|
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. |
North Carolina’s environmental regulator joined Duke Energy Corp. (DUK) in appealing a court order that the company clean up groundwater pollution from coal ash dumps, a ruling made in case that began before one of the utility’s plants spewed toxic sludge into the Dan River.
Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway on March 6 ruled that Duke must take immediate action to stop chemicals from fouling groundwater. He also said the state’s Environmental Management Commission illegally failed to require the company to move quickly on pollution from coal ash ponds.
Duke, the largest U.S. utility, filed a notice of appeal in Wake County Superior Court in Raleigh on April 3 and the commission, which sets state environmental regulations, followed with a notice yesterday.
While the rigor of North Carolina’s regulation of the coal ash lagoons had been a source of concern to regional environmental groups for years, it came under national scrutiny Feb. 2 after one of Duke’s facilities spilled as much as 39,000 tons of ash into the Dan River near Eden.
The spill triggered a federal grand jury investigation of the state’s oversight of Duke’s coal ash storage.
Source
|
On April 10 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
That's part of my point, that the words are used but different people have different understandings of what they mean, or what they would actually entail.
'Single-payer', 'Universal healthcare', whatever you want to call it. There are common sense solutions with statistical support that we could be doing several things different and empirically better.
Having 'tried things since Nixon' isn't really relevant at all and there was no reason to even say it. I am talking about real options and strategies that have been in place and adjusting in several nations with different models for a long time now. And several years of a petulant Republican congress completely remiss in their duties. (Lines like that are exactly what I am talking about btw).
|
On April 10 2014 09:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 09:08 Introvert wrote: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: 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).
eh, I see your points.
I did listen to all that was posted.
If you read the question as well as the answer, he is making the point that it was the Constitutional system, and, he claims, a people with an idea of liberty, that led to the end of slavery. Not progressive social or political engineering. I would have to hear more to be sure on that one, however.
ok, we agree. It wasn't just government that ended the practice, but government was the vehicle (as was a war).
Lincoln was the first president from the Republican Party. He was saying that it was Lincoln with an idea of Christian kindness. Now, a lot of Lincoln historians (most) say and show that at the start of the war he was more concerned about the union of the states. But for what it's worth, his address at the end of his life called for citizenship for slaves- so he had clearly evolved on that. But Lincoln's use of federal power in war time is not like the progressive "let's force you to have healthcare," so I don't see the inconsistency. [NOTE: I am not here defending his use of "wartime powers."]
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.
If you think slavery wasn't a concern at the CC then perhaps you should go re-read your nearest history book.
I already said- it really sucks that slavery lived through the convention. moreover, it sucks that it took so long to fix, that an amendment was needed, and that a war had to be fought. However, his statement stands as correct, which was the entire point I was making. It WAS the Constitution. So yes, hooray.
His point is bolstered if his statements concerning the society at the time are correct, but that's way off topic.
|
On April 10 2014 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. That's part of my point, that the words are used but different people have different understandings of what they mean, or what they would actually entail. 'Single-payer', 'Universal healthcare', whatever you want to call it. There are common sense solutions with statistical support that we could be doing several things different and empirically better. Having 'tried things since Nixon' isn't really relevant at all and there was no reason to even say it. I am talking about real options and strategies that have been in place and adjusting in several nations with different models for a long time now. And several years of a petulant Republican congress completely remiss in their duties. (Lines like that are exactly what I am talking about btw).
YOU brought up what the phrase means, now it's "whatever you want to call it". lol.
I'll point out that the ACA isn't going to do much to reign in the cost of healthcare - that's just not its main goal. And switching to a different system, say a single payer like in Canada, isn't some easy fix for heath-care costs. Day 1 everything would be just as expensive and we'd still have to spend many, many years to trying really, really hard to get costs down.
|
On April 10 2014 10:01 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 09:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 09:08 Introvert wrote: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: 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). eh, I see your points. I did listen to all that was posted. If you read the question as well as the answer, he is making the point that it was the Constitutional system, and, he claims, a people with an idea of liberty, that led to the end of slavery. Not progressive social or political engineering. I would have to hear more to be sure on that one, however. ok, we agree. It wasn't just government that ended the practice, but government was the vehicle (as was a war). Lincoln was the first president from the Republican Party. He was saying that it was Lincoln with an idea of Christian kindness. Now, a lot of Lincoln historians (most) say and show that at the start of the war he was more concerned about the union of the states. But for what it's worth, his address at the end of his life called for citizenship for slaves- so he had clearly evolved on that. But Lincoln's use of federal power in war time is not like the progressive "let's force you to have healthcare," so I don't see the inconsistency. Show nested quote +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. If you think slavery wasn't a concern at the CC then perhaps you should go re-read your nearest history book. I already said- it really sucks that slavery lived through the convention. moreover, it sucks that it took so long to fix, that an amendment was needed, and that a war had to be fought. However, his statement stands as correct, which was the entire point I was making. It WAS the Constitution. So yes, hooray. His point is bolstered if his statements concerning the society at the time are correct, but that's way off topic.
I think his point misses the point that sometimes the government does force onto people something they don't want in order for the greater good. It's easy to go wrong but you gotta do what ya gotta do. I don't think many reasonable people are saying we shouldn't have had the 13th amendment or the Civil War (Big Government interference [because guess who enforces the amendments on people who don't want to adhere to them?]) and that we should of just waited for the south's heart to turn.. Which is what DeMint's comments sound like he's insinuating whether he is or not.
He would of been better off not trying to draw parallels between slavery and the ACA in the first place.
|
On April 10 2014 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 10:01 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 09:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 09:08 Introvert wrote: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: 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). eh, I see your points. I did listen to all that was posted. If you read the question as well as the answer, he is making the point that it was the Constitutional system, and, he claims, a people with an idea of liberty, that led to the end of slavery. Not progressive social or political engineering. I would have to hear more to be sure on that one, however. ok, we agree. It wasn't just government that ended the practice, but government was the vehicle (as was a war). Lincoln was the first president from the Republican Party. He was saying that it was Lincoln with an idea of Christian kindness. Now, a lot of Lincoln historians (most) say and show that at the start of the war he was more concerned about the union of the states. But for what it's worth, his address at the end of his life called for citizenship for slaves- so he had clearly evolved on that. But Lincoln's use of federal power in war time is not like the progressive "let's force you to have healthcare," so I don't see the inconsistency. 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. If you think slavery wasn't a concern at the CC then perhaps you should go re-read your nearest history book. I already said- it really sucks that slavery lived through the convention. moreover, it sucks that it took so long to fix, that an amendment was needed, and that a war had to be fought. However, his statement stands as correct, which was the entire point I was making. It WAS the Constitution. So yes, hooray. His point is bolstered if his statements concerning the society at the time are correct, but that's way off topic. I think his point misses the point that sometimes the government does force onto people something they don't want in order for the greater good. It's easy to go wrong but you gotta do what ya gotta do. I don't think many reasonable people are saying we shouldn't have had the 13th amendment or the Civil War (Big Government interference [because guess who enforces the amendments on people who don't want to adhere to them?]) and that we should of just waited for the south's heart to turn.. Which is what DeMint's comments sound like he's insinuating whether he is or not. He would of been better off not trying to draw parallels between slavery and the ACA in the first place.
I just used that example at random, he was asked about the Civil War specifically. I'd need more context, but his use of the Civil War was a response to a particular question.
What if somebody, let’s say you’re talking with a liberal person and they were to turn around and say, ‘that Founding Fathers thing worked out really well, look at that Civil War we had eighty years later.’
Edit: That's not what he was insinuating, at least to me. I very much doubt he objects to either the 13th amendment or horrible moral necessity of the CW.
Again, try to read what he says reasonably, instead of saying "almost no one disagrees, but I bet he does." Moreover, the type of Big Government in that case was quite different than the one we are grappling with (or embracing) today.
|
On April 10 2014 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
He said
[quote]
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. That's part of my point, that the words are used but different people have different understandings of what they mean, or what they would actually entail. 'Single-payer', 'Universal healthcare', whatever you want to call it. There are common sense solutions with statistical support that we could be doing several things different and empirically better. Having 'tried things since Nixon' isn't really relevant at all and there was no reason to even say it. I am talking about real options and strategies that have been in place and adjusting in several nations with different models for a long time now. And several years of a petulant Republican congress completely remiss in their duties. (Lines like that are exactly what I am talking about btw). YOU brought up what the phrase means, now it's "whatever you want to call it". lol. I'll point out that the ACA isn't going to do much to reign in the cost of healthcare - that's just not its main goal. And switching to a different system, say a single payer like in Canada, isn't some easy fix for heath-care costs. Day 1 everything would be just as expensive and we'd still have to spend many, many years to trying really, really hard to get costs down.
Now you can't even get recent history that you can access right here right?
I didn't bring it up. I enlightened someones understanding of what it meant (as it it falls under the actual implementation of what people are generally referring to when they use the term).
We had come to terms about what our mis-communications were and settled it.
Then you decided to white knight on his understanding despite us already concluding that issue. So for you it's whatever you want to call it.
So if you want to call Canada 'single-payer' even though 2/3 of the people have private insurers meaning there must at least be 2 payers go ahead. But you can see why the point needs clarification?
As for your assessment of the ACA and more specifically what a switch to a system 'like in Canada' has been shown by your recent assessments to be of little or no worth.
Unless you opted to read up on how they actually work or what other variations and options are available (which would fly in the face of most of what you have said so far).
|
On April 10 2014 10:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 10:01 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 09:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 09:08 Introvert wrote: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:[quote] 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. 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). eh, I see your points. I did listen to all that was posted. If you read the question as well as the answer, he is making the point that it was the Constitutional system, and, he claims, a people with an idea of liberty, that led to the end of slavery. Not progressive social or political engineering. I would have to hear more to be sure on that one, however. ok, we agree. It wasn't just government that ended the practice, but government was the vehicle (as was a war). Lincoln was the first president from the Republican Party. He was saying that it was Lincoln with an idea of Christian kindness. Now, a lot of Lincoln historians (most) say and show that at the start of the war he was more concerned about the union of the states. But for what it's worth, his address at the end of his life called for citizenship for slaves- so he had clearly evolved on that. But Lincoln's use of federal power in war time is not like the progressive "let's force you to have healthcare," so I don't see the inconsistency. 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. If you think slavery wasn't a concern at the CC then perhaps you should go re-read your nearest history book. I already said- it really sucks that slavery lived through the convention. moreover, it sucks that it took so long to fix, that an amendment was needed, and that a war had to be fought. However, his statement stands as correct, which was the entire point I was making. It WAS the Constitution. So yes, hooray. His point is bolstered if his statements concerning the society at the time are correct, but that's way off topic. I think his point misses the point that sometimes the government does force onto people something they don't want in order for the greater good. It's easy to go wrong but you gotta do what ya gotta do. I don't think many reasonable people are saying we shouldn't have had the 13th amendment or the Civil War (Big Government interference [because guess who enforces the amendments on people who don't want to adhere to them?]) and that we should of just waited for the south's heart to turn.. Which is what DeMint's comments sound like he's insinuating whether he is or not. He would of been better off not trying to draw parallels between slavery and the ACA in the first place. I just used that example at random, he was asked about the Civil War specifically. I'd need more context, but his use of the Civil War was a response to a particular question. Show nested quote + What if somebody, let’s say you’re talking with a liberal person and they were to turn around and say, ‘that Founding Fathers thing worked out really well, look at that Civil War we had eighty years later.’ Edit: That's not what he was insinuating, at least to me. I very much doubt he objects to either the 13th amendment or horrible moral necessity of the CW. Again, try to read what he says reasonably, instead of saying "almost no one disagrees, but I bet he does." Moreover, the type of Big Government in that case was quite different than the one we are grappling with (or embracing) today.
I prefer to listen to the comments because there is a lot of communication lost in text.
When listening to what he said it's really hard to come to your conclusions. Until I hear something from him that has some substance to it and actual applicability to today I won't be paying him much mind.
All I can say is your interpretation is as generous as one could be to make what he was saying make any sense. Reasonable independents would at minimum be confounded by how he worded whatever point he thinks he was trying to make.
|
On April 10 2014 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. That's part of my point, that the words are used but different people have different understandings of what they mean, or what they would actually entail. 'Single-payer', 'Universal healthcare', whatever you want to call it. There are common sense solutions with statistical support that we could be doing several things different and empirically better. Having 'tried things since Nixon' isn't really relevant at all and there was no reason to even say it. I am talking about real options and strategies that have been in place and adjusting in several nations with different models for a long time now. And several years of a petulant Republican congress completely remiss in their duties. (Lines like that are exactly what I am talking about btw). YOU brought up what the phrase means, now it's "whatever you want to call it". lol. I'll point out that the ACA isn't going to do much to reign in the cost of healthcare - that's just not its main goal. And switching to a different system, say a single payer like in Canada, isn't some easy fix for heath-care costs. Day 1 everything would be just as expensive and we'd still have to spend many, many years to trying really, really hard to get costs down. Now you can't even get recent history that you can access right here right? I didn't bring it up. I enlightened someones understanding of what it meant (as it it falls under the actual implementation of what people are generally referring to when they use the term). We had come to terms about what our mis-communications were and settled it. Then you decided to white knight on his understanding despite us already concluding that issue. So for you it's whatever you want to call it. So if you want to call Canada 'single-payer' even though 2/3 of the people have private insurers meaning there must at least be 2 payers go ahead. But you can see why the point needs clarification? As for your assessment of the ACA and more specifically what a switch to a system 'like in Canada' has been shown by your recent assessments to be of little or no worth. Unless you opted to read up on how they actually work or what other variations and options are available (which would fly in the face of most of what you have said so far).
Lol,Just to be clear 'single-payer' does not mean private insurance and healthcare disappears. I don't really know where this notion comes from?
Because that's basically what happens. The government becomes the single payer. Finding a few scraps of healthcare where private insurance exists doesn't change that fact. It is not a "single payer" option, it's a single payer. The ACA with a government option would not be a single payer.
If you think switching to a single payer would cut the price of healthcare in half overnight, you are laughably stupid.
|
On April 10 2014 10:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 10:12 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 10:01 Introvert wrote:On April 10 2014 09:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 09:08 Introvert wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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). eh, I see your points. I did listen to all that was posted. If you read the question as well as the answer, he is making the point that it was the Constitutional system, and, he claims, a people with an idea of liberty, that led to the end of slavery. Not progressive social or political engineering. I would have to hear more to be sure on that one, however. ok, we agree. It wasn't just government that ended the practice, but government was the vehicle (as was a war). Lincoln was the first president from the Republican Party. He was saying that it was Lincoln with an idea of Christian kindness. Now, a lot of Lincoln historians (most) say and show that at the start of the war he was more concerned about the union of the states. But for what it's worth, his address at the end of his life called for citizenship for slaves- so he had clearly evolved on that. But Lincoln's use of federal power in war time is not like the progressive "let's force you to have healthcare," so I don't see the inconsistency. 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. If you think slavery wasn't a concern at the CC then perhaps you should go re-read your nearest history book. I already said- it really sucks that slavery lived through the convention. moreover, it sucks that it took so long to fix, that an amendment was needed, and that a war had to be fought. However, his statement stands as correct, which was the entire point I was making. It WAS the Constitution. So yes, hooray. His point is bolstered if his statements concerning the society at the time are correct, but that's way off topic. I think his point misses the point that sometimes the government does force onto people something they don't want in order for the greater good. It's easy to go wrong but you gotta do what ya gotta do. I don't think many reasonable people are saying we shouldn't have had the 13th amendment or the Civil War (Big Government interference [because guess who enforces the amendments on people who don't want to adhere to them?]) and that we should of just waited for the south's heart to turn.. Which is what DeMint's comments sound like he's insinuating whether he is or not. He would of been better off not trying to draw parallels between slavery and the ACA in the first place. I just used that example at random, he was asked about the Civil War specifically. I'd need more context, but his use of the Civil War was a response to a particular question. What if somebody, let’s say you’re talking with a liberal person and they were to turn around and say, ‘that Founding Fathers thing worked out really well, look at that Civil War we had eighty years later.’ Edit: That's not what he was insinuating, at least to me. I very much doubt he objects to either the 13th amendment or horrible moral necessity of the CW. Again, try to read what he says reasonably, instead of saying "almost no one disagrees, but I bet he does." Moreover, the type of Big Government in that case was quite different than the one we are grappling with (or embracing) today. I prefer to listen to the comments because there is a lot of communication lost in text. When listening to what he said it's really hard to come to your conclusions. Until I hear something from him that has some substance to it and actual applicability to today I won't be paying him much mind. All I can say is your interpretation is as generous as one could be to make what he was saying make any sense. Reasonable independents would at minimum be confounded by how he worded whatever point he thinks he was trying to make.
I did listen to it, and I simply do not get what you do from it . I think what is required is to read only what he said, and not put your own ideas in there.
In context, he was saying that slavery ended because of the people, not a large progressive government. It makes sense in context because progressive didn't even exist at the time of the civil war, so how could the big government of then be progressive?
He was saying we didn't need the progressive state to end slavery (indeed, it didn't even exist at that time!). Therefore, progressivism is not required for positive change.
But agree to disagree I guess.
|
On April 10 2014 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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: [quote]
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. That's part of my point, that the words are used but different people have different understandings of what they mean, or what they would actually entail. 'Single-payer', 'Universal healthcare', whatever you want to call it. There are common sense solutions with statistical support that we could be doing several things different and empirically better. Having 'tried things since Nixon' isn't really relevant at all and there was no reason to even say it. I am talking about real options and strategies that have been in place and adjusting in several nations with different models for a long time now. And several years of a petulant Republican congress completely remiss in their duties. (Lines like that are exactly what I am talking about btw). YOU brought up what the phrase means, now it's "whatever you want to call it". lol. I'll point out that the ACA isn't going to do much to reign in the cost of healthcare - that's just not its main goal. And switching to a different system, say a single payer like in Canada, isn't some easy fix for heath-care costs. Day 1 everything would be just as expensive and we'd still have to spend many, many years to trying really, really hard to get costs down. Now you can't even get recent history that you can access right here right? I didn't bring it up. I enlightened someones understanding of what it meant (as it it falls under the actual implementation of what people are generally referring to when they use the term). We had come to terms about what our mis-communications were and settled it. Then you decided to white knight on his understanding despite us already concluding that issue. So for you it's whatever you want to call it. So if you want to call Canada 'single-payer' even though 2/3 of the people have private insurers meaning there must at least be 2 payers go ahead. But you can see why the point needs clarification? As for your assessment of the ACA and more specifically what a switch to a system 'like in Canada' has been shown by your recent assessments to be of little or no worth. Unless you opted to read up on how they actually work or what other variations and options are available (which would fly in the face of most of what you have said so far). Lol, Show nested quote +Just to be clear 'single-payer' does not mean private insurance and healthcare disappears. I don't really know where this notion comes from? Because that's basically what happens. The government becomes the single payer. Finding a few scraps of healthcare where private insurance exists doesn't change that fact. It is not a "single payer" option, it's a single payer. The ACA with a government option would not be a single payer. If you think switching to a single payer would cut the price of healthcare in half overnight, you are laughably stupid.
Your logic whiplash is painful. Any gains from discussing this with you Jonny have been exhausted.
Not a single reasonable person thinks "switching to a single payer would cut the price of healthcare in half overnight..." You can put your Straw men away and stop baiting.
|
On April 10 2014 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 08:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] 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:[quote] 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. That's part of my point, that the words are used but different people have different understandings of what they mean, or what they would actually entail. 'Single-payer', 'Universal healthcare', whatever you want to call it. There are common sense solutions with statistical support that we could be doing several things different and empirically better. Having 'tried things since Nixon' isn't really relevant at all and there was no reason to even say it. I am talking about real options and strategies that have been in place and adjusting in several nations with different models for a long time now. And several years of a petulant Republican congress completely remiss in their duties. (Lines like that are exactly what I am talking about btw). YOU brought up what the phrase means, now it's "whatever you want to call it". lol. I'll point out that the ACA isn't going to do much to reign in the cost of healthcare - that's just not its main goal. And switching to a different system, say a single payer like in Canada, isn't some easy fix for heath-care costs. Day 1 everything would be just as expensive and we'd still have to spend many, many years to trying really, really hard to get costs down. Now you can't even get recent history that you can access right here right? I didn't bring it up. I enlightened someones understanding of what it meant (as it it falls under the actual implementation of what people are generally referring to when they use the term). We had come to terms about what our mis-communications were and settled it. Then you decided to white knight on his understanding despite us already concluding that issue. So for you it's whatever you want to call it. So if you want to call Canada 'single-payer' even though 2/3 of the people have private insurers meaning there must at least be 2 payers go ahead. But you can see why the point needs clarification? As for your assessment of the ACA and more specifically what a switch to a system 'like in Canada' has been shown by your recent assessments to be of little or no worth. Unless you opted to read up on how they actually work or what other variations and options are available (which would fly in the face of most of what you have said so far). Lol, Just to be clear 'single-payer' does not mean private insurance and healthcare disappears. I don't really know where this notion comes from? Because that's basically what happens. The government becomes the single payer. Finding a few scraps of healthcare where private insurance exists doesn't change that fact. It is not a "single payer" option, it's a single payer. The ACA with a government option would not be a single payer. If you think switching to a single payer would cut the price of healthcare in half overnight, you are laughably stupid. Your logic whiplash is painful. Any gains from discussing this with you Jonny have been exhausted. Not a single reasonable person thinks "switching to a single payer would cut the price of healthcare in half overnight..." You can put your Straw men away and stop baiting.
Lol, I said that it would take a long time to reduce healthcare costs. You told me I didn't know what I was talking about.
Edit: Really, what's your deal? It's either obvious that it'll take a long time or I'm wrong. Take your pick.
|
On April 10 2014 10:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 08:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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. That's part of my point, that the words are used but different people have different understandings of what they mean, or what they would actually entail. 'Single-payer', 'Universal healthcare', whatever you want to call it. There are common sense solutions with statistical support that we could be doing several things different and empirically better. Having 'tried things since Nixon' isn't really relevant at all and there was no reason to even say it. I am talking about real options and strategies that have been in place and adjusting in several nations with different models for a long time now. And several years of a petulant Republican congress completely remiss in their duties. (Lines like that are exactly what I am talking about btw). YOU brought up what the phrase means, now it's "whatever you want to call it". lol. I'll point out that the ACA isn't going to do much to reign in the cost of healthcare - that's just not its main goal. And switching to a different system, say a single payer like in Canada, isn't some easy fix for heath-care costs. Day 1 everything would be just as expensive and we'd still have to spend many, many years to trying really, really hard to get costs down. Now you can't even get recent history that you can access right here right? I didn't bring it up. I enlightened someones understanding of what it meant (as it it falls under the actual implementation of what people are generally referring to when they use the term). We had come to terms about what our mis-communications were and settled it. Then you decided to white knight on his understanding despite us already concluding that issue. So for you it's whatever you want to call it. So if you want to call Canada 'single-payer' even though 2/3 of the people have private insurers meaning there must at least be 2 payers go ahead. But you can see why the point needs clarification? As for your assessment of the ACA and more specifically what a switch to a system 'like in Canada' has been shown by your recent assessments to be of little or no worth. Unless you opted to read up on how they actually work or what other variations and options are available (which would fly in the face of most of what you have said so far). Lol, Just to be clear 'single-payer' does not mean private insurance and healthcare disappears. I don't really know where this notion comes from? Because that's basically what happens. The government becomes the single payer. Finding a few scraps of healthcare where private insurance exists doesn't change that fact. It is not a "single payer" option, it's a single payer. The ACA with a government option would not be a single payer. If you think switching to a single payer would cut the price of healthcare in half overnight, you are laughably stupid. Your logic whiplash is painful. Any gains from discussing this with you Jonny have been exhausted. Not a single reasonable person thinks "switching to a single payer would cut the price of healthcare in half overnight..." You can put your Straw men away and stop baiting. Lol, I said that it would take a long time to reduce healthcare costs. You told me I didn't know what I was talking about.
You have essentially admitted that you don't.
Nothing between the vagueness of 'a very long time' and 'overnight'? <-- Do you see how this fits the trend I was talking about earlier (also how, in it's presented form, was almost completely irrelevant and basically a non sequitur in relation to the topic except through whatever tenuous connection you'll possibly draw now)?
|
On April 10 2014 10:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 10:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 08:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
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. That's part of my point, that the words are used but different people have different understandings of what they mean, or what they would actually entail. 'Single-payer', 'Universal healthcare', whatever you want to call it. There are common sense solutions with statistical support that we could be doing several things different and empirically better. Having 'tried things since Nixon' isn't really relevant at all and there was no reason to even say it. I am talking about real options and strategies that have been in place and adjusting in several nations with different models for a long time now. And several years of a petulant Republican congress completely remiss in their duties. (Lines like that are exactly what I am talking about btw). YOU brought up what the phrase means, now it's "whatever you want to call it". lol. I'll point out that the ACA isn't going to do much to reign in the cost of healthcare - that's just not its main goal. And switching to a different system, say a single payer like in Canada, isn't some easy fix for heath-care costs. Day 1 everything would be just as expensive and we'd still have to spend many, many years to trying really, really hard to get costs down. Now you can't even get recent history that you can access right here right? I didn't bring it up. I enlightened someones understanding of what it meant (as it it falls under the actual implementation of what people are generally referring to when they use the term). We had come to terms about what our mis-communications were and settled it. Then you decided to white knight on his understanding despite us already concluding that issue. So for you it's whatever you want to call it. So if you want to call Canada 'single-payer' even though 2/3 of the people have private insurers meaning there must at least be 2 payers go ahead. But you can see why the point needs clarification? As for your assessment of the ACA and more specifically what a switch to a system 'like in Canada' has been shown by your recent assessments to be of little or no worth. Unless you opted to read up on how they actually work or what other variations and options are available (which would fly in the face of most of what you have said so far). Lol, Just to be clear 'single-payer' does not mean private insurance and healthcare disappears. I don't really know where this notion comes from? Because that's basically what happens. The government becomes the single payer. Finding a few scraps of healthcare where private insurance exists doesn't change that fact. It is not a "single payer" option, it's a single payer. The ACA with a government option would not be a single payer. If you think switching to a single payer would cut the price of healthcare in half overnight, you are laughably stupid. Your logic whiplash is painful. Any gains from discussing this with you Jonny have been exhausted. Not a single reasonable person thinks "switching to a single payer would cut the price of healthcare in half overnight..." You can put your Straw men away and stop baiting. Lol, I said that it would take a long time to reduce healthcare costs. You told me I didn't know what I was talking about. You have essentially admitted that you don't. Nothing between the vagueness of 'a very long time' and 'overnight'? <-- Do you see how this fits the trend I was talking about earlier?
Lol, you insult me and I use hyperbole in response. Kinda normal.
What countries have successfully reduced healthcare spending by a significant amount, let alone in less than a very long time? Hrmm?
|
How about you two just stop talking to each other? it's obviously not going anywhere. I know arguing is fun; but it looks like it's gone past the point where it's enjoyable; and while yelling is fun to watch (ex: fox) it too gets boring if on the same topic for too long.
|
On April 10 2014 11:01 zlefin wrote:
How about you two just stop talking to each other? it's obviously not going anywhere. I know arguing is fun; but it looks like it's gone past the point where it's enjoyable; and while yelling is fun to watch (ex: fox) it too gets boring if on the same topic for too long.
Prolly a good idea 
|
On April 10 2014 10:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 10:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 10:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] 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. That's part of my point, that the words are used but different people have different understandings of what they mean, or what they would actually entail. 'Single-payer', 'Universal healthcare', whatever you want to call it. There are common sense solutions with statistical support that we could be doing several things different and empirically better. Having 'tried things since Nixon' isn't really relevant at all and there was no reason to even say it. I am talking about real options and strategies that have been in place and adjusting in several nations with different models for a long time now. And several years of a petulant Republican congress completely remiss in their duties. (Lines like that are exactly what I am talking about btw). YOU brought up what the phrase means, now it's "whatever you want to call it". lol. I'll point out that the ACA isn't going to do much to reign in the cost of healthcare - that's just not its main goal. And switching to a different system, say a single payer like in Canada, isn't some easy fix for heath-care costs. Day 1 everything would be just as expensive and we'd still have to spend many, many years to trying really, really hard to get costs down. Now you can't even get recent history that you can access right here right? I didn't bring it up. I enlightened someones understanding of what it meant (as it it falls under the actual implementation of what people are generally referring to when they use the term). We had come to terms about what our mis-communications were and settled it. Then you decided to white knight on his understanding despite us already concluding that issue. So for you it's whatever you want to call it. So if you want to call Canada 'single-payer' even though 2/3 of the people have private insurers meaning there must at least be 2 payers go ahead. But you can see why the point needs clarification? As for your assessment of the ACA and more specifically what a switch to a system 'like in Canada' has been shown by your recent assessments to be of little or no worth. Unless you opted to read up on how they actually work or what other variations and options are available (which would fly in the face of most of what you have said so far). Lol, Just to be clear 'single-payer' does not mean private insurance and healthcare disappears. I don't really know where this notion comes from? Because that's basically what happens. The government becomes the single payer. Finding a few scraps of healthcare where private insurance exists doesn't change that fact. It is not a "single payer" option, it's a single payer. The ACA with a government option would not be a single payer. If you think switching to a single payer would cut the price of healthcare in half overnight, you are laughably stupid. Your logic whiplash is painful. Any gains from discussing this with you Jonny have been exhausted. Not a single reasonable person thinks "switching to a single payer would cut the price of healthcare in half overnight..." You can put your Straw men away and stop baiting. Lol, I said that it would take a long time to reduce healthcare costs. You told me I didn't know what I was talking about. You have essentially admitted that you don't. Nothing between the vagueness of 'a very long time' and 'overnight'? <-- Do you see how this fits the trend I was talking about earlier? Lol, you insult me and I use hyperbole in response. Kinda normal. What countries have successfully reduced healthcare spending by a significant amount, let alone in less than a very long time? Hrmm?
No idea what 'insult' you're talking about but ok. I don't suppose that's how you explain all of those types of comments is it?
As for healthcare, you have already demonstrated that you generally operate from a position of ignorance in opposition of measures addressing issues you 'don't understand'. (Ledbetter discussion) I can already see the rabbit hole of what a 'very long time' or 'reduced healthcare spending' means etc.. etc.. And I'm not playing those petulant games with you.
If you want to suggest what you think could make the positive changes our healthcare system needs and how to reasonably accomplish them I might engage with that. But if you are going to keep up with the intentionally vague straw men qualifiers I'm not going to engage.
|
On April 10 2014 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 10:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 10:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2014 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
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. That's part of my point, that the words are used but different people have different understandings of what they mean, or what they would actually entail. 'Single-payer', 'Universal healthcare', whatever you want to call it. There are common sense solutions with statistical support that we could be doing several things different and empirically better. Having 'tried things since Nixon' isn't really relevant at all and there was no reason to even say it. I am talking about real options and strategies that have been in place and adjusting in several nations with different models for a long time now. And several years of a petulant Republican congress completely remiss in their duties. (Lines like that are exactly what I am talking about btw). YOU brought up what the phrase means, now it's "whatever you want to call it". lol. I'll point out that the ACA isn't going to do much to reign in the cost of healthcare - that's just not its main goal. And switching to a different system, say a single payer like in Canada, isn't some easy fix for heath-care costs. Day 1 everything would be just as expensive and we'd still have to spend many, many years to trying really, really hard to get costs down. Now you can't even get recent history that you can access right here right? I didn't bring it up. I enlightened someones understanding of what it meant (as it it falls under the actual implementation of what people are generally referring to when they use the term). We had come to terms about what our mis-communications were and settled it. Then you decided to white knight on his understanding despite us already concluding that issue. So for you it's whatever you want to call it. So if you want to call Canada 'single-payer' even though 2/3 of the people have private insurers meaning there must at least be 2 payers go ahead. But you can see why the point needs clarification? As for your assessment of the ACA and more specifically what a switch to a system 'like in Canada' has been shown by your recent assessments to be of little or no worth. Unless you opted to read up on how they actually work or what other variations and options are available (which would fly in the face of most of what you have said so far). Lol, Just to be clear 'single-payer' does not mean private insurance and healthcare disappears. I don't really know where this notion comes from? Because that's basically what happens. The government becomes the single payer. Finding a few scraps of healthcare where private insurance exists doesn't change that fact. It is not a "single payer" option, it's a single payer. The ACA with a government option would not be a single payer. If you think switching to a single payer would cut the price of healthcare in half overnight, you are laughably stupid. Your logic whiplash is painful. Any gains from discussing this with you Jonny have been exhausted. Not a single reasonable person thinks "switching to a single payer would cut the price of healthcare in half overnight..." You can put your Straw men away and stop baiting. Lol, I said that it would take a long time to reduce healthcare costs. You told me I didn't know what I was talking about. You have essentially admitted that you don't. Nothing between the vagueness of 'a very long time' and 'overnight'? <-- Do you see how this fits the trend I was talking about earlier? Lol, you insult me and I use hyperbole in response. Kinda normal. What countries have successfully reduced healthcare spending by a significant amount, let alone in less than a very long time? Hrmm? No idea what 'insult' you're talking about but ok. I don't suppose that's how you explain all of those types of comments is it? As for healthcare, you have already demonstrated that you generally operate from a position of ignorance in opposition of measures addressing issues you 'don't understand'. (Ledbetter discussion) I can already see the rabbit hole of what a 'very long time' or 'reduced healthcare spending' means etc.. etc.. And I'm not playing those petulant games with you. If you want to suggest what you think could make the positive changes our healthcare system needs and how to reasonably accomplish them I might engage with that. But if you are going to keep up with the intentionally vague straw men qualifiers I'm not going to engage.
I'm taking zlefin's advice and dropping the discussion. You're impossible to talk to and this isn't fun anymore.
|
Ford’s F-150 pickup truck is about as American as a vehicle can get. Not only has the iconic truck been the country’s top-selling vehicle for 32 straight years (and the top-selling truck for 37); they are also the most American-made. The giant F150 topped cars.com’s American-Made index last year, which measures where parts come from, where the car is assembled, and sales. But that could soon change. According to Morgan Stanley, Tesla vehicles could soon claim the top spot on that list, once the company’s much-vaunted $6-billion gigafactory to produce its own lithium-ion batteries is up and running. By then, more than 90% of the stuff used to build Tesla’s cars might be from America, according to Morgan Stanley, compared to 75% for the F-150. Of course, Tesla must first build the gigafactory, and then start producing batteries, before this even starts to become true. Here’s the company’s own projected timeline for the enormous project, which is expected to employ up to 6,500 people and produce more lithium-ion batteries than the entire industry currently does by 2020: + Show Spoiler +And to be fair, Ford recently announced that it would shift some of its truck production back from Mexico to the US, and people have been genuinely excited about “reshoring” of manufacturing for a while now. If that trend continues, competition for the most American-made car could become stiffer.
Source
|
On April 10 2014 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 05:08 Livelovedie wrote:
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? That's true and was the case before WW2 wage controls screwed it up. I didn't even think there would be people arguing a different case in this day and age. USPM enlightening once again!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/screen-shot-2014-04-09-at-10-31-41-am.png?w=842&h=473)
