because publicly owned utilities have a history of giving better prices and service than their private counterparts for doing similar jobs.
They also have a history of paying excessively above market wages/benefits to their employees. Their unions have a history of corrupting the political process to benefit their few members at the expense of everyone else. Just look at the states that are deepest in the red right now (New York and California come to mind) and compare the compensation packages of the public and private sectors in those states. Then look at how any politician brave enough to stand up to these special interests is immediately vilified.
1. A lot of media companies have business ties to ISPs. Time Warner in particular is guilty of this.
No it's not. Time Warner Cable was spun off from Time Warner some time ago. TWC is a bad example anyway -- they've never blocked any service (other than netbios and smtp, which is SOP these days for security reasons) or interfered with any protocol. As ISPs go, Roadrunner is a pretty good one, IMHO anyway.
What if I want to pay for a 'lazy' broadband package, where I agree to be throttled when the network is loaded, in exchange for better throughput when things are less busy?
If it works the same way as the health care reform legislation then you'll be limited to choosing a list of internet packages that were pre-approved by the FCC or some other Federal bureaucracy. This may or may not include one that meets your needs and provides you with the most value for your hard earned money.
I like how you keep saying "universal healthcare" when the current legislation is anything but. It's amusing. Almost as amusing as your claims of not being a left wing partisan. If you were the moderate that you say you are you would realize that this legislation doesn't even provide the "universal" health care that you keep attributing to it.
Certain "limited contexts"? The whole concept of free association goes out the window if you can be compelled to associate with a private entity against your will. What if one has a moral objection to the way health insurance companies do business? What about a religious objection? Are you going to throw the free practice of religion out the window in your quest for universal health care that isn't?
There are other constitutional issues at play too. The 5th amendment comes to mind. I can't be deprived of my property without due process of law. The 4th amendment says that I have the right to be secure in my papers and effects. So what gives Uncle Sam the right to even ask whether or not I have health insurance? Then there's the 10th amendment. All powers not specifically delegated to Congress are reserved to the states and people. What part of the Constitution is it that you think delegates to Congress the power to mandate that people buy a specific product or service?
You also might want to consider the historical precedent. Not once in the history of the United States has there been a mandate of this scope imposed on the citizenry by the Federal Government. If the Federal Government has the power to compel me to buy Health Insurance then what powers don't they have? Can they compel me to buy phone service? Can they compel me to keep life insurance?
If this legislation passes I think you are in for a rude awakening when it makes it to the court system. That's assuming that a future Congress doesn't repeal the individual mandate entirely -- which they very well might. You've already got 55-60% of this country opposed to this legislation. That's before they even realize the individual mandate is a part of it. Do you suppose that number is going to go down when people fill out their 1040(s) and realize that Uncle Sam is asking a question that has nothing to do with their income?
Maybe if you spent less time attacking my knowledge and more time displaying some of your own we could have a productive dialog here?
Just answer me this: Do you understand what free association means and if so how is a mandate that I do business with private entities compatible with it?
Thanks for not disappointing me. For a second there when I saw that you had replied I thought you might have come up with some meaningful insight into Constitutional law.
I hope you take your head out of the sand long enough to enjoy the Christmas season. Have a good holiday:)
You are a moderate? Could have fooled me. You are behaving exactly as the partisan hacks that you just claimed to hate so much.
You refuse to acknowledge any of the points I've made. You can't tell me why the individual mandate isn't a violation of free association. You can't tell me why it isn't an overreach of Congressional power. I doubt you even know what free association is or the case/constitutional law behind it. All you can tell me is that "people have looked at it", "you simply don't understand" and "you NEED insurance".
Tell me why you think it's constitutional or shut the fuck up and admit that you've lost.
It's older than Nixon. Johnson did it. Those before him did it to. There probably hasn't been a President since George Washington (the only guy who didn't want the job) who hasn't used these types of techniques.
Republicans have become masters of the art of pressing the emotional buttons over and over again even if their message is laced with lies and half truths
What, and Democrats haven't done the same thing? Were you around for the debate on social security privatization? If you listened to them back then you'd have thought that the GOP was aiming to put America's seniors into concentration camps.
As you can see from the 2000 and 2004 elections, the voters respond much better to emotional messages (particularly the emotion known as 'fear' as Karl Rove and Dick Cheney know too well) than they do to something as mundane as logic.
And the 2008 election was immune? Barack Obama's entire campaign was one of sweeping emotion. Emotion that "change" was on the way, emotion that we'd be able to "rise above" our "petty differences", emotion that he would "transcend" race, etc, etc.
You really can't claim that the Democrats are any better. Democrats and Republicans use the same playbook. If you think any differently then you must be a partisan for one side or the other.
Except we aren't getting "universal healthcare". We are getting a mandate to do business with private entities. I would not be making this argument against a single payer system. Do you have any idea what freedom of association means? Look it up. Then tell me how it's compatible with a mandate to do business with private entities. You've also completely ignored the troubling implications for the free practice of the religion of your choice. Gonna trample all over that right in your quest for universal healthcare that isn't?
Somehow I doubt you'll be able to come up with a good argument. You've yet to respond with anything more meaningful than "you simply don't understand". That's not a dialogue, that's you sticking your head in the sand and refusing to think critically.
As far as your "intellectual growth" insult, allow me to respond with this quote: If you aren't a socialist by age 25 you have no heart. If you still are at age 40 you have no mind.
It doesn't "grow and change" outside of the amendment process, which unless I've missed the news story is not how we are implementing health care.
The 1st amendment grants me the freedom of association. SCOTUS has previously held that this also includes the freedom not to associate. How is this compatible with a mandate that I purchase something from a private concern? What if I have a moral objection to the way insurance companies do business? What about a religious one? Are we going to gut the freedom of religion alongside the freedom of association?
Your whole argument boils down to my "responsibility" while ignoring the constitutional question. It is therefore irrelevant. Nonetheless, I would add one final point: If the notion of paying for the medical expenses of the uninsured bothers you so much, why aren't you trying to get rid of the mandate that hospitals treat those who can't pay?
Having an automobile is a choice. Being alive and an American citizen is not.
You are still ignoring the fact that it's completely unconstitutional for the Federal Government to do this. You might note that the apples-to-oranges comparison you just made with auto policy is irrelevant for this reason as well. That mandate comes from the states. It doesn't come from Uncle Sam. I assume you are familiar with the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th amendments to the United States Constitution?
Congratulations on completely ignoring my point. You must be a TV pundit or member of Congress to stick to your talking points with such efficiency. Shall I call you Mr. Olbermann or Mr. Schemer?
EVERYONE is thinking about 'me me me' and the bottom line on THEIR wallet.
My god, the nerve of wanting to keep the money you've labored to earn. The nerve I tell you!
If we cut Military spending in half and quit tried being the world's big brother we could easily fund full health care for everyone in the US
Except the rest of the world doesn't want us to do this. To be sure, they hem and haw when we wield our military power -- but taken as a whole the US is a stabilizing force on the world and nobody wants that to go away. Even some Chinese leaders have been quoted as saying that they see this as America's place in the world (at least for the time being)
I got to take all 8 days of vacation to India this year for a wedding where I met quite a few travelers from Europe. Not a single one has this mentality. Not a single one worried about how those 'bums' were imposing on 'their' freedom.
And in many (most?) parts of Europe they don't have real free speech, can't keep and bear arms and are slowly having their rights taken away by an unelected cabal of bureaucrats in Brussels. As with everything in life, it's a trade-off. Just because you are willing to pay 70% income taxes and surrender your liberty doesn't mean the rest of us are.
We are the only country that has no mandatory parental leave
Umm, I take it you've never heard of FMLA?
We also have the proud distinction of being the only country with 0 minimum days of vacation. [wikipedia.org].
So what? You do realize that if you mandate vacation time you raise the cost of hiring new employees to the point that many businesses just won't bother, right? Again, everything is a trade-off.
Hopefully when you reach the age you need to move into a home, your family makes the right decision and just has you euthanized instead, wouldn't want you imposing on their freedoms.
My family won't have to make that choice because I'm setting aside money for that possibility and will probably invest in long term care insurance as well.
Now I await my -1 off-topic mod even though you've got a +5 for something that's equally off-topic. Right-of-center political ideas = off-topic, even in political discussions. Left-of-center political ideas = +5 insightful, regardless of the story at hand.
and you NEED health insurance. even 21 yo marathoners have heart attacks and broken legs. if you believe you don't need health insurance, you have some sort of god complex, and then you definitely need mental health coverage
Just because you think I NEED it doesn't make a mandate from the Federal Government requiring me to buy it any more Constitutional.
But they are providing internet service to the critically underserved market of phishers, extortionists and viagra salesman. I bet they even obey network neutrality and don't inject fake RST packets into your connections too. Clearly they qualify as an ISP;)
Slashdot Mirror
World fascism is about three years away, and there's nothing we can do but watch
Speak for yourself. Here in the US we still have our firearms ;)
because publicly owned utilities have a history of giving better prices and service than their private counterparts for doing similar jobs.
They also have a history of paying excessively above market wages/benefits to their employees. Their unions have a history of corrupting the political process to benefit their few members at the expense of everyone else. Just look at the states that are deepest in the red right now (New York and California come to mind) and compare the compensation packages of the public and private sectors in those states. Then look at how any politician brave enough to stand up to these special interests is immediately vilified.
1. A lot of media companies have business ties to ISPs. Time Warner in particular is guilty of this.
No it's not. Time Warner Cable was spun off from Time Warner some time ago. TWC is a bad example anyway -- they've never blocked any service (other than netbios and smtp, which is SOP these days for security reasons) or interfered with any protocol. As ISPs go, Roadrunner is a pretty good one, IMHO anyway.
But I thought the days of lobbyists drafting legislation behind closed doors ended on 20 January 2009?
What if I want to pay for a 'lazy' broadband package, where I agree to be throttled when the network is loaded, in exchange for better throughput when things are less busy?
If it works the same way as the health care reform legislation then you'll be limited to choosing a list of internet packages that were pre-approved by the FCC or some other Federal bureaucracy. This may or may not include one that meets your needs and provides you with the most value for your hard earned money.
That 1 boy makes a joke out of those 29 people.
Do you need an adult explanation of this?
That one boy is a hypocrite who wants special treatment
I like how you keep saying "universal healthcare" when the current legislation is anything but. It's amusing. Almost as amusing as your claims of not being a left wing partisan. If you were the moderate that you say you are you would realize that this legislation doesn't even provide the "universal" health care that you keep attributing to it.
Certain "limited contexts"? The whole concept of free association goes out the window if you can be compelled to associate with a private entity against your will. What if one has a moral objection to the way health insurance companies do business? What about a religious objection? Are you going to throw the free practice of religion out the window in your quest for universal health care that isn't?
There are other constitutional issues at play too. The 5th amendment comes to mind. I can't be deprived of my property without due process of law. The 4th amendment says that I have the right to be secure in my papers and effects. So what gives Uncle Sam the right to even ask whether or not I have health insurance? Then there's the 10th amendment. All powers not specifically delegated to Congress are reserved to the states and people. What part of the Constitution is it that you think delegates to Congress the power to mandate that people buy a specific product or service?
You also might want to consider the historical precedent. Not once in the history of the United States has there been a mandate of this scope imposed on the citizenry by the Federal Government. If the Federal Government has the power to compel me to buy Health Insurance then what powers don't they have? Can they compel me to buy phone service? Can they compel me to keep life insurance?
If this legislation passes I think you are in for a rude awakening when it makes it to the court system. That's assuming that a future Congress doesn't repeal the individual mandate entirely -- which they very well might. You've already got 55-60% of this country opposed to this legislation. That's before they even realize the individual mandate is a part of it. Do you suppose that number is going to go down when people fill out their 1040(s) and realize that Uncle Sam is asking a question that has nothing to do with their income?
Maybe if you spent less time attacking my knowledge and more time displaying some of your own we could have a productive dialog here?
Just answer me this: Do you understand what free association means and if so how is a mandate that I do business with private entities compatible with it?
Thanks for not disappointing me. For a second there when I saw that you had replied I thought you might have come up with some meaningful insight into Constitutional law.
I hope you take your head out of the sand long enough to enjoy the Christmas season. Have a good holiday :)
I voted for Pres. Obama specifically because of his policy suggestions.
His tanking poll numbers among independents suggest that most of them did not vote for him for his policy suggestions.
Ban political parties
As much as I may agree with George Washington's sentiment on the issue, I do presume you've heard of the 1st amendment, right?
You are a moderate? Could have fooled me. You are behaving exactly as the partisan hacks that you just claimed to hate so much.
You refuse to acknowledge any of the points I've made. You can't tell me why the individual mandate isn't a violation of free association. You can't tell me why it isn't an overreach of Congressional power. I doubt you even know what free association is or the case/constitutional law behind it. All you can tell me is that "people have looked at it", "you simply don't understand" and "you NEED insurance".
Tell me why you think it's constitutional or shut the fuck up and admit that you've lost.
Who said I'm the only one that's discovered it?
I guess you get all of your news from Keith Olbermann, eh?
It's older than Nixon. Johnson did it. Those before him did it to. There probably hasn't been a President since George Washington (the only guy who didn't want the job) who hasn't used these types of techniques.
Republicans have become masters of the art of pressing the emotional buttons over and over again even if their message is laced with lies and half truths
What, and Democrats haven't done the same thing? Were you around for the debate on social security privatization? If you listened to them back then you'd have thought that the GOP was aiming to put America's seniors into concentration camps.
As you can see from the 2000 and 2004 elections, the voters respond much better to emotional messages (particularly the emotion known as 'fear' as Karl Rove and Dick Cheney know too well) than they do to something as mundane as logic.
And the 2008 election was immune? Barack Obama's entire campaign was one of sweeping emotion. Emotion that "change" was on the way, emotion that we'd be able to "rise above" our "petty differences", emotion that he would "transcend" race, etc, etc.
You really can't claim that the Democrats are any better. Democrats and Republicans use the same playbook. If you think any differently then you must be a partisan for one side or the other.
Except we aren't getting "universal healthcare". We are getting a mandate to do business with private entities. I would not be making this argument against a single payer system. Do you have any idea what freedom of association means? Look it up. Then tell me how it's compatible with a mandate to do business with private entities. You've also completely ignored the troubling implications for the free practice of the religion of your choice. Gonna trample all over that right in your quest for universal healthcare that isn't?
Somehow I doubt you'll be able to come up with a good argument. You've yet to respond with anything more meaningful than "you simply don't understand". That's not a dialogue, that's you sticking your head in the sand and refusing to think critically.
As far as your "intellectual growth" insult, allow me to respond with this quote: If you aren't a socialist by age 25 you have no heart. If you still are at age 40 you have no mind.
It doesn't "grow and change" outside of the amendment process, which unless I've missed the news story is not how we are implementing health care.
The 1st amendment grants me the freedom of association. SCOTUS has previously held that this also includes the freedom not to associate. How is this compatible with a mandate that I purchase something from a private concern? What if I have a moral objection to the way insurance companies do business? What about a religious one? Are we going to gut the freedom of religion alongside the freedom of association?
Your whole argument boils down to my "responsibility" while ignoring the constitutional question. It is therefore irrelevant. Nonetheless, I would add one final point: If the notion of paying for the medical expenses of the uninsured bothers you so much, why aren't you trying to get rid of the mandate that hospitals treat those who can't pay?
Having an automobile is a choice. Being alive and an American citizen is not.
You are still ignoring the fact that it's completely unconstitutional for the Federal Government to do this. You might note that the apples-to-oranges comparison you just made with auto policy is irrelevant for this reason as well. That mandate comes from the states. It doesn't come from Uncle Sam. I assume you are familiar with the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th amendments to the United States Constitution?
Congratulations on completely ignoring my point. You must be a TV pundit or member of Congress to stick to your talking points with such efficiency. Shall I call you Mr. Olbermann or Mr. Schemer?
EVERYONE is thinking about 'me me me' and the bottom line on THEIR wallet.
My god, the nerve of wanting to keep the money you've labored to earn. The nerve I tell you!
If we cut Military spending in half and quit tried being the world's big brother we could easily fund full health care for everyone in the US
Except the rest of the world doesn't want us to do this. To be sure, they hem and haw when we wield our military power -- but taken as a whole the US is a stabilizing force on the world and nobody wants that to go away. Even some Chinese leaders have been quoted as saying that they see this as America's place in the world (at least for the time being)
I got to take all 8 days of vacation to India this year for a wedding where I met quite a few travelers from Europe. Not a single one has this mentality. Not a single one worried about how those 'bums' were imposing on 'their' freedom.
And in many (most?) parts of Europe they don't have real free speech, can't keep and bear arms and are slowly having their rights taken away by an unelected cabal of bureaucrats in Brussels. As with everything in life, it's a trade-off. Just because you are willing to pay 70% income taxes and surrender your liberty doesn't mean the rest of us are.
We are the only country that has no mandatory parental leave
Umm, I take it you've never heard of FMLA?
We also have the proud distinction of being the only country with 0 minimum days of vacation. [wikipedia.org].
So what? You do realize that if you mandate vacation time you raise the cost of hiring new employees to the point that many businesses just won't bother, right? Again, everything is a trade-off.
Hopefully when you reach the age you need to move into a home, your family makes the right decision and just has you euthanized instead, wouldn't want you imposing on their freedoms.
My family won't have to make that choice because I'm setting aside money for that possibility and will probably invest in long term care insurance as well.
Now I await my -1 off-topic mod even though you've got a +5 for something that's equally off-topic. Right-of-center political ideas = off-topic, even in political discussions. Left-of-center political ideas = +5 insightful, regardless of the story at hand.
and you NEED health insurance. even 21 yo marathoners have heart attacks and broken legs. if you believe you don't need health insurance, you have some sort of god complex, and then you definitely need mental health coverage
Just because you think I NEED it doesn't make a mandate from the Federal Government requiring me to buy it any more Constitutional.
I bet the cavewomen weren't sad when he put the club down ;)
What motivation would future generations have to unthaw you? They already have your money.
Have you looked at our Federal deficit lately? Future generations will unthaw us so they can sick their debt collectors on us ;)
Does that mean we'll finally be able to travel to Tau Ceti and give the Race a taste of it's own medicine?
But they are providing internet service to the critically underserved market of phishers, extortionists and viagra salesman. I bet they even obey network neutrality and don't inject fake RST packets into your connections too. Clearly they qualify as an ISP ;)
Pretty soon we're gonna be so "secure" it's gonna take an act of congress take a piss.
Boy, that's gonna really suck for the people whose political party of choice happens to be out of power at the time they need to go..... ;)