I meant a picture from one of your devices looking through a wall. That's just a sales website. Interestingly enough though it lists the capabilities of the device and doesn't claim that it can see through walls.
The Phantom IR allows users to observe the heat signatures of people and objects at extreme ranges in daylight or at night, and through smoke, fog or camouflage.
I'm calling bullshit on IR passing through walls unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary.
You wouldn't be able to determine it just from the IR data. Combined with other factors though (strange smells, unknown cars that visit every few minutes, etc.) it becomes enough probable cause to get a search warrant.
In the United States, we'll shoot at helicopters with actual people in them. If Homeland Security tried to spy on us with drones, it would become a sport to shoot them down. And they WOULD go down, too. Lots of expensive wreckage.
As much as I love the 2nd amendment, you do realize that most small arms top out at 10,000 feet and these drones fly around 20,000 feet or higher, right?
What is a bit troubling is that we know that some of the military drones have infrared capability - so it would be possible in theory for one of these drones to be equipped with the same capability, allowing it to look directly into buildings and homes.
Huh? Infrared doesn't go through walls the last time I checked. You can look at a home with an IR camera and figure out other stuff -- like if they have any strange heat sources that suggest illegal grow operations -- but you can't "look directly" into buildings with it.
That's not to say I'm defending this. I think it's disgusting and yet another sad example of the sheepification of the people that gave us most of our civil liberties.
No, we have no bipartisan support because the Democrats have written the bill behind closed doors and completely muzzled the minority party. It extends beyond health care -- if you are a member of the minority in the House you can't even get your legislation considered. It goes off to committee where it dies. One could argue that the portion of the country represented by the minority party has no real representation in the House because of this. Of course the GOP did the exact same thing when they ran the place, but didn't Candidate Obama say something about a new kind of politics?
Regarding the filibuster, yeah, it's being used a lot nowadays but you can't pin all the blame for that on the Republicans. I seem to recall a lot of Democrats preaching the virtues of the filibuster when they were in the minority and used it to stall the agenda of the majority.
The broader issue at hand is our poisoned political atmosphere. Both parties are to blame for this, as is the 24/7 news cycle. The primary system is set up in such a way that the most rapid and partisan fringe of society usually decides who will be the standard bearer in the general election -- hence it's usually people on the far-left or far-right that make it to Washington.
If you've got a solution to these problems you are a smarter man than I.
I believe in liberty and self determination. I would rather have both of those things than a cradle to the grave social safety net. Your social safety net invariably comes with a corresponding reduction in personal choice and liberty. Thus I will oppose it at the top of my lungs and do everything within my power to see that it doesn't happen.
The best thing the Democrats could do now is to withdraw this clunker of a bill and start over. Focus on the aspects that everybody agrees on and you'll be able to pass a bill with bipartisan support. Insurance reform, tort reform, and marketplace reform are all elements that could pass with support from both parties.
One last point I'll make before I move on for the day. You mention that other social services have gotten more popular over time. That may be true. But every single one of those social services was passed with support from both political parties. At no time in the history of the American Republic has legislation of this scope been rammed through on a party line vote. If you want your health care reform to last longer than the time it takes the GOP to seize Washington, you might want to go back to the drawing board and a find a way to do it that doesn't rely on party line votes and deals to hold-out Senators and special interest groups.
I'd love to fix the broken system. I just don't think that forcing everyone to buy into it is the way to do that. My state has already fixed many of the problems with the health insurance market and managed to do so without an unconstitutional individual mandate. The fact that you aren't willing to admit this or even address the point suggests to me that you are primarily driven by political considerations.
BTW, you don't understand politics real well if you think the House is going to pass the Senate bill. The House only managed to pass their bill by 5 votes. The abortion issue alone is enough to scuttle it, even if the Liberals swallow their pride and the Moderates remain inclined to stick their necks out.
Then there's the questionable wisdom of passing a bill that a large majority of Americans oppose. How many times do you think the Democrats need to get their butts kicked at the polls before they remember who they work for?
No? It seems to be our business to see that you get educated, so that you're not an ignorant fuck, dragging down society with your inability to balance your own checkbook. So we force you to go to school.
Interesting analogy. Kinda falls down though when you consider the fact that people who haven't even reached the age of majority can decide to drop out of school. Imagine that, freedom of choice, what a concept......
the current proposal optimal? Hardly. But it's a step in the right direction
No it's not. It takes everything that's wrong with the current system and codifies it into law. It does nothing to address defensive medicine. It does nothing to address the shortage of primary care providers. It does nothing to change the messed up incentives that reward failure and punish prevention.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
And don't let the Democrats need for a political victory blind you to the fact that this legislation has morphed into a cesspool of special interest favors and backroom deals.
It's all a moot point of course. Health care reform in it's current form died last night when the polls closed in Massachusetts. You think the moderates in the House and Senate are going to stick their necks out for it now? Not likely.
No, it's not better than what we have now. Right now I can choose any health insurance plan that I want or none at all. If this bill passes I won't be able to choose the plan that makes the most sense for me (high-deductible) and will have no choice to opt out of the system. I fail to see how a system that strips away individual liberty and self determination can be described as "better".
You've lost anyway. Health care reform in it's current form is dead. Members of your own party are saying that now. It's time to wake up and smell the roses. Obama couldn't even sell this plan in the bluest of the blue states. What chance do you suppose it has now with the moderates in the House and (if it goes back for another vote) Senate?
Thank you Massachusetts. There may be hope for you yet.....
First, I've no interest in trampling anything, but religion is a poor excuse, and if your right to practice Scientology with all ten other Scientologists denies 45 million people healthcare, I'm all for healthcare.
It's not an "excuse". The free exercise of religion is one of the core principles of our country. If you can't tell me how you intend on handling religious/moral objections to the universal mandate then you aren't seriously considering this issue. And who said anything about Scientology? I was thinking more along the lines of the Amish. Are you going to force them to buy into your system?
Third, everywhere I've been it's been mandated that you have car insurance.
New Hampshire hasn't mandated it.
It's effectively federal.
No it's not. It's a state law. It doesn't matter that most of the states have the law. All 50 states have laws against murder. That doesn't mean it's "effectively Federal".
As far as citizenship goes--you can leave.
Thanks Dick Cheney. "If you don't like it, leave." That's a winning argument.
This enables you to be *free* to live without the worry of someday getting hit by a car driven by an uninsured motorist and to live the rest of your life in suffocating debt.
No, I'd just file bankruptcy. That's the beauty of the United States. You can hit rock bottom and society gives you another chance. No individual mandate required.
To me, that sense of safety makes me *more* free--free to leave my job, for example, and find another because I know I won't be denied coverage.
As I stated earlier, you can fix denials of coverage without having a mandate. Here in New York State it's already illegal for insurance companies to exclude pre-existing conditions or refuse to extend coverage to new group members. Somehow we've achieved this without having an individual mandate. I'm free to switch jobs without worrying about pre-existing conditions or being refused coverage.
Furthermore, unionization of a fraction of the population does benefit the collective. Just look at the income disparity numbers from the golden age of unions in the 50s and 60s. And with higher unionization, as union wages go, so go the wages of nonunionized workers. This is less true nowadays, but were we still more unionized, it would mean that when they renegotiate cheaper healthcare plans the higher salaries they'd exchange them for would be seen by nearly everyone.
You aren't going to sell me on the benefits of unions, so don't even waste your time trying. Unions have bankrupted my state and destroyed our public education system. They were necessary at one time but like most institutions they've been corrupted over time and now exist only to serve themselves.
For the record, I work for big pharma.
Well, that explains why you are in the minority of American citizens that like this legislation. You do realize that the overwhelming majority of Americans hate it, right?
And in the US, drugs comprise something like 10% of all healthcare spending. But that's another discussion for another day.
Didn't Candidate Obama say something about allowing drug re-importation? How do you rationalize away that change of heart?
Actually, the people of the Bay State already *have* this system. And they like it [nytimes.com].
They like it so much they just elected a Senator who promised to be the 41st vote against Obamacare. Want to try again?
I should know--I am one. Massachusetts liberal to the core.
That explains why you are so far out of touch with the rest of the country. Was tonight a wake up call for you or do you think the Democrats need to ram this bill through in spite of the special e
However, if you were to say that it was unconstitutional, you would be advocating the birther position on the matter, and they are easily the majority of people I've seen expressing that opinion. Generalization, yes. Unfounded? No.
Wow, you really are reaching here.
I do, but I believe more in the right of a human being to healthcare regardless of income. In any other civilized nation (G8, G20, etc.), it is just that: a right. It doesn't much matter who you associate with if you've been allowed to die.
As I said, I would not be making this objection to a single payer system. But the current legislation does nothing to fix the underlying problems with our system. All it does is enshrine them into law while taking away my freedom of choice to opt-out of the broken system.
I understand that you're talking about individual versus collective here, but when concern for the individual's beliefs preclude the collective from benefiting itself, something has to give.
So you can trample on any and all individual rights if the "collective" will "benefit"?
And I believe that the qualms of a few are not justification for the death of 18,000 people a year
More people than that die on car accidents every year. Why aren't you spending all of your energy attacking that issue?
How is it his business that you have car insurance?
It's not. The Federal Government does not mandate that anyone purchase car insurance. Furthermore, owning a car is a choice. Being a citizen of the United States is not.
There MUST be a mandate that everyone is covered, or else people game the system and only buy insurance when they get sick.
That's not what Candidate Obama said.
Did you read the last thing I wrote? From 2019 to 2029 it will continue to reduce the deficit, per the CBO [cbo.gov].
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. Tell me, where did the CBO score the impact of this legislation on the states? What do you suppose it means when the Governors of NY and CA both come out and say that the current legislation will seriously harm their respective states? It's worth noting that both of them are (or were?) supporters of health care reform. Further, the CBO score is based on unrealistic assumptions, like the political fantasy that Congress won't increase medicare reimbursement rates.
The larger of my ideals is that we ought not let those die whom we can save.
The larger of my ideals is that life isn't worth living if you are going to strip me of my liberty and personal choice. That's exactly what this bill does. It regulates what kind of insurance I can buy (high-deductible plans won't be allowed in the exchanges), grants favors to special interest groups at the expense of the whole (I thought you were all about the "collective"?), compels me at gunpoint to participate in a broken system and cuts deals with private industry (big pharma) that codifies their exploitative business model into law at the expense of the citizenry.
November 2010 can't come fast enough as far as I'm concerned. Actually, I might not even have to wait that long. Looks like the Democrats stand a very good chance of losing an election in a few hours in Massachusetts of all places. The fact that you can't even sell this bill to the people of the Bay State ought to tell you something.
You don't know if your health will take a turn for the worse tomorrow. You can protest all you like, but you're doing nothing but playing the odds.
It's my life. It's none of your business whether or not I want to "play the odds". This is a country that allows people to smoke tobacco, live off fast food, skydive, drink alcohol, bungee jump, BMX, blah, blah, blah. One could argue that every single one of those activities imposes indirect costs on society. Yet they remain legal.
The real problem we face here (aside from the naive) is that traditional insurance companies operate with a huge conflict of interest.
So your solution is to support legislation that requires us all to do business with them?
The league of crazies I speak of are the birthers, etc., who despite being shown all valid evidence to the contrary continue to propagate myths about death panels and "pulling the plug on grandma" and so forth;
No, the league of crazies that you spoke of were those who think that the current Health Care bill is unconstitutional. Your previous comment said nothing about birthers.
Do you believe in free association? If so, how do you justify a mandate that people do business with health insurance companies?
Do you believe in freedom of religion? If so, what about people whom have a religious objection to doing business with health insurance companies? If I raise a religious or moral objection is the Government going to accept my word or get into the business of determining whether or not my faith is genuine?
Do you believe that you have the right to be secure in your papers and effects? If so, how is it Uncle Sam's business whether or not I have health insurance?
but it's in line with the mandate to insurance companies that they have to cover you.
That could be imposed without an individual mandate. If the Democrats had sought to end the pre-existing condition practice without attaching it to the rest of this "reform" they could have passed it months ago with supermajorities in both houses of Congress. There's bipartisan support for reining in the most egregious practices of the insurance industry.
Not if you keep using the word "unfunded". I realize that the technical definition of an unfunded mandate may be in line with what you're saying, but it's scarcely unfunded if you look at the $900 billion in subsidies for the poor.
Subsidies that I won't qualify for, thus it's an unfunded mandate for me. You might also consider the costs that the states are going to incur under this bill (unless you live in Nebraska) or the fact that the Democrats can only make it "deficit-neutral" by imposing the new taxes right away but delaying benefits/payouts for several years. Think your household budget would look better if you had 10 years of income and only 6 years of expenses?
And if you are trying to tell me that any hospital ought to be able to say "nope" if somebody walks in the door gushing blood, and would be absolved of all guilt should they simply die on the floor, then we've nothing more to talk about, since we've now hit a moral argument instead of a practical one, and my opinion of you, as someone who would advocate for such a policy, is that you've no conscience and/or soul.
My point was that you shouldn't use one unfunded mandate as a rationalization for another one. The rationalization is thin anyway. Because people can come to the ER and get treated for free we must impose a individual mandate and strip millions of people of their freedom of choice? I thought self-determination was one of our ideals?
To add one final point, can you honestly look at me with a straight face and tell me this legislation doesn't stink? It doesn't bother you that Candidate Obama promised an open process but President Obama has cut backroom deals with the pharmaceutical industry? It doesn't bother you that Candidate Obama promised that everyone would have a seat at the table but President Obama has stood mute while Speaker Pelosi completely muzzled the minority party? It doesn't bother you that Candidate Obama condemned the individual mandate and used it against his two main opponents but President Obama has reneged on this promise? It doesn't bother you that they systematically bought off the votes of skeptical Senators with a series of special deals that favor the few at the expense of the many? It doesn't bother you that Union members get special treatment under this legislation?
Typical partisan answer. If you disagree with me then you must be crazy/uneducated/misinformed.
As I recall, there's something about interstate commerce, or even better, "promot[ing] the general Welfare" of the people.
So the interstate commerce clause now extends to a lack of commerce? I hope you realize that the logical conclusion of that argument is the Federal Government arresting cancer patients for smoking weed......
And in any case, there are huge subsidies.
Irrelevant.
Oh--and if you get sick or get hit by an uninsured motorist and go to the ER and you can't pay, well, it's the taxpayers subsidizing that bill for you, so the taxpayers are now saying that you ought to have insurance.
Then end the unfunded mandate that hospitals treat people regardless of their ability to pay. You don't get to impose one mandate and then use it as a rationalization for another one.
Slashdot Mirror
The Moon is a terrible place to waste money on.
You wouldn't think that if you recognized the value of ending Wisconsin's stranglehold on the cheese industry ;)
If someone is a Child Molester, you shoot them between the eyes and piss on the corpse
Fixed that for you :)
and a standing military.
The standing military and the industrial complex that goes along with it is a threat to liberty.
Are you sure that's an IR device?
I meant a picture from one of your devices looking through a wall. That's just a sales website. Interestingly enough though it lists the capabilities of the device and doesn't claim that it can see through walls.
The Phantom IR allows users to observe the heat signatures of people and objects at extreme ranges in daylight or at night, and through smoke, fog or camouflage.
I'm calling bullshit on IR passing through walls unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary.
I don't recall anyone taking shots at that and it was a big, stationary target.
That's because the only people who have guns in New York City are criminals and cops. Honest citizens can't be trusted with them.
You wouldn't be able to determine it just from the IR data. Combined with other factors though (strange smells, unknown cars that visit every few minutes, etc.) it becomes enough probable cause to get a search warrant.
The Citadel projects an energy field that is able to prevent human reproduction
Sweet! I can stop wasting money on rubbers!
In the United States, we'll shoot at helicopters with actual people in them. If Homeland Security tried to spy on us with drones, it would become a sport to shoot them down. And they WOULD go down, too. Lots of expensive wreckage.
As much as I love the 2nd amendment, you do realize that most small arms top out at 10,000 feet and these drones fly around 20,000 feet or higher, right?
My company makes some parts for a military infrared binocular that can see people through concrete block walls.
Got any sample pictures of that that?
What is a bit troubling is that we know that some of the military drones have infrared capability - so it would be possible in theory for one of these drones to be equipped with the same capability, allowing it to look directly into buildings and homes.
Huh? Infrared doesn't go through walls the last time I checked. You can look at a home with an IR camera and figure out other stuff -- like if they have any strange heat sources that suggest illegal grow operations -- but you can't "look directly" into buildings with it.
That's not to say I'm defending this. I think it's disgusting and yet another sad example of the sheepification of the people that gave us most of our civil liberties.
$ host 69.69.69.69
69.69.69.69.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer the-coolest-ip-on-the-net.com.
$ host the-coolest-ip-on-the-net.com
the-coolest-ip-on-the-net.com has address 208.73.210.27
Hmm..... ;)
No, we have no bipartisan support because the Democrats have written the bill behind closed doors and completely muzzled the minority party. It extends beyond health care -- if you are a member of the minority in the House you can't even get your legislation considered. It goes off to committee where it dies. One could argue that the portion of the country represented by the minority party has no real representation in the House because of this. Of course the GOP did the exact same thing when they ran the place, but didn't Candidate Obama say something about a new kind of politics?
Regarding the filibuster, yeah, it's being used a lot nowadays but you can't pin all the blame for that on the Republicans. I seem to recall a lot of Democrats preaching the virtues of the filibuster when they were in the minority and used it to stall the agenda of the majority.
The broader issue at hand is our poisoned political atmosphere. Both parties are to blame for this, as is the 24/7 news cycle. The primary system is set up in such a way that the most rapid and partisan fringe of society usually decides who will be the standard bearer in the general election -- hence it's usually people on the far-left or far-right that make it to Washington.
If you've got a solution to these problems you are a smarter man than I.
This may be difficult for you to understand, but for many people, money is a primary motivator.
I believe in liberty and self determination. I would rather have both of those things than a cradle to the grave social safety net. Your social safety net invariably comes with a corresponding reduction in personal choice and liberty. Thus I will oppose it at the top of my lungs and do everything within my power to see that it doesn't happen.
The best thing the Democrats could do now is to withdraw this clunker of a bill and start over. Focus on the aspects that everybody agrees on and you'll be able to pass a bill with bipartisan support. Insurance reform, tort reform, and marketplace reform are all elements that could pass with support from both parties.
One last point I'll make before I move on for the day. You mention that other social services have gotten more popular over time. That may be true. But every single one of those social services was passed with support from both political parties. At no time in the history of the American Republic has legislation of this scope been rammed through on a party line vote. If you want your health care reform to last longer than the time it takes the GOP to seize Washington, you might want to go back to the drawing board and a find a way to do it that doesn't rely on party line votes and deals to hold-out Senators and special interest groups.
I'd love to fix the broken system. I just don't think that forcing everyone to buy into it is the way to do that. My state has already fixed many of the problems with the health insurance market and managed to do so without an unconstitutional individual mandate. The fact that you aren't willing to admit this or even address the point suggests to me that you are primarily driven by political considerations.
BTW, you don't understand politics real well if you think the House is going to pass the Senate bill. The House only managed to pass their bill by 5 votes. The abortion issue alone is enough to scuttle it, even if the Liberals swallow their pride and the Moderates remain inclined to stick their necks out.
Then there's the questionable wisdom of passing a bill that a large majority of Americans oppose. How many times do you think the Democrats need to get their butts kicked at the polls before they remember who they work for?
No? It seems to be our business to see that you get educated, so that you're not an ignorant fuck, dragging down society with your inability to balance your own checkbook. So we force you to go to school.
Interesting analogy. Kinda falls down though when you consider the fact that people who haven't even reached the age of majority can decide to drop out of school. Imagine that, freedom of choice, what a concept......
the current proposal optimal? Hardly. But it's a step in the right direction
No it's not. It takes everything that's wrong with the current system and codifies it into law. It does nothing to address defensive medicine. It does nothing to address the shortage of primary care providers. It does nothing to change the messed up incentives that reward failure and punish prevention.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
And don't let the Democrats need for a political victory blind you to the fact that this legislation has morphed into a cesspool of special interest favors and backroom deals.
It's all a moot point of course. Health care reform in it's current form died last night when the polls closed in Massachusetts. You think the moderates in the House and Senate are going to stick their necks out for it now? Not likely.
No, it's not better than what we have now. Right now I can choose any health insurance plan that I want or none at all. If this bill passes I won't be able to choose the plan that makes the most sense for me (high-deductible) and will have no choice to opt out of the system. I fail to see how a system that strips away individual liberty and self determination can be described as "better".
You've lost anyway. Health care reform in it's current form is dead. Members of your own party are saying that now. It's time to wake up and smell the roses. Obama couldn't even sell this plan in the bluest of the blue states. What chance do you suppose it has now with the moderates in the House and (if it goes back for another vote) Senate?
Thank you Massachusetts. There may be hope for you yet.....
First, I've no interest in trampling anything, but religion is a poor excuse, and if your right to practice Scientology with all ten other Scientologists denies 45 million people healthcare, I'm all for healthcare.
It's not an "excuse". The free exercise of religion is one of the core principles of our country. If you can't tell me how you intend on handling religious/moral objections to the universal mandate then you aren't seriously considering this issue. And who said anything about Scientology? I was thinking more along the lines of the Amish. Are you going to force them to buy into your system?
Third, everywhere I've been it's been mandated that you have car insurance.
New Hampshire hasn't mandated it.
It's effectively federal.
No it's not. It's a state law. It doesn't matter that most of the states have the law. All 50 states have laws against murder. That doesn't mean it's "effectively Federal".
As far as citizenship goes--you can leave.
Thanks Dick Cheney. "If you don't like it, leave." That's a winning argument.
This enables you to be *free* to live without the worry of someday getting hit by a car driven by an uninsured motorist and to live the rest of your life in suffocating debt.
No, I'd just file bankruptcy. That's the beauty of the United States. You can hit rock bottom and society gives you another chance. No individual mandate required.
To me, that sense of safety makes me *more* free--free to leave my job, for example, and find another because I know I won't be denied coverage.
As I stated earlier, you can fix denials of coverage without having a mandate. Here in New York State it's already illegal for insurance companies to exclude pre-existing conditions or refuse to extend coverage to new group members. Somehow we've achieved this without having an individual mandate. I'm free to switch jobs without worrying about pre-existing conditions or being refused coverage.
Furthermore, unionization of a fraction of the population does benefit the collective. Just look at the income disparity numbers from the golden age of unions in the 50s and 60s. And with higher unionization, as union wages go, so go the wages of nonunionized workers. This is less true nowadays, but were we still more unionized, it would mean that when they renegotiate cheaper healthcare plans the higher salaries they'd exchange them for would be seen by nearly everyone.
You aren't going to sell me on the benefits of unions, so don't even waste your time trying. Unions have bankrupted my state and destroyed our public education system. They were necessary at one time but like most institutions they've been corrupted over time and now exist only to serve themselves.
For the record, I work for big pharma.
Well, that explains why you are in the minority of American citizens that like this legislation. You do realize that the overwhelming majority of Americans hate it, right?
And in the US, drugs comprise something like 10% of all healthcare spending. But that's another discussion for another day.
Didn't Candidate Obama say something about allowing drug re-importation? How do you rationalize away that change of heart?
Actually, the people of the Bay State already *have* this system. And they like it [nytimes.com].
They like it so much they just elected a Senator who promised to be the 41st vote against Obamacare. Want to try again?
I should know--I am one. Massachusetts liberal to the core.
That explains why you are so far out of touch with the rest of the country. Was tonight a wake up call for you or do you think the Democrats need to ram this bill through in spite of the special e
However, if you were to say that it was unconstitutional, you would be advocating the birther position on the matter, and they are easily the majority of people I've seen expressing that opinion. Generalization, yes. Unfounded? No.
Wow, you really are reaching here.
I do, but I believe more in the right of a human being to healthcare regardless of income. In any other civilized nation (G8, G20, etc.), it is just that: a right. It doesn't much matter who you associate with if you've been allowed to die.
As I said, I would not be making this objection to a single payer system. But the current legislation does nothing to fix the underlying problems with our system. All it does is enshrine them into law while taking away my freedom of choice to opt-out of the broken system.
I understand that you're talking about individual versus collective here, but when concern for the individual's beliefs preclude the collective from benefiting itself, something has to give.
So you can trample on any and all individual rights if the "collective" will "benefit"?
And I believe that the qualms of a few are not justification for the death of 18,000 people a year
More people than that die on car accidents every year. Why aren't you spending all of your energy attacking that issue?
How is it his business that you have car insurance?
It's not. The Federal Government does not mandate that anyone purchase car insurance. Furthermore, owning a car is a choice. Being a citizen of the United States is not.
There MUST be a mandate that everyone is covered, or else people game the system and only buy insurance when they get sick.
That's not what Candidate Obama said.
Did you read the last thing I wrote? From 2019 to 2029 it will continue to reduce the deficit, per the CBO [cbo.gov].
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. Tell me, where did the CBO score the impact of this legislation on the states? What do you suppose it means when the Governors of NY and CA both come out and say that the current legislation will seriously harm their respective states? It's worth noting that both of them are (or were?) supporters of health care reform. Further, the CBO score is based on unrealistic assumptions, like the political fantasy that Congress won't increase medicare reimbursement rates.
The larger of my ideals is that we ought not let those die whom we can save.
The larger of my ideals is that life isn't worth living if you are going to strip me of my liberty and personal choice. That's exactly what this bill does. It regulates what kind of insurance I can buy (high-deductible plans won't be allowed in the exchanges), grants favors to special interest groups at the expense of the whole (I thought you were all about the "collective"?), compels me at gunpoint to participate in a broken system and cuts deals with private industry (big pharma) that codifies their exploitative business model into law at the expense of the citizenry.
November 2010 can't come fast enough as far as I'm concerned. Actually, I might not even have to wait that long. Looks like the Democrats stand a very good chance of losing an election in a few hours in Massachusetts of all places. The fact that you can't even sell this bill to the people of the Bay State ought to tell you something.
You don't know if your health will take a turn for the worse tomorrow. You can protest all you like, but you're doing nothing but playing the odds.
It's my life. It's none of your business whether or not I want to "play the odds". This is a country that allows people to smoke tobacco, live off fast food, skydive, drink alcohol, bungee jump, BMX, blah, blah, blah. One could argue that every single one of those activities imposes indirect costs on society. Yet they remain legal.
The real problem we face here (aside from the naive) is that traditional insurance companies operate with a huge conflict of interest.
So your solution is to support legislation that requires us all to do business with them?
The league of crazies I speak of are the birthers, etc., who despite being shown all valid evidence to the contrary continue to propagate myths about death panels and "pulling the plug on grandma" and so forth;
No, the league of crazies that you spoke of were those who think that the current Health Care bill is unconstitutional. Your previous comment said nothing about birthers.
Do you believe in free association? If so, how do you justify a mandate that people do business with health insurance companies?
Do you believe in freedom of religion? If so, what about people whom have a religious objection to doing business with health insurance companies? If I raise a religious or moral objection is the Government going to accept my word or get into the business of determining whether or not my faith is genuine?
Do you believe that you have the right to be secure in your papers and effects? If so, how is it Uncle Sam's business whether or not I have health insurance?
but it's in line with the mandate to insurance companies that they have to cover you.
That could be imposed without an individual mandate. If the Democrats had sought to end the pre-existing condition practice without attaching it to the rest of this "reform" they could have passed it months ago with supermajorities in both houses of Congress. There's bipartisan support for reining in the most egregious practices of the insurance industry.
Not if you keep using the word "unfunded". I realize that the technical definition of an unfunded mandate may be in line with what you're saying, but it's scarcely unfunded if you look at the $900 billion in subsidies for the poor.
Subsidies that I won't qualify for, thus it's an unfunded mandate for me. You might also consider the costs that the states are going to incur under this bill (unless you live in Nebraska) or the fact that the Democrats can only make it "deficit-neutral" by imposing the new taxes right away but delaying benefits/payouts for several years. Think your household budget would look better if you had 10 years of income and only 6 years of expenses?
And if you are trying to tell me that any hospital ought to be able to say "nope" if somebody walks in the door gushing blood, and would be absolved of all guilt should they simply die on the floor, then we've nothing more to talk about, since we've now hit a moral argument instead of a practical one, and my opinion of you, as someone who would advocate for such a policy, is that you've no conscience and/or soul.
My point was that you shouldn't use one unfunded mandate as a rationalization for another one. The rationalization is thin anyway. Because people can come to the ER and get treated for free we must impose a individual mandate and strip millions of people of their freedom of choice? I thought self-determination was one of our ideals?
To add one final point, can you honestly look at me with a straight face and tell me this legislation doesn't stink? It doesn't bother you that Candidate Obama promised an open process but President Obama has cut backroom deals with the pharmaceutical industry? It doesn't bother you that Candidate Obama promised that everyone would have a seat at the table but President Obama has stood mute while Speaker Pelosi completely muzzled the minority party? It doesn't bother you that Candidate Obama condemned the individual mandate and used it against his two main opponents but President Obama has reneged on this promise? It doesn't bother you that they systematically bought off the votes of skeptical Senators with a series of special deals that favor the few at the expense of the many? It doesn't bother you that Union members get special treatment under this legislation?
And as for the actual proposal, it's better than deficit-neutral over ten years
My household budget would look pretty good too if I had ten years of income and only six years of expenses.....
you'd be in league with a lot of crazies
Typical partisan answer. If you disagree with me then you must be crazy/uneducated/misinformed.
As I recall, there's something about interstate commerce, or even better, "promot[ing] the general Welfare" of the people.
So the interstate commerce clause now extends to a lack of commerce? I hope you realize that the logical conclusion of that argument is the Federal Government arresting cancer patients for smoking weed......
And in any case, there are huge subsidies.
Irrelevant.
Oh--and if you get sick or get hit by an uninsured motorist and go to the ER and you can't pay, well, it's the taxpayers subsidizing that bill for you, so the taxpayers are now saying that you ought to have insurance.
Then end the unfunded mandate that hospitals treat people regardless of their ability to pay. You don't get to impose one mandate and then use it as a rationalization for another one.
Guess they had to burn some of the karma they earned for standing up to China.....