nitpicking, or a lack of substance. (throwing stones in a glass house). You realize your nitpick on 'single-payer' looks even more ridiculous now? Private insurance, as it exists in a multi-payer system, ceases to exists. For the vast majority of healthcare transactions there is only one single payer. It's a simplification to say that "private insurance and healthcare disappears" but for the most part its a correct understanding. Not sure what you mean by 'as it exists' so I can't agree with that yet. With rhetoric what it is and voters information being as low as it is in the general discourse, it's a fairly important distinction. That's a fair point that the rhetoric can get pretty crappy. By as it exists I mean that now you rely on insurance for the majority of your healthcare. In a single payer you don't. It becomes an optional add-on rather than the main deal. edit: The only people I bait are the dumb-asses that talk about Marxism. They deserve it This just keeps getting funnier and funnier... You should visit the old 'Venus Project' thread Depends on what you mean by 'rely' on insurance for a majority of your health care. As I mentioned Private insurers only account for 38% of all healthcare spending and a little over 50% of 'care'. A lot of the people receiving 'care' from a private insurer often have high out of pocket expenses. these are often referred to as the 'under-insured' contributing to the ~11% of health costs paid out of pocket by people with insurance or people who can afford to pay cash. So if you mean that there will be less people between you and your health care under a model like I've outlined or many other 'single-payer' options then yes. But again the potential interpretations of such a vague understanding is begging for all sorts of problems in constructive discussion and comprehension. (Government doesn't belong in healthcare But don't touch my medicare/caid) Anything good in that Venus thread? If you have employer paid health insurance that health insurance pays the majority of your healthcare. In a single payer system that would no longer the case. A public option is not a single payer system it's just a government option in a multi-payer system. Venus thread is full of weird, 'pie in the sky' econ.
Again that's just not factually accurate.
+ Show Spoiler + In Canada: "In 2011, approximately 85 percent of premiums for private health plans were paid'
through group contracts with employers, unions, or other organizations "
The Danish: "Various supplementary VHI plans, offered typically by employers...This type of insurance is held mostly by persons employed in the private sector, although some public sector employees are also covered"
The Swedish: "and most voluntary health insurance plans are paid for by employers"
'single-payer' cant be boiled down to one particular set of circumstances. There are plenty of examples of significantly different versions. Perhaps it's not so much the notion, but the words you're quibbling with clarifying still?
The point is that the American Healthcare system is/was broken and generic Conservative 'solutions' were woefully inadequate and their ability to reason on this issue is/was preventing progress.
We should be WAAAY past conversations like this about whether 'single-payer' means public option, private insurers, non-profit non-governmental groups, or some combination of them all. We should be past the discussion on whether employers contributions need to be more, less, the same, or eliminated altogether and what the cost benefit of each is.
But instead of getting through real issues like that and coming up with real solutions we've had 50+ votes to repeal the only thing anyone has realistically tried to do to resolve our unsustainable healthcare spending (after years of fear-mongering and wild tin-foil hat speculation instead of substantive debate.)
You see how that could be frustrating to reasonable people?
|
On April 10 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 08:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 05:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 05:30 Nyxisto wrote:[quote] http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2013/Nov/1717_Thomson_intl_profiles_hlt_care_sys_2013_v2.pdfI don't know if you're just making numbers up here, but that publication states that basically every country on the list has a public spending rate of at least 75-85%. [quote] We have both private and public insurance, but 85% of the population are publicly insured(sickness funds). You're free to opt out if your income is above a certain threshold. If you're unemployed the government pays for all your medical expenses, if you're employed what you'll have to pay depends on how much you earn, and half of that is covered by your employer. Sweet lord.. The numbers I posted are in the damn report you linked.... So 10-90% of people spending 15-25% of a particular type of spending going into a specific sector, in your eyes is 'the basic elimination' of said sector? Or does that only apply to healthcare? It's ok for you to just admit you were wrong and move on, but if you prefer, you can continue to hopelessly explain how private healthcare has 'basically been eliminated' in 'single-payer' systems.... Seems like you're trying to bait people over a nitpick just to call them "wrong". There's no substance to anything you're posting on this topic. He said " As far as I'm aware when people are talking about single-payer systems they're referring to the idea that there is only one insurer,most of the time in form of the government." He was not aware of the truth so I offered it to him. He already learned more by actually researching in order to refute my claims (unsuccessfully), than he knew about 'single payer' before I responded. I think that indicates substance. You are one of the last regular posters that should be accusing people of baiting, nitpicking, or a lack of substance. (throwing stones in a glass house). You realize your nitpick on 'single-payer' looks even more ridiculous now? Private insurance, as it exists in a multi-payer system, ceases to exists. For the vast majority of healthcare transactions there is only one single payer. It's a simplification to say that "private insurance and healthcare disappears" but for the most part its a correct understanding. Not sure what you mean by 'as it exists' so I can't agree with that yet. With rhetoric what it is and voters information being as low as it is in the general discourse, it's a fairly important distinction. That's a fair point that the rhetoric can get pretty crappy. By as it exists I mean that now you rely on insurance for the majority of your healthcare. In a single payer you don't. It becomes an optional add-on rather than the main deal. edit: The only people I bait are the dumb-asses that talk about Marxism. They deserve it This just keeps getting funnier and funnier... You should visit the old 'Venus Project' thread Depends on what you mean by 'rely' on insurance for a majority of your health care. As I mentioned Private insurers only account for 38% of all healthcare spending and a little over 50% of 'care'. A lot of the people receiving 'care' from a private insurer often have high out of pocket expenses. these are often referred to as the 'under-insured' contributing to the ~11% of health costs paid out of pocket by people with insurance or people who can afford to pay cash. So if you mean that there will be less people between you and your health care under a model like I've outlined or many other 'single-payer' options then yes. But again the potential interpretations of such a vague understanding is begging for all sorts of problems in constructive discussion and comprehension. (Government doesn't belong in healthcare But don't touch my medicare/caid) Anything good in that Venus thread? If you have employer paid health insurance that health insurance pays the majority of your healthcare. In a single payer system that would no longer the case. A public option is not a single payer system it's just a government option in a multi-payer system. Venus thread is full of weird, 'pie in the sky' econ. Again that's just not factually accurate. + Show Spoiler + In Canada: "In 2011, approximately 85 percent of premiums for private health plans were paid'
through group contracts with employers, unions, or other organizations "
The Danish: "Various supplementary VHI plans, offered typically by employers...This type of insurance is held mostly by persons employed in the private sector, although some public sector employees are also covered"
The Swedish: "and most voluntary health insurance plans are paid for by employers" 'single-payer' cant be boiled down to one particular set of circumstances. There are plenty of examples of significantly different versions. Perhaps it's not so much the notion, but the words you're quibbling with clarifying still? The point is that the American Healthcare system is/was broken and generic Conservative 'solutions' were woefully inadequate and their ability to reason on this issue is/was preventing progress. We should be WAAAY past conversations like this about whether 'single-payer' means public option, private insurers, non-profit non-governmental groups, or some combination of them all. We should be past the discussion on whether employers contributions need to be more, less, the same, or eliminated altogether and what the cost benefit of each is. But instead of getting through real issues like that and coming up with real solutions we've had 50+ votes to repeal the only thing anyone has realistically tried to do to resolve our unsustainable healthcare spending (after years of fear-mongering and wild tin-foil hat speculation instead of substantive debate.) You see how that could be frustrating to reasonable people?
Umm, you are the one that brought up what 'single-payer' means. You seem to have confused the term with universal healthcare.
And lol, many things have been tried to reign in healthcare spending. You can go back to at least Nixon for that.
Edit: Also, the ACA isn't mainly concerned with controlling costs, it's mainly about covering the uninsured...
|
On April 10 2014 09:29 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 09:10 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 09:03 IgnE wrote:On April 10 2014 09:01 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 08:54 Jerubaal wrote:On April 10 2014 08:51 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 08:47 Jerubaal wrote:
This seems like a horrible argument to have. You can't legislate a government that always acts in the way you wish it to. The law will avail you nothing if there is not virtue. Nor should you become a radical who insists that every unfavorable outcome, no matter how fairly adjudicated, is a travesty, or that a favorable outcome, no matter how egregiously administered, is just. What are you talking about in particular? Your and Igne's conversation in general. My argument is just that A) slavery, while obviously abhorrent, would have lasted longer with something like the Articles of Confederation, B) that they eventually were freed on Constitutional grounds (by amendment and the fact that, imo, war was justified- states cannot leave the union.) We could discuss the mindset of the people at the time as well, but that's a LONG discussion. So I never made any claim relevant to your statement, so far as I can tell. The court acted badly, this is a fact that is universally accepted today. The reaction and eventual end of slavery was through the mechanisms operations and of the Constitutional system. How on earth did they get rid of slavery in England without the Constitution? That's not relevant. At all. I'm not saying "only the Constitution could get rid of slavery." I AM saying that compared the the AoC, it was miles ahead in that regard. Also, the Constitution WAS the method by which it was abolished, through their elected representatives. Edit: Demint is saying that many of the people at that time were Constitutionally minded, and refused to accept slavery. That is what I take to be the barest summery of what he said. EDIT AGAIN: This is the problem here- no one is spending more than a few minutes reading what was said and is then interpreting it through their framework. You take his statement at the most absurd reading, instead of the most reasonable reading. Try to do the opposite. Maybe you can't, which would be too bad. That's great. Miles ahead of some racist slave-owning people who would have preferred the AoC. Miles behind European abolitionists.
You are wandering into fantasy land again. What better could they have done? Slavery almost broke the Convention apart, and without that compromise, slavery could have lasted LONGER.
The fact that they could not get rid of it right then and there sucks- but it was indeed under the Constitution that it was abolished. That's a factual statement, which is what makes the article originally posted absurd.
I agree, they were still behind. That wasn't the point, however.
|
Canada11412 Posts
On April 05 2014 04:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2014 03:19 Falling wrote:On April 05 2014 03:09 Danglars wrote:On April 05 2014 01:33 Falling wrote:*sigh After arguing in this thread over Voter ID issues and how our system is great with the three tiers of identification with the most basic being one registered voter is allowed to vouch for one person without id. But now C-23 is going to do away with that. Wrote an email to my MP specifically on vouching and got back a super generic response on the bill and mentioned nothing about vouching- probably should've sent a physical letter. And now I hear your Court is opening up campaign spending even more. Oh democracy  I'm so glad the ruling removed barriers to the democratic process, I only wish it went further. The biggest aid in elections shouldn't be incumbency with all its name recognition and free press not subject to financing laws. Individuals and groups of individuals should not be hindered from participating in the election process through political speech by such a reason as reducing the amount of money in politics. I concur with Thomas's supporting opinion that the parts of the law remaining intact represent a "rule without a rationale." The cap on individual contributions to congressional candidates and the president should be struck down on the same grounds. So you think there should be no donation limit at all? I think that is a horrible idea. That incentivizes politicians to go after a rich few patrons to support their campaign and thus narrowing the focus of politicians for funding. I much prefer the idea that politicians are forced to search out financial support from the broadest spectrum of people, thus ensuring that the politician with the most money to spend is the one whose campaign hoofed around to the most amount of people. Broad support rather than rich patrons. After watching the nominee process of two presidential elections, I do agree with you that there is a barrier to entry to be considered a 'main' candidate with the (in my opinion) arbitrary inclusion or exclusion of candidates from certain debates as well as length in speaking times. But I don't think lifting donation limits is the answer to the problem. Or if it is an answer, then we are summoning a great evil to slay another evil. There has to be a better answer. Still not a sufficient cause for abridging their first amendment rights to political speech. Maybe I'm a sucker for reading the whole decisions through and through, but that is one argument covered and recovered and referred to in other major decisions in the supreme court opinions.
Never got back to you, so jumping back a bit.
I doubt you'll care much as this is a Canadian court ruling. But I rather like the reasoning. It does share a common concern. Supreme Court 1997, Libman v Quebec. They ruled that banning all third party expenditures was not consistent with freedom of speech. Which is what I believe you are concerned about. People should be free to spend money to promote political ideas. I agree in principle.
But, it goes further. The Court did think it admirable "to permit an informed choice to be made by ensuring that some positions are not buried by others" as well as "to preserve the confidence of the electorate in a democratic process that it knows will not be dominated by the power of money" So in the particular case, the Act in question was too restrictive (this was over Quebec's referendum) but the objective was good. "Thus, the objective of the Act, is first egalitarian in that it is intended to prevent the most affluent members of society from exerting a disproportionate influence by dominating the referendum debate through access to greater resources. What is sought is in a sense an equality of participationo and influence between proponents of each option..."
And that to me is the heart of it. I will agree that people should be able to freely spend on whatever political ideology they happen to have... within limits. We are not restricting freedom of speech in that sense because they are free to say it. But I am for restricting your ability to buy up all the speaking the time so you only you can speak and no-one else.
So, if there were 100 tv slots for political campaigns for parties or 3rd parties. I would much rather 10 slots be bought up by 10 groups rather than 100 slots bought up by one group. Having informed voters is essential for democracy and I think we are less informed if we take off caps and allow the rich to squeeze out any other message.
And then I also go back to politicians becoming even more beholden to wealthy benefectors. Political sugar daddies, if you will.
|
On April 10 2014 09:08 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 09:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 08:42 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 08:37 IgnE wrote:On April 10 2014 04:45 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 03:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Jim DeMint, former senator and current president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, insisted last week that it was the U.S. Constitution that ultimately freed the slaves.
"Well the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution, it was like the conscience of the American people," DeMint said on "Vocal Point" with Jerry Newcombe of Truth In Action Ministries, as recorded by Right Wing Watch. "Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to 'all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights' in the minds of God."
DeMint dismisses the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment to argue that the Constitution just ultimately led the country in the right direction.
The Heritage chief also seems to confuse the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The line "all men are created equal" comes from the latter.
DeMint added that "big government" did not end slavery, a Republican did. Source I'm not sure what the point of the article is- any way you slice it, the Constitution DID end slavery, just not immediately. It could have continued far longer without it. Either you count the 13th amendment, "preserving the union," or the Constitutional mechanics in place through Congress (including the provision to allow Congress to halt slave importation), it did lead there. Though admittedly the Dred Scott decision was disastrous in this regard. But that's what happens when justices get the final say, and it's widely regarded as one of the worst decisions ever. So that really doesn't argue against his point, either. Only a dense person would assume that Demint meant "The 1787 Constitution banned slavery." Only a dense person would say that a document containing this: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. ended slavery. You might even say that the Constitution preserved slavery. Notice the lack of the word "slave" ANYWHERE in the document- it was intentional. I already outlined the other aspects in a single sentence. Slavery would have lasted longer had something like the Articles of Confederation still been in place. The point is that the Constitution as designed provided an out- first by direct amendment, or through the fact that states could not just leave the union (I don't take to the crazier arguments in favor of the South), or that Congress could later undo it. So his statement is wrong only if you ignore what he was actually saying and insert your own ideas. They WERE freed under direct amendment, the 13th. In the most narrow, yet still sensible reading, he's right. That's the issue with these super left-leaning democrat talking points machines. "Demint ignored the 13th amendment, the Civil War" etc. That's garbage and you have to read it in ONE particular way to gather that from what he said. Edit: Moreover, people were outraged by the Scott decision. The dichotomy was evident to many at the CC and later, they saw the inconsistency with what they were trying to do in the Constitution and the issue of slaves. But they had to compromise and set up a system that would deal with it later. I just listened to about 2 minutes of what he said around this. Is there more relevant bits that better puts into context what he was saying? Because from what I heard what he was saying just didn't make much sense and contradicted himself almost immediately. What I understood him to be saying is that government didn't free the slaves A mis-referenced Declaration of Independence quote and 'the people' did? I mean there is just so much wrong in that snippet I don't even know where to begin... His logic is impossible to follow. I just don't know if that's by accident or design? That's because liberally minded people do this funny thing where they confuse government with society, and vice versa. As to your question- I don't know, I haven't looked. I take him to be making a more general point about the system. It wasn't because some government official decided "this is wrong!" It was because the people in the North hated slavery, either because of the economics of it or (for a large %) it was seen as immoral. At this time the country was inevitably marching towards the war, and they kept electing politicians who had their views. This did not take place in a vacuum, the independently minded people were at a disagreement. We could get into the weeds about the relationship of the DoI and the Constitution, but I don't care to do that with Igne because he really doesn't seem to care much for either document. He is convinced that it was set up for the perpetuation of the power of the rich. The Article assumes that the only people interested were those in government. I don't feel I explained that terribly well, but I take him to be talking about our system and how the people elected those against slavery. I could be wrong. Edit: Show nested quote +Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to ‘all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights’ in the minds of God. he never said that was in the Constitution, but that the Constitution was written with that in mind.
I suggest you probably listen to more of what he said before you go defending him.
No reasonable person in the world suggests that 'Big government' 'ended' slavery like he was suggesting. He made it sound as if people claim slavery ended only because of 'big government' maybe even in spite of popular sentiment. That right there is so ridiculous I shouldn't need to go on but I will.
You can't find a reasonable person who will tell you slavery would of ended without the support of white allies inside and out of the government.
It's obvious that one hand washes the other here. Slavery obviously would of continued for a long time and segregation even longer after that had 'big government' not joined the 'hearts of reasonable people' (or the other way around) to lead us in a direction of equality.
The end of the quote undermines his point and shows his logical inconsistency when he then tries to take Lincoln's work and chalk it up as a 'Republican' accomplishment while simultaneously trying to say that how Lincoln used federal powers played a minor roll at best (let alone what conservatives like Judge Neapoliano say about Lincoln).
|
On April 10 2014 09:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 09:29 IgnE wrote:On April 10 2014 09:10 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 09:03 IgnE wrote:On April 10 2014 09:01 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 08:54 Jerubaal wrote:On April 10 2014 08:51 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 08:47 Jerubaal wrote:
This seems like a horrible argument to have. You can't legislate a government that always acts in the way you wish it to. The law will avail you nothing if there is not virtue. Nor should you become a radical who insists that every unfavorable outcome, no matter how fairly adjudicated, is a travesty, or that a favorable outcome, no matter how egregiously administered, is just. What are you talking about in particular? Your and Igne's conversation in general. My argument is just that A) slavery, while obviously abhorrent, would have lasted longer with something like the Articles of Confederation, B) that they eventually were freed on Constitutional grounds (by amendment and the fact that, imo, war was justified- states cannot leave the union.) We could discuss the mindset of the people at the time as well, but that's a LONG discussion. So I never made any claim relevant to your statement, so far as I can tell. The court acted badly, this is a fact that is universally accepted today. The reaction and eventual end of slavery was through the mechanisms operations and of the Constitutional system. How on earth did they get rid of slavery in England without the Constitution? That's not relevant. At all. I'm not saying "only the Constitution could get rid of slavery." I AM saying that compared the the AoC, it was miles ahead in that regard. Also, the Constitution WAS the method by which it was abolished, through their elected representatives. Edit: Demint is saying that many of the people at that time were Constitutionally minded, and refused to accept slavery. That is what I take to be the barest summery of what he said. EDIT AGAIN: This is the problem here- no one is spending more than a few minutes reading what was said and is then interpreting it through their framework. You take his statement at the most absurd reading, instead of the most reasonable reading. Try to do the opposite. Maybe you can't, which would be too bad. That's great. Miles ahead of some racist slave-owning people who would have preferred the AoC. Miles behind European abolitionists. You are wandering into fantasy land again. What better could they have done? Slavery almost broke the Convention apart, and without that compromise, slavery could have lasted LONGER. The fact that they could not get rid of it right then and there sucks- but it was indeed under the Constitution that it was abolished. That's a factual statement, which is what makes the article originally posted absurd. I agree, they were still behind. That wasn't the point, however.
Who is this "they" you are referring to? There was no "they" and "they" were not working to abolish slavery when they drafted the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified by a group of people with individual competing interests. You seem like the one in fantasy land. Thomas Jefferson was too busy fucking his slaves to make a serious effort to abolish slavery.
DeMint is being ridiculed for glorifying a Constitution that "ended slavery" when the facts are that the Constitution did nothing of the kind. Luckily it made provision for amendment so that the document that the slave-owning racist founders had written could be fixed. Bully for the Constitution. If the only argument you have is that it's better than the AoC perhaps it's best not to raise it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
