Lefty

It's not the nature of the evidence but the seriousness of the charges. Just kidding... Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Heh, nevermind. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Indeed. All of the poll clutter has detracted from this point. Used cars, the ultimate recycling, are being disabled and destroyed versus donated, sold, and/or repaired by people with jobs (for now). Such a waste. It makes me wonder who said "Now this is a great idea" to that part of the program and signed off. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Yes, because apparently the studies show that some people who are eligible to Medicare are too lazy to get their asses up and fill the forms to get it. I believe them because I happen to know a couple of such people myself. How else would you suggest to make sure that we won't end up again in a situation when someone was just too lazy to apply for a government plan (even if it was free for him), and only once he got sick he arrived in ER for treatment being unable to pay for it? Just wonder why do you consider the coverage inadequate? All good points in your last post. Not much I can respond to without referring to what I already said. If only the safety net didn't double as a hammock. I'd love to see the people too lazy to even sign up for handouts hung out to dry. Alas... I don't consider the coverage inadequate. I just have no use for maternity and kid insurance (or mental health insurance, really...is libertarianism a pre-existing condition?). That's why I don't like getting lumped in with everyone else. I'm an individual with individual needs. By the "2.5% tax" comment I facetiously meant you can't go to the grocery store without getting enrolled in the program five times on your way, or so it sounds. Somehow avoiding enrollment would be like the last bit of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Is there any way to unprint the money? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Let's not forget one of the most obvious flaws in Cash-For-Clunkers: cars that still have economic value are being destroyed. This is from a CNN article: "Despite the popular "clunker" name, the government requires vehicles to be drivable and to have been insured continuously for the past year. So no hauling, pushing or pulling broken-down jalopies into dealer parking lots." The trade-ins (still drivable and workable) are then required to be scrapped. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

If by accessibility you're talking about waiting times, then accessibility will most likely be the choke point. Like gas lines. Artificially lower the price, raise demand. That's not exactly a compelling argument in favor of the bill. Here's a bit more from the bill: " ‘(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year. " So it might actually be cheaper to just pay the penalty then pick up the taxpayer-funded plan if something happens. Maternity care? Well baby care? I'm male, unmarried, and childless. The preventative services section just baffles me. You know checkups are coming, you can plan for them, they're not unexpected. Why would any insurance cover this? Oh yeah, because the government tells them they have to--which this bill makes very clear if people didn't know it already. No wonder the costs are so high nowadays. What you say is true (go free market!), but you're not addressing Lewis' point. In order to provide insurance to government "standards" through a private plan, an employer must pay more than a competitor who simply goes with the taxpayer-funded plan. Thus, the privately insured employer is at a disadvantage. The rest of Lewis' points naturally follow from this situation. I suppose Lewis' point goes without saying. As if the politicians were going to spread the costs out to the voting masses... Might get into some issues here with medical services unable to allow their prices to fluctuate with quality and demand. "I don't care how well you transfer hearts. You'll charge the same as Dr. Nick and like it." Goodbye, skilled doctors. Hardly the same. The government can legally use force against you, the insurance companies cannot. As such, the burden of proof that this plan is beneficial is on the government. They're failing miserably in convincing me. Anyway, as Lewis points out, item (v) says the government can basically snoop into anything it wants. We all know that the government never exploits vaguely-worded clauses... So the natural order of things is that the government tries to lasso you into something at every turn and it's your responsibility to stop them? Damn...I actually agree with that. Actually having to pay that 2.5% tax for inadequate coverage discussed earlier will be quite a feat considering how the deck is stacked. You may be right on this one. The bill itself doesn't really get into details of what they have planned for "review" that I can see. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

That's a bit too democratic for me, though I agree with you on how new "rights" come about. If we follow the whims of the majority on what makes a right and what doesn't, we might find ourselves in trouble. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I'm not sure if you saw the edit to my last response, but the DoI really is not law. It was just the letter putting King George III on notice that the colonies were free from British rule. The beginning of the beginning, so to speak. However, trying to make law guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is impossible. The Constitution modifies the "inalienable rights" a bit by stating that the government may not deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or property without due process. See my last response for why I think the Constitution's wording makes much more sense. My statement about the doctors working for free was hyperbole, for sure. Let me rephrase. If health care became a "right" the doctor could not charge what he thinks his services are worth. Much like public defenders don't make what the private defense attorneys do (correct me if I'm wrong, lawrocket). If it's a strictly moral question, I never liked the thought of money/property/time being forcibly taken from one person and given to another by the government. Naturally there are exceptions, but morals are tricky things. :-) Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I suppose we're at an impasse on this point, especially if we're pulling the old DoI/Constitution switcheroo. Edit: I'll respond anyway. As far as versions of rights, I subscribe to the version that things like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. can only be guaranteed to the extent that we agree not to interfere with the lives and choices of other people. The government can't guarantee me life, but it can not kill me without good reason. The government can't guarantee me liberty. It can only not deprive me of it without due process. The UN? Now I'm sold. Strictly speaking, it's only different from legal defense in that legal defense is a real right specifically outlined in the Constitution. The rest depend on where you draw the line of how many public services you want the taxpayers to provide for you. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

The second question might be easier to answer. If health care is a right, then a doctor is obligated to treat me for free. Through such an obligation he must give up his own rights, time, property, etc. to service mine. Therefore I do not consider health care a right. I completely disagree with you. Education and Public safety are both rights that the government provides through tax dollars... why should health care be different. Teachers, police, and firefighters are still paid, so your comment about doctors having to work for free is absurd. I'm not totally convinced that comprehensive health care is a right, but I lean that direction. You're confusing "rights" and "services". Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

The second question might be easier to answer. If health care is a right, then a doctor is obligated to treat me for free. Through such an obligation he must give up his own rights, time, property, etc. to service mine. Therefore I do not consider health care a right. Nice logic. I guess the government should give me a free gun so I can exercise my 2nd Amendment right. Come, come. You can do better than that. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the government (and, by extension, individuals) supplying citizens with arms. It simply prohibits the government infringing on a citizen's right to keep and bear arms--meaning the arms people possess can't be taken without due process. Contrast that with health care. If you want an amendment that declares the right of the people to keep and bear health care, then go ahead and champion that. Since the U.S. government is not trying to infringe on peoples' access to health care (at least, not for insidious reasons that I know of *shifty eyes*), I can't imagine it would do your cause any good. Now, if you'd rather say the right of the people is to have health care, then it becomes apples and oranges. Hell, I figured an educated man like yourself would have at least referenced the 6th Amendment to challenge my point. It even says "have the Assistance of Council". I haven't quite noodled out the contradiction there; it stands alone in the Bill of Rights as entitling an individual to the service of others. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

The second question might be easier to answer. If health care is a right, then a doctor is obligated to treat me for free. Through such an obligation he must give up his own rights, time, property, etc. to service mine. Therefore I do not consider health care a right. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I agree wholeheartedly with your post. My point was merely an objection to the fact that this guy's job was being used to affix a stamp of authority to the review when in fact his job and his academic credentials were entirely irrelevant. Well, if you agree wholeheartedly with lawrocket, then I was right to point out Lewis' credentials. Professors (visiting, associate, or otherwise) can presumably read and are no strangers to analysis and research. Hah, and to think I only mentioned the professorship thing so people wouldn't immediately dismiss the writer. How wrong I was. BUT...now that all the tears have dried regarding his description, we can move on to what he actually said. Not quite vague scaremongering, eh? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Haha, man you're something. I went ahead and changed the thread title so as not to crowd your pedestal with peasants. Now, how about addressing Lewis' points? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

*sigh* Kallend, there are people as equally unqualified to comment on HR 3200 as you around here. I am one of them. However, we all just keep commenting. What say we leave it at that and maybe address what Dr. Lewis said? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Little did Lefty know when he "published" his post in Speakers Corner that he would stoke the coals of the oft-overlooked war between real professors and lesser folk. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Jesus, you guys are fussy. He "published" it on his own website. No wonder the debate is getting so clouded. Does anyone actually have anything substantive to say? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I'll be sure to keep that in mind. However, I'm interested in your take on things nonetheless. Did you read the text? Did you interpret things differently? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Here is his page. Nothing wrong with being a physics and engineering expert and commenting on the health care debate either. Just saying. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Just to save you all some time, I went on Duke's website to verify his identity. His credentials check out, and he analyzes the text directly off the bill. It's not a pretty picture he paints. Clicky. Edit: Gawain made a thread a while back hitting on a couple of things the prof didn't cover. I figured it would be worth linking here. Anyway, the objections we normal people have are not being pulled out of thin air[waves]. These are real concerns that deserve to be addressed. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

It does make one wonder why there are such stark differences between employer-provided insurance and individual insurance. Almost as if the market is being manipulated somehow... Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Well, getting a bunch of responses about how everyone's insurance seems to cover pre-existing conditions is a nice bonus...I thought that was one of the huge criticisms that is usually leveled against the industry. However, it was more of a rhetorical question. Like, why would insurance cover a car that's already wrecked? What would it be "insuring" against? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Oh, it's brought up. The difference is people are used to public education. This mess of a health care plan is a new thing and people can see stark drawbacks by changing from what they have now to what could potentially come about. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Now that you mention it, how could "insurance" cover pre-existing conditions? Doesn't the program become something else entirely at that point? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin