Slashdot Mirror
Denver Latest City Hit By Viral Respiratory Infection That Targets Kids
A respiratory illness that almost exclusively infects children and for which there is no vaccine has struck Denver, Colorado, the latest in a series of infection clusters in the Midwest; one Denver hospital alone has treated more than 900 children for the illness since August 18, though no deaths have been reported.
Health officials believe that the sickness is related to a rare virus called human enterovirus 68 (HEV68), the [Denver] Post says. HEV68, first seen in California in 1962, and an unwelcome but highly infrequent visitor to communities worldwide since then, is a relative of the virus linked to the common cold (human rhinoviruses, or HRV), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ... HEV68, which almost uniquely affects children, tends to first cause cold-like symptoms, including body aches, sneezing and coughing. These mild complaints then worsen into life-threatening breathing problems that are all the more dangerous to children with asthma. Since viruses do not respond to antibiotics, hospitals have treated the illness with asthma therapies.
The effects are just taking a while to manifest. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Umm...because it's a fucking warning, so you don't have to wait until your kid is dead.
The death rate is apparently 0/900 so far. Sounds like pretty good odds.
I want to agree with you so badly because the GP is an obvious troll... but... Don't have to wait to do what until your kid is dead? There's no vaccine. Are you suggesting everyone should take their kids for asthma therapy right away?
And THAT is why it's news. Because it's a surprise and we are caught unprepared for it.
Yeah, except for the fact that there is no vaccine for this one.
What you think this sort of thing only happens in Africa and Mongolia? Central America is pretty famous for these things too. Tell you what, let's let every single person from some Central American fever swamp walk here and hang out with your kids. I'm sure when they're dead you can pat yourself on the back about your tolerance.
Think of the chickens!!!
Every time I see adaptions of existing virus'/fungi/etc I'm reminded of the fact we rely on 3 very crude methods for treating the vast majority of illness.
1) Anti-biotics (which is more of a biological bomb, destroying a large array of bacteria, almost completely untargeted)
2) Immune-system & healing aids (various types of steroids, NSAIDs, simply shoving things back in place, etc)
3) Brute force removal (surgical extraction and bypass)
Very few (by ratio - that's not to say there aren't hundreds of reasonably well developed, targeted drugs and therapies - unfortunately mostly patented) treatments have any form of sophistication at all, very few treatments have an advanced understanding of the underlying causes of the illness, and as such - very few treatments are massively effective or without side effects.
When are we going to come to grips with this and realise that between a monopolized pharmaceutical/medical-research industry and generally poor public funding, at this rate we're losing the race (at best, we do a quick sprint to bandaid a problem when it becomes a pandemic).
It's pathetic.
What segment of the population do you imagine investigates cures for things like this?
Nerds and geeks, boy, nerds and geeks.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
It's to be aware. Some parents overreact and take their kids to the hospital at the slightest sign of trouble. Those kids will surely be safe. On the other end of the spectrum (and I personally fall a bit closer to here, though not completely), there are people who tend to be quite conservative with estimating the severity of something. They may see the signs of something serious about to happen and sort of write it off as not such a big deal. They don't want to be that parent who freaks out and calls the doctor over everything. Maybe they'll look online and attempt to self-diagnose, see that it's not a serious issue, and just ride it out. And most of the time, they'll probably do a good job and be fine. But occasionally that course of action will fail on someone. Maybe it's an illness that looks similar to something less severe, or maybe it's some fast acting illness which, if you don't identify it correct very early, will be too late to treat successfully.
I think this serves as a good warning for parents at that end of the spectrum. If your kid has a cold and then starts showing breathing issues, you might not want to just try and ride this one out.
I have a feeling most docs will give out antibiotics for this anyway. It helps makes everyone feel like something is being done.
...when did Colorado become part of the Midwest?
So, school started a week ago and their is a sudden and unexpected rise in respiratory infections? People are really falling for this click bait? It's called a "COLD" and this has happened every year since summer break was introduced.
wow, you are one angry dude
I guess you could say it...
...Went viral.
*Puts on sunglasses*
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Dead people don't win much.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
[citation needed]
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Blame the parents that smoke around their kids.
From the CDC's Smallpox Fact Sheet (http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/overview/disease-facts.asp): "The last case of smallpox in the United States was in 1949."
Stop spreading racist lies.
As about 1 in 5 people admitted to a hospital acquire an infection they didn't have when they checked in, I wouldn't be so sure about those kids' safety.
What are you talking about small pox? If there were one case anywhere in the world, it would be headline news and mass panic. People would be lining up to get vaccinated for it, myself included as I was born after they stopped routinely vaccinating people for it.
Key words: 'so far'.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I always hated them because they didn't have milkshakes.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I have no problem with being concerned... The problem is how they intend to *control* people for their own good.
Remember back when NYC tried to ban soft drink cups over some set size? That's the kind of thing that government has no business trying to control though law. Public education programs are good things, but until you are able/willing to ban soft drinks totally, making the size of the cup a matter of law is stupid.
So the CDC has it's place, but trying to legislate personal/private behavior is not among them.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"Remember back when NYC tried to ban soft drink cups over some set size?"
I do, and I agree with that. Note: It in no way limited how much you could drink. You could still get seconds.
That was done becasue people, as a whole, will drink all there soda regardless off how much is their.
The size of all cup of soda was increasing dramatically.,
There where many good reason for that, none of which was 'control'.
"So the CDC has it's place, but trying to legislate personal/private behavior is not among them."
When it's health related, and what you do impacts others, then yes, they are doing what they should be doing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
As about 1 in 5 people admitted to a hospital acquire an infection they didn't have when they checked in, I wouldn't be so sure about those kids' safety.
OK, what I meant was, those kids are already probably going to the doctor anyway, so they'll most likely get the treatment they need. You don't need to warn those parents to take their kids to the doctor, because it's already happening.
That's a stupid reason to hate them considering they've had milkshakes for as long as I've been aware of them. Their cookies and cream shake is delightful. Only thing to watch out for is they don't refrigerate the whipped cream cannisters.
Yea, but.... "So Far" after 900 cases says that for now, this is not much of a risk, even to those in the high risk groups. More kids die from the flu, drowning and elevator accidents. I think the problem is a bit overstated. Heaven forbid we have some kind of virus that actually *does* kill kids get loose, oh wait, we already have that with Chicken Pox, Whooping cough, Mumps and the like, and that's just in the USA. Go overseas and there are a whole new raft of childhood illnesses that kill thousands....
Americans..... We are messed up.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Think of the chickens!!!
I thought it was about the cows....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
They're treating it with decongestants and broncodialors.
I always hated them because they didn't have milkshakes.
Huh? I was pretty sure they do..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
OK, consider this:
"HEV68, first seen in California in 1962, and an unwelcome but highly infrequent visitor to communities worldwide since then, is a relative of the virus linked to the common cold (human rhinoviruses, or HRV), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
And it seems to be specific to children.
What happened this summer in huge numbers?
Hundreds of thousands of kids from Central America showing up on our doorstep and being dumped around the country just in time for school to start. It first showed up in California, aka Northern Mexico.
You don't want him to show you he got that from, because it would just be a picture of his ass
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's a handy stat as partners are now often wise to the toilet seat excuse.
On the second thought...I'll just reply instead of moderating: the CDC isn't legislating anything. If you have a problem with the science the CDC is putting out, take it up with the scientists at the CDC. If you have a problem with the legislation based on the research from the CDC (or lack of being based on that), take it up with your Congress critter.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Liberals... Where does this stop then? What are the limits of government control of my private life?
I'm fond of making the argument that says... "If you take this to it's logical conclusion, you end up at .... " and in this case we have to make *clear* lines.
So, I'm 7ft tall 190 lbs. Why do YOU care if I want to down 64 Oz of my favorite soft drink from one cup? How does it matter to you? (Hint: It doesn't..) So tell me again why government should be involved in this?
And if you think they should be, then why don't we go whole hog here and mandate that people only be allowed 1500 Calories a day and enforce this by making it illegal to consume 1501 or more with huge fines? How about we mandate exercise too? 20 min of cardio a week for everybody.... Yea, that's the ticket.. How about we make every woman have exactly two children and force them to breastfeed? It reduces breast cancer you know..
Where does this end? In my world, I'm pointing back to first principles of SMALLER government and PERSONAL responsibility. What we need is for people to take an interest in taking care of themselves. That is ONLY going to happen when we start expecting people to be personally responsible for themselves and not blame all that is bad on something/somebody else or try and legislate personal choices... But I'm but a silly conservative..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Do your due diligence and Google it.
http://www.abc15.com/news/national/immigrants-bringing-diseases-across-border
1 second Google search
I'm with you on everything up until " I'm pointing back to first principles of SMALLER government and PERSONAL responsibility. "
.01%)?
That's all well and good, and should definitely be a goal for all. However...what do you think we should do with those who will fail the 'personal responsibility test'? This is where conservatives start mumbling. Most seem to be of the opinion 'Fuck off and die'.
That's where I differ. I'm all for personal liberty and all that, but I also realize that there will be people who will fail that test and end up destitute, homeless, a danger to themselves and others. Instead of letting stay homeless I think we should have a decent social safety net including housing, rehab centers, etc. I'm even for the creation of boarding schools for kids who live in horrible situations where it's clear the 'parent' is their largest impediment to a successful life.
Where would we get the money for this? How about the plutocracy (the
If you have a problem with the legislation based on the research from the CDC (or lack of being based on that), take it up with your Congress critter.
Oh how I wish that was how it worked in today's age. Now, the Executive branch has been ceded the right of law to pass regulations, this should NOT be. The DOE, IRS, EPA, HHS, FCC etc are now endowed with the ability to make regulations which can send you to jail if you violate them. Congress does write law, but we need to move back towards a form of government where ONLY congress makes law at the federal level, and do away with all these other regulation writing appendages of government.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Right. Like having your kid on a ventilator is fun thing to do. Walk in the park and all that.
There are unpleasant things in life short of dying: ICU admissions, taxes, politicians ...
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Scabies? Seriously?
RTFA
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
First this: .... "
""If you take this to it's logical conclusion, you end up at
Then:
"then why don't we go whole hog here and mandate that people only be allowed 1500 Calories a day and enforce this by making it illegal to consume 1501 or more with huge fines? How about we mandate exercise too? 20 min of cardio a week for everybody.... Yea, that's the ticket.. How about we make every woman have exactly two children and force them to breastfeed? It reduces breast cancer you know.."
and then:
"Where does this end? "
Clearly, you are a fan of the slippery slope argument. You should man up and admit it.
Since you need to make excuses fr you logical fallacy, then there is no talking to you. You won't be budged from you selfish, myopic attitude.
I could go on about neurology, human self control, impact to society, economics and a great many good reasons to limit cup size.
But you stopped thinking.
" That is ONLY going to happen when we start expecting people to be personally responsible for themselves and not blame all that is bad on something/somebody else or try and legislate personal choices."
And when person responsibility impacts other people?
"Liberals.."
then
"But I'm but a silly conservative.."
Stop making this political. My post is based on the neurological, and sociological sciences.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The specifically seeks out targets based on their age? Holy shit! We don't have a chance!
I'm with you on everything up until " I'm pointing back to first principles of SMALLER government and PERSONAL responsibility. "
This won't go well then, because Personal responsibility is fundamental to the founding of this country, in fact was WHY it was founded and why it's not a colony of Great Britain still.
That's all well and good, and should definitely be a goal for all. However...what do you think we should do with those who will fail the 'personal responsibility test'? This is where conservatives start mumbling. Most seem to be of the opinion 'Fuck off and die'.
Which you should fully know is NOT true if you are listening to what the advocates of "personal responsibility" are actually saying. One little known fact in the USA is that charitable contributions from the conservative right, far outweigh the contributions made by the left. The left has ceded the social responsibility to take care of the unfortunate to government, where the conservatives have not, so your characterization of my position is flat wrong. We don't mumble, we actually DO SOMETHING about the poor, directly, personally, and locally on our own. Yet liberals put their hands in their pockets and figure the government will take care of it.
So don't give me that garbage, it's just campaign rhetoric lies invented by the ones who want to be in charge of the biggest government they can.
That's where I differ. I'm all for personal liberty and all that, but I also realize that there will be people who will fail that test and end up destitute, homeless, a danger to themselves and others. Instead of letting stay homeless I think we should have a decent social safety net including housing, rehab centers, etc. I'm even for the creation of boarding schools for kids who live in horrible situations where it's clear the 'parent' is their largest impediment to a successful life.
So you still don't get it right? Personal responsibility does not run the opposite direction from providing help to the needy. I'm all for helping those who CANNOT help themselves (I give to charities for this very purpose) but I am NOT for enabling people to be free of responsibility for themselves. For those who are able, government help should be temporary and limited. If you want to better your station, you have my help, if you just want to sit back and complain about how bad things are or that you have to work too hard, I'm not inclined to be all that helpful.
Case in point. If you stand on a street corner asking for spare change "for a cup of coffee" expect me to offer to buy you a cup. I get cussed at about half the time, they don't want coffee, they want money, I don't give them a cent, but you take the coffee I'm likely to drop a few dollars in your hand. I've had poor people show up at my front door asking if I had any work they could do to earn something, and when they do, they are likely to get work from me, get paid well, get fed as much as I can come up with and sent away with leftovers. Show up with your wife and kids (as happened last week) and try and work hard, I'm going to over pay you and send you home with as much as I can without offending you with charity.
So, your characterization of conservatives is flat out wrong.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
" Now, the Executive branch has been ceded the right of law to pass regulations,"
false. But hey, fix news loves misrepresenting that.
" form of government where ONLY congress makes law at the federal level,"
Every president has issued executive orders, and this includes founding fathers that became president.
You do know that those agency you list where created, funded, and given their authority by congress, right?
Some of us have read history. Have read about why those agency's came to be, and what life was like before them.
For the most part, thy are needed to have a functioning society.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
SO? are you saying we should alert people this is happening? remind people that they need to wash their hands?
You're attitude is why Ebola is spreading. No one took it serious becasue it's always been so limited in the past so basic precautions where not taken.
When we have the elderly, people with other illness, etc.
No one is saying everyone needs to stay home. If we stay informed, take basic precautions, we can stop this from become a big deal.
You're one of the idiots who thinks because there wasn't a problem, then all the precautions and changes done ahead of time was useless, aren't you?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You know, you still haven't answered the question. Where does this end? What logical limits do you place on government? How big, how intrusive does it get in your view? When is it too big, too intrusive and how do we know we've reached that point? What are your governing principles on this?
Yes, I'm making logical arguments this illustrating my points by being absurd, that's no surprise, it's what I'm SAYING I'm doing. I'm asking your types to put logical limits in place so I can understand what your arguments, positions, actually are. Because as it stands, debating your types is like nailing jello to the wall. You can always claim "It's for the children" (or the poor, or this group or that) but what you don't want to discuss is where your limits are?
Personally, I think we've gone well past a federal government that is reasonable in size and scope and now have a behemoth out of control, unnecessarily expensive government that does too much and costs way too much. Where does it stop?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You're one of the idiots who thinks because there wasn't a problem, then all the precautions and changes done ahead of time was useless, aren't you?
No, I'm I guy who recognizes the dangers of a government that is too big, too intrusive, to expensive. And I'm asking those who think otherwise to explain what they think the logical limits of government SHOULD be. Do you have ANY principles that would limit the size and scope of government's reach into your life or are you just willing to go along with the "it's for the children" type arguments for bigger, more intrusive, more expensive government arguments?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If nobody has died why is this news? Slow news day?
Do you have children?
From the article -
HEV68, which almost uniquely affects children, tends to first cause cold-like symptoms, including body aches, sneezing and coughing. These mild complaints then worsen into life-threatening breathing problems that are all the more dangerous to children with asthma.
Sure, having your child day is way worse than having your kid really sick, but having a really sick kid is pretty horrible as well. That's why it's news.
I'm not saying Congress didn't do this, they did. I'm saying they should UNDO this arrangement.
Who is talking about executive orders but you? Yes, these exist and have been used by presidents past. Now the current administration may be pushing the boundaries of what is considered a LEGAL executive order, but I'm not addressing that situation. It's just going to be a question for the next campaign at least for me. I'm going to want to know what the candidates think the logical limits to executive orders might be and I suggest you ask the question too.
This is about what people think the limits on government should be. What are the principles we use to figure out when government gets too big, to complex, to intrusive? Do you have any ideas about that?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Having a kid on a respirator is better than watching them die (and yes I've done this), but it doesn't eliminate the FACT that nobody has died from this yet.
Are we SO self absorbed that we don't realize that kids are dying in Africa from Ebola? From Starvation even? Then we get all up in arms over a respiratory virus that hasn't killed anybody yet?
Yea, this is NOT a public health emergency, YET. It might get worse, if it does, people will likely die from it. But more kids die from car accidents on their way to school and this virus doesn't seem capable of becoming the leading cause of death. So far, the FLU has killed more kids this year.
Americans.... We stress out over the strangest things.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You lost your audience at 'libertards'.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I get what you are saying, but I HATE the 'charitable contributions' thing.
What if your problem is not something that the rich, or charity minded have donated for? What if you are living in a poor area of the country no charity has programs in?
What if your specific problem is something that mostly affects a group of people that the givers to charity hate?
What if you don't want a dose of the church of super wizard teachings while you eat your soup?
No, I EXPECT to have a functioning government that provides SECULAR services to all people in this country in a fair and even manner.
Providing for the basic welfare of citizens is the definition of government.. It's also in the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause
I've payed taxes since my first job, at 15 years old. If, god forbid, something happens and I find myself and my family down on our luck I expect to get fair and secular help from the government system that I have payed something in to the majority of my life.
Charity is fine and all, but I find it offensive that the richest government in the world, and many of it's citizens, seem opposed to providing basic services through public means.
You have bought into the biggest lie in this country. The President... CAN'T. DO. SHIT.
No, really.. It is all window dressing. You are spending so much time, like many Americans, worrying about the president, that you don't see the men behind the curtain.. CONGRESS.
Congress controls ALL SPENDING.. All of it.
There is nothing at all the president can do without the approval of congress.
He can't even get toilet paper to wipe his own ass in the white house without congress.
People bitch about 'the presidents budget'.. The president does not HAVE a budget.. Congress does.
The 'presidents budget' is not a budget at all, it is a spending request. Requests can be denied. And that 'budget' is only for the executive branch... He has not control over the others at all, and very little over his own when it comes down to it.
Remember when he said he would close Gitmo? Congress said no way and passed a spending amendment saying that no one in the government could spend a single cent on closing it. No pay for workers, no gas for boats or planes, no food for inmates, no money for a jail in the states, nothing.
And what happened.. It stayed open, at the will of congress.
But congress LOVES this. They love that they do whatever they want and just blame the current president, or the last one, or one 3 presidents ago.. And they just leave out the fact that they personally were in congress at the time and voted in favor of whatever it was.
Here are the two problems I have with "personal responsibility" and the "charitable contributions" thing.
First off, if you take away tithing to churches, conservatives give the same or less than liberals. I don't have a problem with tithing, but the thing is, it isn't fundamentally about helping people, or compassion, or social benefit. It's about propping up the expensive machinery of religious institutions, paying for giant buildings, high-tech entertainment equipment, and the most dynamic public speakers... er...pastors. This kind of "charitable giving" has more in common with country club dues than it does with giving money to the homeless guy on the street or the starving child in another country.
My other beef is that results should matter more than ideals. I'm all for helping people to help themselves, and aiming for an ultimate goal of self-sufficiency rather than government dependency, but the thing is, there are some very good indications that the best way to help people re-integrate into society is through handouts. For instance, in Utah some beancounter realized that the average cost to the state of a homeless person was around $15k a year from police/legal interactions, unpaid emergency room visits, etc... which happens to be less than it would cost to give that homeless person a home. So, they provided a "handout" of a basic apartment, for free, with the only stipulation being that if the person got a job, 30% of the income would go towards rent. The program has been a roaring success. I'm also reminded of the welfare drug tests, which were intended to prevent junkies from getting government assistance, and which caught so few people that it ended up costing much more from testing than it saved by excluding people.
My point is, it is fine to be all about personal responsibility. But what matters to you, ultimately - is it people becoming more self-sufficient, responsible, and productive? Or is it making sure that nobody gets a handout that isn't earned? Because the latter seems to be the real subtext behind many conservative efforts.
The CDC says that approximately 90,000 people die each year as a result of acquiring an infection while in a hospital. Almost all of those deaths could be avoided if doctors, nurses, and other hospital staff would simply wash their hands and use hand sanitizers regularly and properly.
That is, regular hand washing in hospitals could save about twice as many people as Obamacare's supposed ubiquity for about $1T less. Recall that during the run-up to Obamacare there was the proclamation that "45 thousand people die every year because they don’t have health insurance".
This number comes from a Harvard study, so it is pronounced with great reverence and seldom questioned or considered. The study is widely available on the internet, and I suggest you read it. While reading it consider the point-of-view of one of the authors: according to the NIH website "Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler helped found Physicians for a National Health Program, a not-for-profit organization for physicians, medical students, and other health care professionals who advocate a national health insurance program." Of course, the number quoted is the highest number in the study, and comes about only when using criteria suggested by the Urban Institute. The lower end of the estimated range is 27424, or a just about 50% less, albeit this covers only ages 25-64. Ignoring the Urban Institutes guidelines, the number provided is 35327 deaths annually for the non-elderly (ages 18-64), compared to the larger number 44789.
Well, true. After all this time I don't know why I continue to be surprised.
To be clear, you don't want the IRS to have the power to prosecute those who don't pay their taxes or are fraudulent in reporting them? If that's what you meant I would ask that you rethink the consequences of having no repercussions for not paying your taxes.
You don't happen to work for one of those big US telecom companies like AT&T or Comcast do you? Is that why you want to get rid of the FCC regulations and those pesky Net Neutrality folks?
How about this as a way to cut the spread of germs? Pick a surface that lots of people touch, like the handle of a bathroom door. Wash the door handle. Take a washcloth and pump Purell or Germ-X into it. Attach the washcloth to the door handle with clean rubber bands. Every hour, pump more Purell into the washcloth; and every day, replace the washcloth.
Now if I open the door with dirty hands, most germs that I transfer to the washcloth are killed by the Purell. And the Purell in the washcloth will kill lots germs on my hands, so that I will be less likely to spread germs elsewhere.
This isn't a substitute for washing hands. But since kids don't wash hands like they should, it should help.
A doctor would have to approve this. Would someone have an allergic reaction to Purell or Germ-X? Is it safe to touch these gels if you have a cut on your hand?
And some non-medical concerns: If I'm wearing a ring, I don't want the ring to catch on the washcloth as I pull my hand away from the doorknob. (I might lose my finger!) Also there would have to be a carpet under the doorknob. We don't want people to slip on any Purell that drips from the washcloth.
Lighten' up Francis.
-1, crack-addled
Regulation is explicitly the job that the executive branch is for. Knowing the difference between regulation an law seem to me an important prerequisite to discussing regulation and law.
Why do you hate Original Intent?
Shesh, What do you THINK matters to me? You question my motives, yet you don't answer the posed question. You dismiss, with no real evidenced, that your opinion of conservatives are somehow unfeeling and don't care. That is offensive to conservatives, who care very much about these things. It's like running campaign ads showing some candidate pushing granny over some cliff in a wheelchair, it sends a message that is NOT TRUE. I'm willing to stipulate that liberal believe they care, but you are going to have to put away the naivete that says your side has the corner of the market on caring because your side doesn't.
You do understand that you are falling for a political stereotype on your part right? It would be equivalent to me saying you are a socialist or communist (which I am NOT saying.... yet) so be fair here and answer the posed question.
Do you have ANY principles that would limit the size of government? Do you have ANY limiting principles beyond "As long as it doesn't cost me directly!"? If so, what are they?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Huh? Who said THAT?!?!
Are you trollin or somethin here?
As I understand "original intent" it is what I'm arguing FOR.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
To be clear, you don't want the IRS to have the power to prosecute those who don't pay their taxes or are fraudulent in reporting them? If that's what you meant I would ask that you rethink the consequences of having no repercussions for not paying your taxes. You don't happen to work for one of those big US telecom companies like AT&T or Comcast do you? Is that why you want to get rid of the FCC regulations and those pesky Net Neutrality folks?
No, I'm saying Congress should be writing the law, including what we now do in "regulation" themselves and not ceding this responsibility to others. Congress has created way to many of these entities, and needs to do away with some of them and severely limit the scope of the rest. So if we deem the IRS or the FCC necessary, they can stay, but we need to CAREFULLY think though the authorizations used to justify them and keep only what's necessary to fulfill the constitutional purpose of the Federal government and toss the rest by taking the 10th amendment seriously.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
What original AC is saying is that our current medicine doesn't resemble Star Trek style ... We drop blanket bombs into our bodies with the expectation that the evil bits will die a whole lot faster than the good bits, and by the time the evil bits are dead, the good bits are still in a good enough shape to regenerate.
No that is NOT what we do for practically anything but chemotherapy for most cancers (where the difference from normal tissue is very small - a few mutations in signaling systems) and the main difference is that being stuck in reproduction mode makes them somewhat less robust.
Antibiotics are all about targeting one or another chemical mechanism that has one form in the target organism when its equivalen has another - or is absent - in human tissue. There are a LOT of drugs that have been discovered or designed, and the collection consists of enormous numbers of "magic bullets" that each target just one, or a small set, of systems found in particular pathogenic lifeforms, with either negligible, or far lower, side-effects on other systems.
Sure many antibiotics hit a wide range of NON-human life - pathogens and others - because THEY share susceptable versions of the target system or contain systems that are strongly side-effected. Sure the doctors sometimes have to pick drugs with bad side-effects because those are the best choices they have. But the characterization of antibiotic and antiviral drugs as "blanket bombing" has been out of date for more than half a century.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
t's like running campaign ads showing some candidate pushing granny over some cliff in a wheelchair, it sends a message that is NOT TRUE.
It's 100% TRUE.
Making vulnerable elderly people navigate a maze of privatized voucher sharks while their cognitive abilities are diminishing is EXACTLY like pushing them over a cliff. All that taxpayer money is going to be siphoned into the pockets of shysters.
And no, you DON'T give a shit about it. All you obviously care about is "derp derp! The guvmt is too big!! derp!"
to have all of those grownups running around stopping you from making a mess of everything at everyone else's expense. I'd invite yo to leave, but the countries that would accept a self-centered idiot wouldn't have any infrastructure for you to leech off of.
Shesh, What do you THINK matters to me? You question my motives, yet you don't answer the posed question.
Wait, what? I don't know which question you're talking about. What I'm saying is that we've got some example of handouts (as in, things given to people with no strings attached and which are in no way "earned") that produce lasting positive results. There's a trend recently in charity for this too - some of the most efficient and productive charities allow contributors to directly transfer cash to people in impoverished areas, with the idea that poor people know what they need the most, and will thus be the best qualified to decide how to lift themselves out of poverty.
That is offensive to conservatives, who care very much about these things.
I have no doubt that conservatives care very much for people, and many of them truly believe that smaller government, limited handouts, etc, is the best way to fix our country's problems. The thing is, I think that belief is, in some cases, totally wrong. And, I think there's an incredibly powerful rhetorical apparatus that keeps producing these arguments that appeal to basic values (of course everybody is for personal responsibility) while having very little merit in terms of producing effective policy.
Do you have ANY principles that would limit the size of government? Do you have ANY limiting principles beyond "As long as it doesn't cost me directly!"? If so, what are they?
Sure I do. Let's limit government when there are clear problems. Let's cut military spending and limit cost-plus funding. Let's cut back some government regulation of nuclear power so there are less barriers to entry. Let's limit congress's control over NASA - allow them to set a budget but not control decisions and funding on specific programs. My thing is, I think ideals are all well and good, but they need to be secondary to what really matters - finding the best and cheapest way to accomplish a given goal. When appeals to personal responsibility are used to justify policy that is both more expensive and less effective, we have a problem.
When it's health related, and what you do impacts others, then yes, they are doing what they should be doing.
Based on your methods and logic above we need your cell phone number, home address and a schedule of where you will be for the next 24 hours. We are sending a team to duct tape your mouth and disable your ability to type. Our research shows listening to you talk and/or reading your posts is giving multiple people brain aneurisms. We intend to stop this is the most effective way. By preventing you from doing so. Comply!
that anything that effects anyone else should be ignored, since it distracts everyone from important things like my convenience and comfort.
think they can scapegoat around decent people and think they can get away with it?
So.. Let me see if I understand you....
You say "Let's limit government when there are clear problems."
This is not a limit. You can invent a "clear problem" to cover any expenditure by digging out the example of why you don't care if you don't support that "clear problem" x doesn't deserve a government solution.
So, unless you can define "clear problem" to be somehow limited, I don't think you've put any limits on government out of principle. You have said that it's up to me coming up with a definition that YOU would agree is a "clear problem". Problem with this is there are PLENTY of problems out in the world, many are clearly defined, but most have no practical solution. You see this is the logic used to bludgeon the right when we start talking about even reducing the growth of government. The horror! You'd cut funding for Children?!? You must be uncaring bad people to want to do that... (see where this goes with your definition?)
Also, this is NOT one of the principles upon which the USA was founded. "Clear problem" is not part of our founding documents and is a nebulous squishy statement that you and I could not use to come to an agreement about what the principled thing to do is. In fact, I would content that this is EXACTLY what the left does. They make the case that some social program needs to be done, then we get regaled by stories about how "Julia" has a cradle to grave dependance on government and all would be great if we just could have this one last things.. (The last of which is Obama Care, and look how messed up that is)
As to the rest of your post about military spending and all the rest, you are barking up the absolute wrong tree. I'm not saying the military doesn't waste a lot of money, only that it's not where the majority of the money gets wasted. It may be a "waste" to you, but I caution you that out of all the things the Federal Government spends on "The common defense" is just about the ONLY thing it has a constitutional mandate to spend money on. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Education, etc are things we've added long after the framers where dead and buried.
So, do you have an REAL limits to what government should do? How far can it go to address a "Clear Problem"? Or do you wish to refine that limit some more? I hope you do, because for now, it's not really a limit and unlimited government is not in anybodies best interest.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
From the article:
Cabrera says the sickness doesn't stop at scabies.
“We are starting to see chicken pox, MRSA staph infections, we are starting to see different viruses,” Cabrera said.
As I understand "original intent"
And, like everyone is explaining to you, you don't understand the original intent of the executive branch, and the various agencies under its umbrella.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Nice try... But you are apparently re-defining "original intent" here.
What the INTENT was for the creating of the Department Of whatever is not the question. What is the question is both the advisability of their creation and constitutionality of how they now operate. I.E. What the framers of the constitution would say about how all this works now. I dare say, they would not be pleased as they obviously did not envision the mammoth size and scope of the Federal government and took steps to keep this from happening. Have you read the constitution lately? The Bill of Rights? Specifically the 10th amendment? So what did they originally intend? Not what we have now.
Don't believe me? Then you need to read their arguments about what the constitution said. I suggest the Federalist Papers as a start.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
What I'm saying is that limiting the size of government is not in and of itself a good thing, and no, I don't have a principle that says "government should always be limited at point X". That's because unbending ideals in this case don't make sense. Sometimes you need more government (more wall street regulations would be good IMO) and sometimes you need less (ITAR regulations, or the ridiculous amount of red tape for building a nuclear power plant). The world is complicated, and policy is complicated, and so it isn't appropriate to pretend there are simple one-size-fits-all answers.
I'm all for constitutionality, but it isn't a perfect document and we have a provision to amend it for that reason. However, I agree with you that we should follow proper legal channels to institute policy, up to and including amending the constitution. I also understand why the federal government pushes the boundaries of power, because it's really a legal question and it's up to the judicial branch to decide what the bounds of the constitution actually are.
Okay, if you want a hard limit on government, what should it be? 23.4% of GDP? 6,342 pages of laws and only 9,634 pages of regulations with the force of law? I'd say that the size of government should depend on the situation.
Therefore, how large the government should be is a political decision. If you think the government's too big, there are political movements you may want to support. Other people who don't have hard limits in mind probably don't want an all-encompassing government either, and arguing that is the slippery slope fallacy.
BTW, the ACA has given millions of people health insurance, so the country is better insured than it was. It's not nearly the law it should be, but it has had positive effects.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
OK, then we generally agree that what we have now is beyond what the framers intended. Where we differ is on the advisability of what we have done to date.
But I also think that we need to be STRICT in our understandings of original intent and accept nothing less from our judges. You see, the reason we are here is that many in the USA believe that the Constitution is squishy, that it can have all kinds of interpretations, that I can choose to read it in any way that I like. They DON'T think that original intent is a valid argument, that we can simply "redefine the words" and change it's meaning as the language changes. We have a lot of judges who follow such views, who don't mind refactoring the constitution to fit what they want it to say, not what the framers intended it to say. This practice needs to stop. Because you are right, there IS an amendment process prescribed, and we should be forced to use one of those processes to change the meaning of the constitution, to alter or clarify what the framers intended and how this country should work in the modern world. We should NOT be allowing our judges to rule on any other basis but original intent, and if that doesn't allow us to do what needs to be done, we must go though the hard process of proposing and ratifying amendments.
But there is at least one party in this country which does not hold fast to such ideals, where original intent is not the measuring stick used to evaluate the judges they nominate, but the judge's stand on the social issues of the day are more important. This kind of thing subverts the whole process and needs to stop... See where this goes?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
BTW, the ACA has given millions of people health insurance, so the country is better insured than it was. It's not nearly the law it should be, but it has had positive effects.
You are drinking the blue stuff... Look, the ACA has not added to the insurance rolls, and in fact has been close to a wash (assuming the unverifiable numbers from HealthCare.gov can be trusted.) But the main selling points where 1. Increase coverage by 70 Million (everybody will have insurance) [FAILED], 2. Costs would go down [FAILED], and 3. You can keep your doctor [Not exactly true], 4. You can keep your insurance [Not true for most of us].
I'm being charitable on the enrollment counts vrs the number of people who lost health insurance because of the ACA too. I'm pretty sure that we have LESS people insured than we had before and certainly we didn't get 70 Million onto the insurance rolls. Don't get me started on the website issues being a harbinger of how these kinds of programs go.. Oh my..
So, if you want to trumpet something from the left's social programs, I suggest you pick something else. Obamacare is so far a abject failure that hasn't made progress on ANY of it's stated goals that has and will cost us trillions. Hopefully it can be done away with in about 2.5 years.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
will drink all there soda regardless off how much is their.
So close man, so close.
In modern society no man is an island unto himself. The activities of a person will with near certainty have consequences for others to some degree whether good or bad. You hold up a soft drink cup as an example of absurdity. Allow me to illustrate how it is otherwise. The reality is that that 64oz soft drink is of course not the first and only incident of reckless over consumption of sugar but rather a example of a lifestyle of over consumption. At some point this lifestyle begins to manifest health consequences for which medical care is required such as for diabetes and coronary disease. The cost of which saps money from the person's respective health insurance pool and/or increases the hospital's un-reimbursed expenses. Either of which end up driving up costs for everyone else in the healthcare system. Along the way, numerous people have been inconvenienced by incidents both significant and otherwise whether by their larded person spilling out from the boundary of their airplane seat into yours or simply by disgusting them with their lack of personal care.
If the activities of a person have negative consequence on others it becomes their concern. In modern society the central agency through which these concerns are redressed is government.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
With all due respect to the "framers," I don't give a damn what the "framers" had in mind. They were not gods, they were far from infallible and most certainly not soothsayers. What they had in mind was a pre-industrial revolution society with its concerns and ambitions.
What they penned on paper gave this country a starting point, but it in no way should be the conclusion. The farther we travel in time from the point of their authorship the more limited the scope of understanding those documents will have. A cursory examination of government at every level will quickly testify to this point.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Well, the founders bestowed power upon the judicial branch to interpret legal documents like the constitution. Meaning is almost never absolutely clear - any document written in any humanly invented language will always contain ambiguity that must be addressed. If the supreme court weren't making official, binding rulings about what the intent of the document is, who would be? You can disagree with their interpretations, but you are getting dangerously close to the thing you originally complained about - painting one political party as scheming villains and questioning their motives, without an ounce of proof.
The truth of it is, some people think the judicial branch is too liberal in their interpretation of the constitution, some people think the current interpretation is too conservative. Every politically active person I know genuinely believes they are fighting for the right interpretation and the right way forward for the country. I personally find it distasteful to let team loyalty and blind ideology prevent us from recognizing good solutions - let's be pragmatic and look at what works, regardless of who came up with it.
You have stepped out on the slippery slope with both feet and I'm not so sure you realize it.
My Healthcare is NOT your business, nor are my choices about what I eat. Why do I say this? Remember the HIPPA rules? My medical care is SUPPOSED to be between me and my doctors, only after the government inserted itself in the health care did such things become important to government, and this NEVER should have been the case. All sorts of things get justified this way, because all you need to do is come up with a reason it costs the government (heck, invent a program to make that true) and volia, you have a "right" to mandate things in law. You see, now that we have universal health care, we will have HHS telling doctors what treatments we can get, which ones we can't get. Don't fool yourself, people will use your EXACT logic to make it happen. We will all end up going to a health care system that resembles what the VA is today, it's just a few short steps away and with your logic there is nothing to stop it.
So, I'm guessing you are not for what NSA does, snooping on your phone calls, yet you want the government to intrude even more into our lives? If so, Do you see the logical problem you have? On one hand you decry the NSA's data collection efforts that include information about you, but you don't have a problem with a law that intrudes into my personal life because you think it's for my own good.
I don't want to be involved in your personal life, AT ALL. That includes passing laws that govern how you must live, who you associate with, what you read, what you say or what you eat. In return, I would ask that you return the favor. Everybody needs to take responsibility for their OWN lives and we all need to keep our noses out of each others business, either directly or by using government to pass laws.
Government's place should be to make sure that there is fairness on the playing field and the field level. They should remove players who are unable to play fairly and the criminals (jail). Government should protect those who are incapable of playing and even help coach substandard players so they can play better, but for the most part, government should not be part of the game. The rest of us should be free to play the game as we see fit, doing what works for us. It's what Freedom, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is supposed to be. People with your logic are allowing freedom to be stripped away, bit by bit. Please consider carefully what I'm saying, for all our good.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So, can we not agree that "original intent" *should* be what is used to interpret the constitution? That we should be appointing judges who have this ideology?
Because I don't care what "team" you are on or if you consider yourself your own player, there is grave danger in the abandonment of "original intent" in the courts. We simply MUST be appointing judges with the correct ideology, regardless of party, and I firmly feel that seeking "original intent" based judges is the ONLY logical way this can work. Anything else is folly and will destroy us. My reasons for saying so are plain and logical.
Yet, you would accuse me of political bias? My argument is from history, from logic, not from political association or rhetoric. How anything other than "original intent" can be tolerated by the public is something that amazes me. As a people we have forgotten from where we came, many now look upon our forefathers in scorn and tolerate such errors in logic like the one I've been arguing cannot continue, if we are to survive as the same country, on the same principles as we where founded. If we abandon these principles, we will do so to our discredit, and destroy what we inherited, a free country, purchased and kept free for 200+ years by the blood of it's patriots and our forefathers. This is not about politics...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
With all due respect to the "framers," I don't give a damn what the "framers" had in mind.
Then go away.
Look, if we don't intend to interpret our laws based upon what the laws where intended to mean when they where written, then what's the use of having courts? What's the use of having any laws to start with? They apparently don't mean anything today if they can mean something else tomorrow.
What the *framers* (the guys that authored the document, argued about it and signed it) wanted it to mean *IS* important. IF you don't want to admit that, then I'm not sure if we have any common ground from which to continue a discussion on, much less would I want to try. All you need do is go back and re-interpret anything you wrote to suit your current logical needs and leave me trying to nail jello to the wall. No thanks, I have better things to do than debate the equivalent of astrophysics with a 2 year old who cannot read.
Go ahead, stick your tongue out at me..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
In the case of US Federal Law, law is made by majority vote in two chambers, and is then signed by the President. 536 people are therefore potentially involved in this process, and not one of them needs to share the same intentions as any other of them in order to play their part in ratifying the bill. They need only vote; their vote will count the same if they share the same intent as their colleagues, if they do not share the intent of their colleagues, and indeed, if they have no particular intention, and are voting solely because their party whip handed them a note saying "be on the Senate floor at 9:36pm and say 'Aye'." Their vote will count even if they are falling-down drunk or if they have not even read the bill under consideration.[7] All of which is to say that giving effect to the intent of the legislature not only presumes that there is a singular intent – no less dubious an assertion where statutes are concerned than where the Constitution is – but, worse yet, the very diversity of these bodies may permit a judge to corrupt his inquiry by finding a floor statement or committee report which suggests an intent that the Judge thinks would be a good result.[8]
So, we have to look at what was written, figure out what it was meant to do (as best as we can) and figure out what impacts it may have, which may very well extend far beyond any effect the legislation's originators ever intended, and hopefully make a decision that optimally accounts for the technicalities of the text, the inferred meaning, and the anticipated impacts. Little wonder the founding fathers thought to dedicate an entire branch of government to this task.
Liberals disagree with you about what the original intent was. Saying that they don't care about original intent is just a flimsy strawman argument.
I disagree with that last statement. I've never heard a liberal attempt to justify their position on a legal decision based on the author's intent. I've only heard them start making vague statements about how it *should* mean something else, about how the constitution is flexible and needs to be living (i.e. changing) in today's world. In fact, *that* is exactly what is taught in public schools and colleges today. My daughter just got done having a debate with her professor about this and he certainly wasn't interested in what the authors of the constitution intended. He had some other really strange views too, but I'm not sure he wasn't attempting to stimulate the argument with the rest.
My point is, the rank and file liberal is not concerned about original intent, they are concerned about how the ruling will advance their cause and argue from that perspective. When I bring up the original intent issue, they don't usually know what I mean, or if they do, quickly dismiss the issue. I've never had one address the issue, or argue that the framers where arguing for their view.
Take the latest Hobby Lobby case. Clearly the majority in this case was reading the original intent of the law, where the descent was all over the place and argued all sort of "unintended consequences" of the decision that hadn't gone their way. They where NOT arguing original intent, they didn't argue from the meaning of the law as written, they argued their position based on what they thought the results of the ruling would be.
So, I'm willing to discuss original intent with any liberal who cares to think about it. There are some valid questions to be raised at time, but I find few willing and fewer able. This isn't a straw man argument, where I define my opponents position and sweep them away, but I won't sit here and engage in much debate with somebody who won't acknowledge the logic of original intent having merit.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I suggest the Federalist Papers as a start.
Funny. Every time I read them, they say the exact opposite of what people like you pretend they say. Democracy vs Republic is still my favorite and most blatant example.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
It is trivially easy to think of an example where the intent is the fundamental point of dispute: the ACLU vs. the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment.
Ultimately, BOTH sides choose interpretations to further their agendas. Very few people earnestly go to a document to see what it says, and in truth, the set of laws that are laid out in our founding documents are not complete without the centuries of precedent and supreme court interpretation clarifying their intent and application.
I would say you are viewing the intent in the Hobby Lobby case to suit your agenda. An absurd amount of activity has been justified under free speech, Citizens United being a prime example, where the supreme court ruled that corporations, first of all, are people, and secondly, are entitled to use money to influence political processes, which means that money is considered speech. In what universe is this the intention of "no law shall be made abridging the freedom of speech"!? Hobby Lobby was more of this (IMO) dubious first amendment interpretation, where the rights of a corporation to make religious choices for their employees overruled the rights of those individual employees to make their own religious choices.
It is easy to sit on a high horse and believe you are the one who respects the constitution while your enemies ignores it, but that world only exists in the mind of blind partisans. It is less easy to be sure of yourself when you admit that you interpret the constitution one way while others interpret it another way, but that world is the one we live in. Stop demonizing liberals, or at least if you insist on doing it, stop whining when they demonize you right back. Everybody is trying to do the best thing for the country, the only difference is the approach.
Uh oh. Careful. Citing the 10th amendment and all. That sounds suspiciously like big government adding to what the Constitution says. Our illustrious founding fathers must be rolling in their graves.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
I admire your courage to look eminent peril in the face and say "I shall refrain from salvation, from optimal solutions for they are found whereupon the slippery ground resides. I shall stick to my principles and hold tight to the letters of old come what may. Compassion, facts, evidence, fear be damned the pen strokes of men long turned to dust shall be my rod, my compass till I join them in perpetual slumber at the end of my journey."
Setting aside your straw men... I perceive that your position is basically the same as most everyone else providing such speech. "Don't tread on my but let me tread upon you in what ever manner suits my taste." The founding fathers for whom you purport to hold esteem also held to the belief that government should be represented by and for the purpose of the interests of it citizens. Yet, your position, your arguments, all run scared from any notion that would result in you ceding control over any facet of your life to government. If your position was taken at face value and implemented accordingly you would come away with having precious little control. Notions of beverage size would be a distant memory. In its place would be countless individuals operating according to their own principles treating and being treated as paving stones to be tread upon.
Thank you though for that amusing citation of HIPPA though. In any other context, a piece of legislation that your kind would hold up as the quintessential definition of government overreach. I'm assuming you read it right? No? I'll give you a hint, the privacy bit was but a pinch of sugar to make the medicine go down. It really had little to do with the bulk of that legislation.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
The figures I've seen are that lots more people are insured, but I'd have to ask my friend where he got them. Insurance companies are openly competing on price now, with openly stated prices for comparable services, and with group-style rates, and that's gotta be good. The website was something of a success for projects that large, in that it was salvageable within months.
My guess is that, in 2.5 years, there will be too many people depending on the ACA to allow repeal.
As far as costing money, yes, it wasn't well done. However, if we could cut down our health care costs per capita to something like Germany's (the next biggest spender) we'd save hundreds of billions per year. US health care is incredibly expensive.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Your continued attempts to paint me as logically inconsistent because of the examples I'm using to show YOUR inconsistencies is noted. That I use a regulation as an example, is not equivalent to me agreeing with it. In FACT, I was poking holes in your argument using a regulation that was generally well supported (if not foisted on us) by the left and comparing it to your voiced position that my health was government's (i.e. and thus your) business. Both the ACA and HIPPA are products of the left's ideology and have little direct constitutional support for their existence; banning large soft drink cups from the 7-11 is the same kind of thing. You got painted into a corner.
I see your last response as an attempt to spin out of a loosing position which doesn't advance this debate. Admit it, you have paint on the bottom of your shoes as you left footprints on your way out.
So are we going to advance here or are you going to insist that I cannot carry on a logical argument? Because if we are not advancing in at least understanding each others positions, I have better things to do and I bet you do to.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I suggest you look long and hard at your information sources. But the problem here is that nobody is actually releasing "real" signup numbers. Who knows what HHS is actually feeding us as "signups" on the websites. They won't actually tell us what their numbers mean and all they don't tell you that there is no way they can know if a "sign up" actually has paid their premiums or not. I've heard that nearly 50% haven't, but we don't know if that's true so I don't go around saying that it is. I DO know one person who 'signed up" and then didn't proceed to pay the premiums personally. She did so to figure out exactly what her costs would be, what kind of subsidies she would receive and then decided that medicaid was better with her unemployment situation. I'm sure she's not alone. So I know that the numbers from HHS are not reflective of new insurance policy holders and strangely showed the exact numbers needed to break even, being an election year that is suspect to me.
Also, the ACA has only increased what insurance costs for all of us. Take away the subsidies and the average person is paying more, LOTS more for insurance. Premiums went up for nearly everybody, deductibles went up in most cases, out of pocket maximums when up for many, and millions lost their employer provided insurance to be tossed onto the exchanges. These numbers are pretty well known and verified.
So the ACA remains a failure on all the points used to sell it. You want to put the rose colored glasses on and say "it will get better!" and I'm firmly in the "Government programs have never done that before". Face it, we are 6 years into this thing which has yet to be fully implemented because this administration has openly extended the deadlines. It's not going to get better without some changes, and changes to the ACA are "off the table" according to Obama's statements over the government shutdown mess last year. The ACA's popularity continues to fall along with the prospects of the Democrats who tied their success to this misguided law, and there is a good reason for that...
Go get your own numbers, primary sources preferred. Forget what your "friend" is telling you, he's a blue cool-aid drinker and either doesn't know better or is misleading you on purpose.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It is trivially easy to think of an example where the intent is the fundamental point of dispute: the ACLU vs. the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment.
So let's talk about that in terms of original intent then, it's a good example of how this works... Looking at original intent, what DOES the 2nd amendment say? What did the founders intend when they wrote that? What right where they trying to protect?
The text of it says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
During the 2nd world war, it was said by military leaders in Japan that they NEVER wanted to invade the USA because "there was a gun behind each front door". I think this was the intent of the framers, to provide an intrinsic armed populace that could muster a defense of the country. That's how the revolutionary war was initially waged, private arms owned by private citizens, fighting for their independence.
So what's the left's out from the "the right of the people to keep and bare Arms, shall not be infringed?" I don't know, but it seems to me that it is a whole lot more strained interpretation that says something like "What's a well regulated Militia?" and how is that related?
So, at risk of misstating your side on this debate, what IS the original intent argument here that supports this "Ban Guns" mantra of the ACLU? I'll let you respond.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Right.... So, do you want to continue discussing original intent as a logical position or do you want to keep pulling things out of context to suit your arguments...
Care to point out what "inconsistency" you are pointing at in the Federalist Papers? Which article should I read?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This is pretty simple. The text says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If we were to rewrite this in more modern and familiar language, we might say "Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The ACLU's line is that the intent of this amendment is that a militia has a right to keep and bear arms, which says nothing at all about personal individual ownership. I'm not necessarily saying I agree, but it is certainly a reasonable interpretation - otherwise, why did the founding fathers include the bit about militias at all?
The modern NRA interpretation of the second amendment infers a whole lot of stuff there that isn't obvious to me. Sometimes they speak as though it is intended that individuals could rise up and overthrow their democratically elected government, but I don't see that implied in the text. Often the argument is made that people have a right to self-defense, police times are slow, it is part of our country's heritage, etc, but none of those have anything to do with the second amendment. My point is that the NRA interprets the constitution to fit their agenda just as much as the ACLU or anybody else.
So I think it's clear that conservatives don't have a monopoly on constitutionality and that multiple interpretations are possible. Partisan politics are almost entirely one giant straw-man - paint the other party as a bunch of lunatics, crooks, or idiots, and subtly inflame any cultural differences you can find. Then ask for donations, pay to dump more rhetoric into the machine, and hope that you've gotten more people worked up than your opponent. Things would be very different if we could recognize that there are different ways to view the same problem, and people on the right and left are working for many of the same ultimate goals but with different approaches. We should compare ideas and let them stand on their own merit rather than judging them only by their team colors.
You know, you'd be more convincing if you dropped the "blue cool-aid drinker" line.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes