What do you mean "stooping this low to win"... You mean, do what their electorate voted for? That's right, they should be like the democrats and collude to stop popular opinion from interfering with elite goals like the coronation of Her Majesty the Queen Clinton.
How would it have been different to electing Hillary Clinton? She was the more corporate candidate hands down. Two candidates, one hated by established moneyed interests and politicians in so much that people like Koch switched sides.
Yes, Trump kisses the ass of corporations and rich people (as do all politicians) but that doesn't change the fact that he was the de-facto outsider.
In reality, every political issue is a binary decision. Vote yes or no. Do you support it or do you not support it? That is all there is for the legislatures and the electorate. Yes, the devil is in the details but that doesn't change the fact that every issue is a simple yes or no.
TNG still tried to address the social issues of the day but a lot if not most of social fights have been won. The trans issue was brought up way before it was a major talking point is one example. There are only so many social issues to talk about when so many are resolved.
Discovery almost seems like they are marketing for a Chinese market with their social message. Hollywood has been pushing harder to a larger foot print in that demographic with varying success. This seems like another iteration in that attempt to woo the Chinese market.
Actually he got less votes than Hillary... but still got i
Irrelevant. The E.C. is a good thing IMO. She lost a majority of popular votes in a majority of states. There is no such thing as a national vote.
That indicates a problem with the system
No it doesn't'. The point of the E.C. is to ensure the Executive has the interest of a majority of states. We are a union of states not a mob. The same idea for the Senate (equal representation of the states to give smaller states power) is the idea for the E.C. There is nothing wrong with balancing the interest and needs of different states. The constitution was ratified with the distinction of rural and urban states and compromised to each of their needs in the form of a bicameral congress (with both equal and proportional representation) and the E.C.
Just because Clinton won huge majorities in a few large states does not mean she should dictate to the other states. We are a union of states not a mob.
it's meant that all our checks and balances have collapsed
No it doesn't. Just because "people that think like me" didn't win elections does not mean ALL checks and balances are gone. They are still being eroded away slowly with bipartisan support.
Did you say we lost ALL our checks and balances after 2008 when the Democrats controlled the Congress and Executive? No? Ok then, stop the hyperbole.
Yes. All is doom and gloom. Except nothing has changed. This has been Trump since he announced his candidacy. Every one knew he was a loud mouth blowhard. Why do you think the main stream Republicans hated him so much during the primaries and general election? He is still hated by a lot the GOP. #nevertrump.
If anything it gives those Republicans the ammunition they need in the midterms to convince their constituents that they don't like Trump and are trying to stop him when they can but they aren't as crazy as the screeching democrats blaming everything and anything on the Russians. Ryan can say, look we can keep Trump in check so don't vote us out. While Trump does what Trump does, piss off democrats and the world.
Unless there is actual evidence nothing is going to happen except a lot of bark. Midterms are approaching and the GOP wants to keep control of the Congress.
Waiting for evidence and being skeptical is intentionally moving the goal post?
Right... Meanwhile all journalistic integrity has gone out the window. Goldwater rule gone. Relying on unverifiable claims from anonymous sources too much. Too much personal opinion injected into news pieces. Narrative crafting is common.
Journalists understand you cannot interview someone you love or family members because your reporting would be biased nor honest because of your emotions. Someone you hate and have absolute contempt for? No problem, your emotions wont' get in the way of honest reporting...
This is both sides. You would be an idiot not to wait for actual verifiable evidence because there is no one that is reporting anything with any shred of integrity. I keep reading articles how the Russians hacked this or that and then a few paragraphs down; "we have no evidence the Russians are involved.".
The irony of your post is that journalism and MSM have fallen so far that the Goldwater rule is no longer in effect... because reasons.
Journalists cannot interview loved ones and family members because their feelings will get in the way of honest reporting. Yet, a journalist can be filled with hate and contempt toward the interviewee and it's A-OKay.
>and the military has to hold a bake sale to buy bullets. sounds like Chamberlain. too dreamy eyed to see or accept a dangerous world. cutting down on military spending doesn't sound the same than what u are talking about.
> so you're saying the people in the state next door don't deserve the same protection? it's their government, their vote, their choice. do you say the same thing for national governments? should the UN take control of everyone to force whatever good law you think should be?
>Republicans hate making things like this against teh law by the way. so what? they made their bed let them lay in it. again, do you hold the same logic to national laws and boundaries?
>You may have noticed that the majority of states currently have republican governors. So the majority of Americans are kind of screwed here now... No, Americans voted those governors in because democratic candidates/governors were seen as worse. democracy in action.
>finally reform campaign finance systems and lobbying money systems sure, now we just have to articulate that and put it to law that we can all mostly agree on. good luck. what's your idea for elections in idaho? what are wrong with elections in idaho? should you have different rights if you have different amounts of money?
> globe full of countries so what? do they have the same state and federal distinctions? do they accept the same level of freedom for various rights? guns kill people, but i don't want that removed. speech can harm things but i don't want that limited by the government. are any of those nations in economic uncertainty because of their government expenditures? because a lot are, so obviously it isn't a magic quick fix.
28% of the federal budget goes to healthcare. 21% goes to defense.
I agree that military spending could go down but just throwing more money at healthcare doesn't seem like a good long term solution.
>how can you argue it is because it is NY's responsibility to their citizens, not the federal government. if you keep having the feds solve your problems with taxes, eventually that gravy train gets derailed.
>Of course corporations don't want to stop poor people dying young - when we allow them to profit from those deaths. When we allow them to take out life insurance on their poorest worker's lives that pay out to the company I agree with you! Let's change that. Which do you think will be easier and faster to change, state or federal law?
>then of course they will lobby like mad to stop I am sure their lobby efforts will be more effective by a lawmaker that is disconnected from the affected voters. IOW, congress. IOW, it should be easier to change the state law to outlaw that practice. Too bad too many people like you fixate on the federal government and ignore their state government.
> when science lacks the means to prevent it. Really? That's it? Economics don't count for anything? After all, we live in a Star Trek world where resources, distribution, labor, money, all our worriers are just an experiment away if only the government had more money.... When you wake up out of your utopia fairy tale, then we talk.
>Everything else is cold blooded fucking murder. then you are a murderer.
>You're literally letting the assassins write the law. You're literally an idiot.
Does quality mean anything if after a few years that service is no longer provided? The whole point was that those non-profit centers were having trouble staying solvent and NY changed the rules to allow for-profit to reduce cost to keep that service going! If they continued down that path they would no longer be able to offer that service... It's a balancing act... It's economics.
Yes, cost is a terrible reason for why people die and that is called economics. It is a depressing school of thought. You have to make cost-benefit analysis on resources and someone will be left out to die because we don't live in Star Trek land. It sucks but the best you can do is come up with a sustainable and efficient means to distribute resources and services to the greatest number of people. You are not doing that if your model is threatened by insolvency.
You sound like a utopianist.
It's not genocide. You devalue the word and shame victims of actual genocide.
>The government repealed the ACA's pre-existing condition protextions. Directly endangering the lives of his family. Can the state change that? Which is easier for him to change to help him?
>Failure to save a life is murder. You will not convince me otherwise. Not trying to convince but semantics and acknowledging assisted suicide.
>What the US did before Obamacare absolutely was genocide. Rubbish. You are seriously devaluing the word 'genocide' by using that word which is used to describe the holocaust with a national healthcare policy... ridiculous.
>There is absolutely overwhelming evidence. Not in the US there isn't. few states have done anything remotely close to universal healthcare and that is the problem. With all the other federal initiatives you mentioned they all had state frameworks across different states large and small. Obamacare or Romneycare was only in a few states for a small amount of time. That is nto enough to convince the other states to use that framework model.
Even now Obamacare, while laudable, has economic issues that are not popular with smaller states and weaker economies even though their citizens are getting the most out of it. Yes, NY and CA with large industry and tax base can fund expansive programs. This is part of the issue of why you have to have enough state frameworks to get a federal initiative to work. It isn't murder or genocide in wanting a sustainable and effective government and taking it slow to adopt any policy that can bankrupt a small economy. Just because NY can do it doesn't mean all states can do it. If you don't' have a sustainable and effective policy in governance instability will happen and your laudable goal will cause harm.
The US is hardpressed to use other frameworks from other nations because of the state and federal distinctions. Even Trumps " buy insurance across statelines" is hard because there are literally hundreds of different laws for healtcare the company has to abide by from local to state to federal.
>Dialysis is fully covered by federal funding for anybody who needs it Yes, and it is 6% of Medicares total budget and growing... Cost is a huge part of it and if costs do not come down (currently around 75k per patient a year) will cut into other services provided by Medicare. Something like what happened to NY when they finally allowed for-profit dialysis centers to operate because the costs were making the hospitals and non-profit clinics having trouble staying solvent. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01...
>And get rid of profit seeking healthcare while you are at it Tell that to NY and their dialysis centers.
>he is asking for something the feds did to be undone - and explaining how that action harms him and his family. What did the feds do that he wants undone?
>Removing anybody's access to healthcare is murder: As I have mentioned in the other post, we have access to universal healthcare via Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act since 1985. It is now an issue of cost and that has always been the issue. It doesn't help that the federal government was 20 trillion debt.
I also disagree that removing access to healthcare is murder. Complicit in a death, sure. Murder as in unlawful killing, no. Semantics aside.
>Repealing Obamacare is an act of genocide. This is flat wrong and that type of language in talking politics gets you no where or any sympathy for your cause. You are saying before Obamacare the US was committing genocide. We both can agree that cost effective healthcare systems are complicated. The major point is cost and just because institutional inertia established workplace healthcare as the defacto way to fund healthcare does not mean that relying on workplace healthcare is genocide.
> As is, coincidentally, not accepting every refugee the world is sending your way By international law, the only nations required to accept refugees are the nearest safest country.
>doubly so since American policy more than any other factor caused the existence of those refugees. Sure, I accept that. But I also accept that the wars we face today are 100x less deadly than a ww3. After WW1, US went isolation. After WW2 US learned couldn't do that again and expect to live in peace. What is the best course of action to ensure there is not another ww3? I don't know, I think MADD is one safe-guard, ironically. Was going into Iraq or pulling out of Iraq the right decision? Hindsight 20/20 aside, a giant nation will make giant foot prints. It has always been in American history to nation build, it just seems that this time US grew too quick to jump in and too impatient to jump out. But that doesn't mean we let anyone in.
> I do not care if the governmwnt has to become the size of the galactic bloody empire. If it saves a single innocent life and respects individual liberties it will be worth it.
This is the rhetoric I keep seeing is why I mentioned the "greater good" in that previous post. There is an inclination in your language to give power to the government in hopes of a laudable good. Power corrupts. Any laudable goal will be twisted and warped into a perversion of that goal if not checked and balanced. The states are a balance to federal power just as the federal government is a check on state power. You don't protect the liberties of individuals by ceding power to a central distant government. It will eventually abuse. You do it by ensuring each column of power has a balance and that the people have a way to petition or change the government. The easiest government for the people to change is state and local.
>You flat-out lied about what I said. no, i didn't.
>I won't pretend to know. But I won't pretend it's 'never' either. Contrary to your fevered imaginings, this is not a simple issue- NONE of these issues are EVER simple. I can accept that and respect it too. It is a lot better than using hollywood. I never pretended to think this is an easy thing. If 2 people can't agree or have this much trouble on just defining it then it is exponentially harder for 535 people.
>the law already requires him to give it to you - AS DOES HIS OATH First, there is a difference between the government forcing something and an individual swearing an oath. Like taxes compared to charity. Everyone agrees charity is awesome and even if taxes are used for such causes it is fundamentally different because government force.
If the law already requires care (emergency specifically by Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, and COBRA), then mission accomplished. We have had the right for decades now, why was ACA or Trumpcare (w/e they are calling it these days) needed at the federal level? But that is specifically for hospitals and emergency rooms, not a doctor per say. And again, the issue then revolves around how to pay for it. No one agrees on how best to pay for healthcare.
>Bullshit. ALL rights force others to do things. Not to the same extent and false equivalence. All your examples are effectively part of the social contract. If you take part in society you lose the freedom to kill me but gain the rights and responsibilities that are associated with society. That is very different than saying a person must perform X task for Y person because Y person has right. You cannot trespass my property but you can own property that I cannot trespass.
>It merely puts an obligation on all of us to help pay for each other's healthcare needs. Yes, and no one agrees on who pays how much and for what.
>No. The whole point of HAVING a federal government is to enforce things which are NOT universally accepted by the states but OUGHT to be. That is only one part. The point in having a limited federal government is to allow the states to do the things we disagree on that is not universally accepted, like protecting rights of individuals. >*Abolition was definitely not universally accepted by the states- it was up to the federal government to drive it. it started in the northern states and met a cross roads with southern institutional inertia and individual prejudices (not to mention the bullshit rationale of the natural black servitude to white). War became a last resort to ensure that all individuals, regardless of skin color, have the rights we fought for in the Revolutionary war. But also, slavery was defended as a right of property. Abolition is more about ensuring people are not property than work conditions and treatment (although that is also definitely part of it).
>*Voting rights were not universally accepted by the states - it required the federal government to enforce it. You should read more history because nearly every movement has started in the states, then moved to the federal. But even if not the case, there is a difference of saying "X person can vote (a right) but Y person cannot" compared to what is the most cost effective health care system? Unless you think X person is different than Y person to have different inalienable rights (part of the justification for slavery).
>The role of the federal government is to enforce those things the states SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to deny ! Yes, that is one role. and we already have that for healthcare via EMTALA since at least 1985. Now it's a question of costs and no one can agree.
> Right... so I suppose you protested against EVERY WAR AMERICA HAS HAD for 70 years I didn't say anything of protest... Protest all you want. That is one way to convince people to change policy/law... we still disagree on the wars we are currently fighting and Obama campaigned on changing our path
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean "stooping this low to win"... You mean, do what their electorate voted for? That's right, they should be like the democrats and collude to stop popular opinion from interfering with elite goals like the coronation of Her Majesty the Queen Clinton.
What is wrong with you?
How would it have been different to electing Hillary Clinton? She was the more corporate candidate hands down. Two candidates, one hated by established moneyed interests and politicians in so much that people like Koch switched sides.
Yes, Trump kisses the ass of corporations and rich people (as do all politicians) but that doesn't change the fact that he was the de-facto outsider.
Does what you say also apply to Twitter and other social media platforms?
They could fastlane Britbart and FoxNews and basically cripple access to liberal sites
How is that different than twitter banning conservative voices?
In reality, every political issue is a binary decision. Vote yes or no. Do you support it or do you not support it? That is all there is for the legislatures and the electorate. Yes, the devil is in the details but that doesn't change the fact that every issue is a simple yes or no.
Well there is that one. I was thinking of "The Outsider" (I think). Still with Riker though.
TNG still tried to address the social issues of the day but a lot if not most of social fights have been won. The trans issue was brought up way before it was a major talking point is one example. There are only so many social issues to talk about when so many are resolved.
Discovery almost seems like they are marketing for a Chinese market with their social message. Hollywood has been pushing harder to a larger foot print in that demographic with varying success. This seems like another iteration in that attempt to woo the Chinese market.
not bad or good, just my 2 cents.
Actually he got less votes than Hillary... but still got i
Irrelevant. The E.C. is a good thing IMO. She lost a majority of popular votes in a majority of states. There is no such thing as a national vote.
That indicates a problem with the system
No it doesn't'. The point of the E.C. is to ensure the Executive has the interest of a majority of states. We are a union of states not a mob. The same idea for the Senate (equal representation of the states to give smaller states power) is the idea for the E.C. There is nothing wrong with balancing the interest and needs of different states. The constitution was ratified with the distinction of rural and urban states and compromised to each of their needs in the form of a bicameral congress (with both equal and proportional representation) and the E.C.
Just because Clinton won huge majorities in a few large states does not mean she should dictate to the other states. We are a union of states not a mob.
Unless you have irrefutable evidence of foul play
Likewise.
Have you looked at the 2018 seats up for election? For the Senate,
23 democrats are up for election
8 Republicans.
The Democrats have A LOT to lose and A LOT of ground to make up.
it's meant that all our checks and balances have collapsed
No it doesn't. Just because "people that think like me" didn't win elections does not mean ALL checks and balances are gone. They are still being eroded away slowly with bipartisan support.
Did you say we lost ALL our checks and balances after 2008 when the Democrats controlled the Congress and Executive? No? Ok then, stop the hyperbole.
Yes. All is doom and gloom. Except nothing has changed. This has been Trump since he announced his candidacy. Every one knew he was a loud mouth blowhard. Why do you think the main stream Republicans hated him so much during the primaries and general election? He is still hated by a lot the GOP. #nevertrump.
If anything it gives those Republicans the ammunition they need in the midterms to convince their constituents that they don't like Trump and are trying to stop him when they can but they aren't as crazy as the screeching democrats blaming everything and anything on the Russians. Ryan can say, look we can keep Trump in check so don't vote us out. While Trump does what Trump does, piss off democrats and the world.
Unless there is actual evidence nothing is going to happen except a lot of bark. Midterms are approaching and the GOP wants to keep control of the Congress.
Waiting for evidence and being skeptical is intentionally moving the goal post?
Right... Meanwhile all journalistic integrity has gone out the window. Goldwater rule gone. Relying on unverifiable claims from anonymous sources too much. Too much personal opinion injected into news pieces. Narrative crafting is common.
Journalists understand you cannot interview someone you love or family members because your reporting would be biased nor honest because of your emotions. Someone you hate and have absolute contempt for? No problem, your emotions wont' get in the way of honest reporting...
This is both sides. You would be an idiot not to wait for actual verifiable evidence because there is no one that is reporting anything with any shred of integrity. I keep reading articles how the Russians hacked this or that and then a few paragraphs down; "we have no evidence the Russians are involved.".
We all know APK is crazy... Talking to himself isn't that surprising.
The irony of your post is that journalism and MSM have fallen so far that the Goldwater rule is no longer in effect... because reasons.
Journalists cannot interview loved ones and family members because their feelings will get in the way of honest reporting. Yet, a journalist can be filled with hate and contempt toward the interviewee and it's A-OKay.
a chimp behind the wheel of a jumbo jet.
You may not like the destination but the ride is fun.
I'm not APK.
How can we be so sure? I have never seen a creimer post inhabit the exact same post spot as an APK post... Coincidence? I think not.
>and the military has to hold a bake sale to buy bullets.
sounds like Chamberlain. too dreamy eyed to see or accept a dangerous world. cutting down on military spending doesn't sound the same than what u are talking about.
> so you're saying the people in the state next door don't deserve the same protection?
it's their government, their vote, their choice. do you say the same thing for national governments? should the UN take control of everyone to force whatever good law you think should be?
>Republicans hate making things like this against teh law by the way.
so what? they made their bed let them lay in it. again, do you hold the same logic to national laws and boundaries?
>You may have noticed that the majority of states currently have republican governors. So the majority of Americans are kind of screwed here now...
No, Americans voted those governors in because democratic candidates/governors were seen as worse. democracy in action.
>finally reform campaign finance systems and lobbying money systems
sure, now we just have to articulate that and put it to law that we can all mostly agree on. good luck. what's your idea for elections in idaho? what are wrong with elections in idaho? should you have different rights if you have different amounts of money?
> globe full of countries
so what? do they have the same state and federal distinctions? do they accept the same level of freedom for various rights? guns kill people, but i don't want that removed. speech can harm things but i don't want that limited by the government. are any of those nations in economic uncertainty because of their government expenditures? because a lot are, so obviously it isn't a magic quick fix.
28% of the federal budget goes to healthcare.
21% goes to defense.
I agree that military spending could go down but just throwing more money at healthcare doesn't seem like a good long term solution.
>how can you argue it is
because it is NY's responsibility to their citizens, not the federal government. if you keep having the feds solve your problems with taxes, eventually that gravy train gets derailed.
>Of course corporations don't want to stop poor people dying young - when we allow them to profit from those deaths. When we allow them to take out life insurance on their poorest worker's lives that pay out to the company
I agree with you! Let's change that. Which do you think will be easier and faster to change, state or federal law?
>then of course they will lobby like mad to stop
I am sure their lobby efforts will be more effective by a lawmaker that is disconnected from the affected voters. IOW, congress. IOW, it should be easier to change the state law to outlaw that practice. Too bad too many people like you fixate on the federal government and ignore their state government.
> when science lacks the means to prevent it.
Really? That's it? Economics don't count for anything? After all, we live in a Star Trek world where resources, distribution, labor, money, all our worriers are just an experiment away if only the government had more money.... When you wake up out of your utopia fairy tale, then we talk.
>Everything else is cold blooded fucking murder.
then you are a murderer.
>You're literally letting the assassins write the law.
You're literally an idiot.
Does quality mean anything if after a few years that service is no longer provided? The whole point was that those non-profit centers were having trouble staying solvent and NY changed the rules to allow for-profit to reduce cost to keep that service going! If they continued down that path they would no longer be able to offer that service... It's a balancing act... It's economics.
Yes, cost is a terrible reason for why people die and that is called economics. It is a depressing school of thought. You have to make cost-benefit analysis on resources and someone will be left out to die because we don't live in Star Trek land. It sucks but the best you can do is come up with a sustainable and efficient means to distribute resources and services to the greatest number of people. You are not doing that if your model is threatened by insolvency.
You sound like a utopianist.
It's not genocide. You devalue the word and shame victims of actual genocide.
>The government repealed the ACA's pre-existing condition protextions. Directly endangering the lives of his family.
Can the state change that? Which is easier for him to change to help him?
>Failure to save a life is murder. You will not convince me otherwise.
Not trying to convince but semantics and acknowledging assisted suicide.
>What the US did before Obamacare absolutely was genocide.
Rubbish. You are seriously devaluing the word 'genocide' by using that word which is used to describe the holocaust with a national healthcare policy... ridiculous.
>There is absolutely overwhelming evidence.
Not in the US there isn't. few states have done anything remotely close to universal healthcare and that is the problem. With all the other federal initiatives you mentioned they all had state frameworks across different states large and small. Obamacare or Romneycare was only in a few states for a small amount of time. That is nto enough to convince the other states to use that framework model.
Even now Obamacare, while laudable, has economic issues that are not popular with smaller states and weaker economies even though their citizens are getting the most out of it. Yes, NY and CA with large industry and tax base can fund expansive programs. This is part of the issue of why you have to have enough state frameworks to get a federal initiative to work. It isn't murder or genocide in wanting a sustainable and effective government and taking it slow to adopt any policy that can bankrupt a small economy. Just because NY can do it doesn't mean all states can do it. If you don't' have a sustainable and effective policy in governance instability will happen and your laudable goal will cause harm.
The US is hardpressed to use other frameworks from other nations because of the state and federal distinctions. Even Trumps " buy insurance across statelines" is hard because there are literally hundreds of different laws for healtcare the company has to abide by from local to state to federal.
>Dialysis is fully covered by federal funding for anybody who needs it
Yes, and it is 6% of Medicares total budget and growing... Cost is a huge part of it and if costs do not come down (currently around 75k per patient a year) will cut into other services provided by Medicare. Something like what happened to NY when they finally allowed for-profit dialysis centers to operate because the costs were making the hospitals and non-profit clinics having trouble staying solvent. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01...
>And get rid of profit seeking healthcare while you are at it
Tell that to NY and their dialysis centers.
>he is asking for something the feds did to be undone - and explaining how that action harms him and his family.
What did the feds do that he wants undone?
>Removing anybody's access to healthcare is murder:
As I have mentioned in the other post, we have access to universal healthcare via Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act since 1985. It is now an issue of cost and that has always been the issue. It doesn't help that the federal government was 20 trillion debt.
I also disagree that removing access to healthcare is murder. Complicit in a death, sure. Murder as in unlawful killing, no. Semantics aside.
>Repealing Obamacare is an act of genocide.
This is flat wrong and that type of language in talking politics gets you no where or any sympathy for your cause. You are saying before Obamacare the US was committing genocide. We both can agree that cost effective healthcare systems are complicated. The major point is cost and just because institutional inertia established workplace healthcare as the defacto way to fund healthcare does not mean that relying on workplace healthcare is genocide.
> As is, coincidentally, not accepting every refugee the world is sending your way
By international law, the only nations required to accept refugees are the nearest safest country.
>doubly so since American policy more than any other factor caused the existence of those refugees.
Sure, I accept that. But I also accept that the wars we face today are 100x less deadly than a ww3. After WW1, US went isolation. After WW2 US learned couldn't do that again and expect to live in peace. What is the best course of action to ensure there is not another ww3? I don't know, I think MADD is one safe-guard, ironically. Was going into Iraq or pulling out of Iraq the right decision? Hindsight 20/20 aside, a giant nation will make giant foot prints. It has always been in American history to nation build, it just seems that this time US grew too quick to jump in and too impatient to jump out. But that doesn't mean we let anyone in.
> I do not care if the governmwnt has to become the size of the galactic bloody empire. If it saves a single innocent life and respects individual liberties it will be worth it.
This is the rhetoric I keep seeing is why I mentioned the "greater good" in that previous post. There is an inclination in your language to give power to the government in hopes of a laudable good. Power corrupts. Any laudable goal will be twisted and warped into a perversion of that goal if not checked and balanced. The states are a balance to federal power just as the federal government is a check on state power. You don't protect the liberties of individuals by ceding power to a central distant government. It will eventually abuse. You do it by ensuring each column of power has a balance and that the people have a way to petition or change the government. The easiest government for the people to change is state and local.
Can't watch, cuz don't have facebook login. What state does he live in? Why can't his state legislature do what he is asking?
>You flat-out lied about what I said.
no, i didn't.
>I won't pretend to know. But I won't pretend it's 'never' either. Contrary to your fevered imaginings, this is not a simple issue- NONE of these issues are EVER simple.
I can accept that and respect it too. It is a lot better than using hollywood. I never pretended to think this is an easy thing. If 2 people can't agree or have this much trouble on just defining it then it is exponentially harder for 535 people.
>the law already requires him to give it to you - AS DOES HIS OATH
First, there is a difference between the government forcing something and an individual swearing an oath. Like taxes compared to charity. Everyone agrees charity is awesome and even if taxes are used for such causes it is fundamentally different because government force.
If the law already requires care (emergency specifically by Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, and COBRA), then mission accomplished. We have had the right for decades now, why was ACA or Trumpcare (w/e they are calling it these days) needed at the federal level? But that is specifically for hospitals and emergency rooms, not a doctor per say. And again, the issue then revolves around how to pay for it. No one agrees on how best to pay for healthcare.
>Bullshit. ALL rights force others to do things.
Not to the same extent and false equivalence. All your examples are effectively part of the social contract. If you take part in society you lose the freedom to kill me but gain the rights and responsibilities that are associated with society. That is very different than saying a person must perform X task for Y person because Y person has right. You cannot trespass my property but you can own property that I cannot trespass.
>It merely puts an obligation on all of us to help pay for each other's healthcare needs.
Yes, and no one agrees on who pays how much and for what.
>No. The whole point of HAVING a federal government is to enforce things which are NOT universally accepted by the states but OUGHT to be.
That is only one part. The point in having a limited federal government is to allow the states to do the things we disagree on that is not universally accepted, like protecting rights of individuals.
>*Abolition was definitely not universally accepted by the states- it was up to the federal government to drive it.
it started in the northern states and met a cross roads with southern institutional inertia and individual prejudices (not to mention the bullshit rationale of the natural black servitude to white). War became a last resort to ensure that all individuals, regardless of skin color, have the rights we fought for in the Revolutionary war. But also, slavery was defended as a right of property. Abolition is more about ensuring people are not property than work conditions and treatment (although that is also definitely part of it).
>*Voting rights were not universally accepted by the states - it required the federal government to enforce it.
You should read more history because nearly every movement has started in the states, then moved to the federal. But even if not the case, there is a difference of saying "X person can vote (a right) but Y person cannot" compared to what is the most cost effective health care system? Unless you think X person is different than Y person to have different inalienable rights (part of the justification for slavery).
>The role of the federal government is to enforce those things the states SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to deny !
Yes, that is one role. and we already have that for healthcare via EMTALA since at least 1985. Now it's a question of costs and no one can agree.
> Right... so I suppose you protested against EVERY WAR AMERICA HAS HAD for 70 years
I didn't say anything of protest... Protest all you want. That is one way to convince people to change policy/law... we still disagree on the wars we are currently fighting and Obama campaigned on changing our path