danivon wrote:The bizarre definition of corporations as people (which I see nowhere in the Constitution) does not help.

I had simply wondered exactly how the whole thing was being portrayed, especially in countries (such as yours) where you have free health care grace a H.M. Government.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:The bizarre definition of corporations as people (which I see nowhere in the Constitution) does not help.

Are you becoming a Constitutional literalist Danivon? Wouldn't that be refreshing

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:The bizarre definition of corporations as people (which I see nowhere in the Constitution) does not help.

Are you becoming a Constitutional literalist Danivon? Wouldn't that be refreshing

As the Constitution does not cover me, I'm fairly sanguine about it. What I am, however, is noting that people who call themselves literalists or originalists but defend Citizens United are not basing it on any text in the document.

Do you support CU? If so, on what grounds?

do you ever try to look for sources that support an opinion opposite the stance you have already taken?

I'm not stupid because I had not heard of the McKinsey Center, for example,

They have coverage wherever they are treated in the country, and there’s none of this stuff about limiting the doctors and hospitals that patients can use as a condition of getting full benefits. In Canada there are no financial barriers to care at the point of service as there are and will continue to be in the U.S.

Ricky, mull over that last paragraph, especially the last two sentences.

Not sure about the majority of my fellow Brits, but certainly it was clear to those I've talked to that you were not getting healthcare like ours, and it wasn't a serious prospect.

all the time. But when i make a claim and support it with a source, that source will tend to support my claim won't it? Or why would I post the source?

And I didn't mean it as, "You're an idiot" I meant it as "You're being an idiot". I recognize in your case its not a permanent condition.

If the realization I'm supposed to come to is that the ACA is still pretty crappy, even compared to one of the poorer universal health care systems in the west, I think I've already said that numerous times.

I don't believe there should be any limitation whatsoever on political contributions.

JimHackerMP wrote:

Not sure about the majority of my fellow Brits, but certainly it was clear to those I've talked to that you were not getting healthcare like ours, and it wasn't a serious prospect.

So wait, judging by the last clause of your second sentence quoted above, you do not think ACA was a "serious prospect"?

OK wait, forgive me, since I am an idiot (no wait, BEING an idiot, my bad) I thought your core argument began with the assertion that the Republicans were silly twits to oppose the ACA? If it is, in your own words, "still pretty crappy", would they not have been right to oppose it

rickyp wrote:hacker

OK wait, forgive me, since I am an idiot (no wait, BEING an idiot, my bad) I thought your core argument began with the assertion that the Republicans were silly twits to oppose the ACA? If it is, in your own words, "still pretty crappy", would they not have been right to oppose it

They offered nothing that was a serious alternative to the ACA. Their opposition was not responsible. It was dominated by nonsense and lies like "death panels", the evils of socialism and so on...

There was never a credible response to the objective that the ACA was attempting to achieve
- universal insurance coverage

- an attempt to control costs ...
-the creation of consumer protection from deceptive |non-insurance policies) Something that is acceptable in car insurance already...

A responsible opposition offers an alternative. That continues to be a problem for the republicans on health care, and on immigration...

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Luis Enrique Monroy-Bracamonte had more to hide than many of the estimated 11 million people living in the United States illegally. He had been convicted in Arizona for selling drugs and twice deported to Mexico.

His background would have almost certainly flagged him to be expelled from the country again, but he managed to stay under the radar until his arrest Friday on suspicion of murder, attempted murder and carjacking in the deaths of two sheriff’s deputies during a shooting rampage in Northern California.

More than 2 million deportations have occurred under the watch of President Barack Obama, whose administration has laid out three priorities for people to be expelled from the country: Anyone who poses a public safety threat; anyone with a serious immigration history; and recent border crossers. Monroy-Bracamonte would appear to be a prime candidate on the first two counts. How he escaped detection was a mystery on Sunday.

The suspected shooter told investigators that he was 34-year-old Marcelo Marquez of Salt Lake City, but his fingerprints matched biometric records of Monroy-Bracamonte in a federal database, said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice. He was first removed from the country in 1997 after a conviction for possession of drugs for sale in Arizona, then arrested and repatriated to Mexico again in 2001.

Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones told The Sacramento Bee on Sunday that he may have lived under multiple identities and that he may have had troubles with the law under another name.

“We’re not convinced we have a full picture of his identity,” Jones told the newspaper. “Immigration has come up with one identity. We are not entirely convinced that is his only identity.”

Mauro Marquez, his father-in-law, told the Los Angeles Times that he always knew him as Luis Monroy and said his son-in-law worked as a house painter. He said the couple moved to Utah a couple years after marrying about 14 years ago in Arizona.

Marquez told the newspaper that and he and his wife spent a couple days around Christmas with them each year at their home in West Valley, a suburb of Salt Lake City.

Janelle Marquez Monroy, 38, was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder and carjacking after the attack on Friday that left two deputies dead and a sheriff’s deputy and the carjacking victim wounded.

A responsible opposition offers an alternative.

JimHackerMP wrote:

A responsible opposition offers an alternative.

Well, I have to agree with you there, Ricky (yes, you all may well pick your jaws up from where they fell in your laps). A responsible opposition offers an alternative, and the GOP offered no alternative to the ACA. The proper and logical thing for an opposition to do, when the government offers something idiotic, is to come up with a counterproposal that is "better".

Unfortunately, Ricky, many governments, the President and "his" 111th Congress included, suffer from what one might call "politicians' logic", namely: "Something must be done, Here is Something, Therefore we must do it!" In that sort of atmosphere, the only thing an opposition can do---whether responsible or not in anyone's opinion---is to oppose it, whether they lack a counterproposal or not. Otherwise, I would agree that the sensible thing to do is offer a counterproposal.
What it comes down to is the attempt at Party Hegemony. Both sides seek it: the Dems want to pass a sweeping health care reform and Obama wants to be FDR. Then, people will be voting Democrat for a very long time. The Republicans want to oppose it, thinking that they can exploit it for political capital in exactly the same way, due its failures

In that sort of atmosphere, the only thing an opposition can do---whether responsible or not in anyone's opinion---is to oppose it, whether they lack a counter proposal or not.

In November 2007, research from the Economic Policy Institute showed that employer-provided health care in the United States has dropped sharply, with workplace insurance covering only 59.7% of Americans now, compared to 64.2% in 2000. And in June, a devastating new assessment from the Commonwealth Fund showed fully 25 million Americans are now "underinsured," a staggering 60 percent jump since 2003. All in all, 42% of the people in the United States under age 65 have insufficient insurance - or simply none at all.
As the New York Times reported, premiums for family health insurance have surged 78% since 2001 to over $12,000 a year. That cost explosion comes even as Americans' salaries and wages have barely moved: "inflation-adjusted median family income has dipped 2.6 percent -- or nearly $1,000 annually since 2000." It should come as no surprise that the wealthiest Americans now live 4.5 years longer than the least-well off, a startling jump from just a 2.8 year gap reported in 1982.

rickyp wrote:You forget that one, perhaps the major reason for the atmosphere, is because the opposition largely created the atmosphere.

PArt of the opposition was ideological stating that government couldn't run health care. Even though Medicare is a cornerstone on soceity now.

And even though ACA isn't "government run".

Part of the opposition to the ACA included denial that there was even a health insurance "problem". In itself more ridiculous than climate denial.

In November 2007, research from the Economic Policy Institute showed that employer-provided health care in the United States has dropped sharply, with workplace insurance covering only 59.7% of Americans now, compared to 64.2% in 2000. And in June, a devastating new assessment from the Commonwealth Fund showed fully 25 million Americans are now "underinsured," a staggering 60 percent jump since 2003. All in all, 42% of the people in the United States under age 65 have insufficient insurance - or simply none at all.
As the New York Times reported, premiums for family health insurance have surged 78% since 2001 to over $12,000 a year. That cost explosion comes even as Americans' salaries and wages have barely moved: "inflation-adjusted median family income has dipped 2.6 percent -- or nearly $1,000 annually since 2000." It should come as no surprise that the wealthiest Americans now live 4.5 years longer than the least-well off, a startling jump from just a 2.8 year gap reported in 1982.

That's not responsible.

Any member of government has a duty to offer alternatives, not just oppose.

Many of the critics of the ACA were right about elements of the law. But the law was written to appease the health care industry as much as it was written to attempt to solve the problems of access, and cost that citizens were encountering.

And for that you have the base problem. The health insurance business and Big Pharma contribute hundreds of millions to political campaigns... (All tax deductible). The ordinary citizens can't because they have to pay exorbitant insurance premiums.

In a socialist system, you'd be right. But, read carefully, not every problem is best-solved by the Federal government. That's not the system we have, comrade

Bunk. It takes two to tango.