If the mandate is struck down, can the rest of Obamacare still stand?

[Pepper]

He wasn't suggesting it was - you simply are too dense to understand what he said.

I guess the problem is that you don't understand that in an analogy, one thing represents another.

The only one who doesn't understand it is YOU. You are using the equivocation that is a staple of leftwing statist health system propaganda that will only fool the Koolaid Set.

Wrong. We have rationing right now. Health care is rationed to those with money, and those who are on welfare. The working poor are completely left out in the cold. One of the standard objections to a larger number of people having health care is that we would have "long lines". In other words, there's a need, right now, for health care, and some folks simply aren't getting it. Their rations are given out elsewhere.

 

[Rick]

I guess the problem is that you don't understand that in an analogy, one thing represents another.

OKay, time for the LONG VERSION idiot-level explanation, just for you.

His post:

Rationing is the controlled distribution of scarce resources, goods, or services. Rationing controls the size of the ration, one's allotted portion of the resources being distributed on a particular day or at a particular time.
Healthcare is not rationed. The fact that I can't afford to consume steak smothered in caviar with a lobster tail on the side, and wash it all down with a bottle of Dom Perignon, every night for dinner does not mean those things are being rationed.

He was pointing out the difference between a particular individual not being able to afford a good or service, and rationing, which is government control of how much of a good or service everyone gets, independent of how much money they have. Describing the former as "rationing" is a politically motivated misuse of language.

Blink twice if you get it yet.

 

[Pepper]

OKay, time for the LONG VERSION idiot-level explanation, just for you.

His post:

He was pointing out the difference between a particular individual not being able to afford a good or service, and rationing, which is government control of how much of a good or service everyone gets, independent of how much money they have. Describing the former as "rationing" is a politically motivated misuse of language.

Blink twice if you get it yet.

Talk about politically motivated use of language. You're describing an identical outcome and saying that it's good as long as it's accomplished by the marketplace.

 

[Pepper]

I don't think it's understood, for some unimaginable reason, that lack of access to health care is a form of oppression, regardless of the reason for the lack of access.

During the founders time, this problem didn't exist. It's a recent development. But it's a basic human need, so when some citizens have abundant access and others have no access, that keeps people down.

Insurance companies are just not designed to really meet this need. Their goal is to make money, not to give access to health care. That's not a political statement, that's just reality. We have people who work hard who cannot afford to go the doctor, who cannot afford chemotherapy or open heart surgery, who cannot afford to catch a minor illness before it becomes a major problem.

Some problems are better solved by government. National defense, national infrastructure, public education, public safety, and public health care. The private sector does better creating restaurants, cool stuff to buy, etc, etc.

KWIM?

 

[Rick]

Talk about politically motivated use of language. You're describing an identical outcome and saying that it's good as long as it's accomplished by the marketplace.

Lessee - does that sudden change in your idiot monologue mean you're going to stop pretending that "can't afford" means the same thing as "rationing"?

 

[Rick]

I don't think it's understood, for some unimaginable reason, that lack of access to health care is a form of oppression, regardless of the reason for the lack of access.

Now you're using anoither fav libspeak word - "access". If I don't have the money to see a Dodgers game, it's a misuse of language to say that I don't have "access" to Dodger stadium. Leftwingers have all these novel corrupt word usages that are designed to pollute and distort rational communication on issues.

But it's a basic human need

So is food - should government take over stores and farms? Ooops, some have already tried - result: people starve. People have already tried the government takeover of health care - result: health care is rationed, and people die.

About the biggest argument you can summon for government NOT to be involved in something is to determine that it's a basic human need.

 

[Dr.Who]

If the mandate is struck down I don't doubt that those to whom power is given by the remainder of the law will hold onto that power. It will still be a step toward statism and they won't give that up. (The "they" btw is members of both parties).

Would the law work with that one part missing? It would not have worked with that one part and it would not work without it. Either way there will be a giant government game of wackamole in which each wack fixes one problem but causes another one to pop up elsewhere.

Total repeal is the only solution.

 

[Pepper]

Now you're using anoither fav libspeak word - "access". If I don't have the money to see a Dodgers game, it's a misuse of language to say that I don't have "access" to Dodger stadium. Leftwingers have all these novel corrupt word usages that are designed to pollute and distort rational communication on issues.

So is food - should government take over stores and farms? Ooops, some have already tried - result: people starve. People have already tried the government takeover of health care - result: health care is rationed, and people die.

About the biggest argument you can summon for government NOT to be involved in something is to determine that it's a basic human need.

Another heinous analogy. You're comparing a ticket to see the Dodgers to getting chemotherapy.

Your last statement is quite a declaration, but you don't support it with anything at all.

Medicare is government health care. It works great. Please give that some thought.

If the mandate is struck down I don't doubt that those to whom power is given by the remainder of the law will hold onto that power. It will still be a step toward statism and they won't give that up. (The "they" btw is members of both parties).

Would the law work with that one part missing? It would not have worked with that one part and it would not work without it. Either way there will be a giant government game of wackamole in which each wack fixes one problem but causes another one to pop up elsewhere.

Total repeal is the only solution.

Then the public option will arise again, and it may be a better solution after all.

Either way, we've got HCR.

 

[Rick]

If the mandate is struck down I don't doubt that those to whom power is given by the remainder of the law will hold onto that power. It will still be a step toward statism and they won't give that up. (The "they" btw is members of both parties).

Would the law work with that one part missing? It would not have worked with that one part and it would not work without it. Either way there will be a giant government game of wackamole in which each wack fixes one problem but causes another one to pop up elsewhere.

Total repeal is the only solution.

As I have already pointed out, since there is no severablity clause in the law, the whole law will be struck down if any part is found to be unconstitutional - there's no debate about this.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Pepper, you keep criticizing other people for making analogies, because you don't understand the concept of what an analogy is.

Instead of going into "attack mode" due to your ignorance, take the time to crack open a dictionary and look up the word "analogy".

As for health care, I find it morally reprehensible that ANY kind of health care services should be a profit-making venture.

I know this won't sit well with many of the people in here that I respect, but I don't believe that ANYBODY should profit from somebody else's illnesses and other chronic and acute physical and mental problems.

All hospitals and all other "levels" of health care should be NON-PROFIT. Health care professionals should all be paid a premium wage based on their expertise and skills, and the latest medical technologies should be available at all health care facilities.

Every LEGAL citizen of the United States should receive quality health care, without having to worry about declaring bankruptcy or losing their life savings and/or their homes.

 

[Pepper]

Pepper, you keep criticizing other people for making analogies, because you don't understand the concept of what an analogy is.

Instead of going into "attack mode" due to your ignorance, take the time to crack open a dictionary and look up the word "analogy".

No, TS. I keep criticizing people for making poor analogies because I understand analogies, and they clearly do not. Analogies are, in fact, something that I excel in understanding, and their analogies are like an air horn in the middle of a symphony. Distracting, out of place, and a nuisance.

As for health care, I find it morally reprehensible that ANY kind of health care services should be a profit-making venture.

I know this won't sit well with many of the people in here that I respect, but I don't believe that ANYBODY should profit from somebody else's illnesses and other chronic and acute physical and mental problems.

All hospitals and all other "levels" of health care should be NON-PROFIT. Health care professionals should all be paid a premium wage based on their expertise and skills, and the latest medical technologies should be available at all health care facilities.

Every LEGAL citizen of the United States should receive quality health care, without having to worry about declaring bankruptcy or losing their life savings and/or their homes.

I agree that everyone deserves access, because health care is a basic human need. I don't mind a profit being made by the providers, any more than I mind a farmer making money off of his crops or livestock.

I appreciate what you're saying very much. Here's a related story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_medic...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3NlbmlvcnNmYWNlbQ--

 

[TruthSeeker]

No, TS. I keep criticizing people for making poor analogies because I understand analogies, and they clearly do not. Analogies are, in fact, something that I excel in understanding, and their analogies are like an air horn in the middle of a symphony. Distracting, out of place, and a nuisance.

I agree that everyone deserves access, because health care is a basic human need. I don't mind a profit being made by the providers, any more than I mind a farmer making money off of his crops or livestock.

I appreciate what you're saying very much. Here's a related story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_medic...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3NlbmlvcnNmYWNlbQ--

Don't look now, but you just made a very poor analogy. Comparing profiteering by "specialty" physicians, many hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and health care insurance companies to the relatively meager profits made by farmers, is NOT a good analogy at all.

Yes, it's true that both health care and food are "basic needs". The BIG difference is that the majority of Americans are capable of growing their own food, killing wild game, and certainly stealing food, to survive.

How many Americans are capable of performing open heart surgery, or performing other surgeries, or any of hundreds of other medical-related procedures? How many Americans are capable of synthesizing and producing their own pharmaceuticals, besides marijuana and crystal meth and some other "plant-related" recreational drugs?

BAD analogy. Bad! Bad! Bad!

 

[Pepper]

Don't look now, but you just made a very poor analogy. Comparing profiteering by "specialty" physicians, many hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and health care insurance companies to the relatively meager profits made by farmers, is NOT a good analogy at all.

Yes, it's true that both health care and food are "basic needs". The BIG difference is that the majority of Americans are capable of growing their own food, killing wild game, and certainly stealing food, to survive.

How many Americans are capable of performing open heart surgery, or performing other surgeries, or any of hundreds of other medical-related procedures? How many Americans are capable of synthesizing and producing their own pharmaceuticals, besides marijuana and crystal meth and some other "plant-related" recreational drugs?

BAD analogy. Bad! Bad! Bad!

You are a hoot.

 

[GenSeneca]

As for health care, I find it morally reprehensible that ANY kind of health care services should be a profit-making venture.

I know this won't sit well with many of the people in here that I respect, but I don't believe that ANYBODY should profit from somebody else's illnesses and other chronic and acute physical and mental problems.

All hospitals and all other "levels" of health care should be NON-PROFIT. Health care professionals should all be paid a premium wage based on their expertise and skills, and the latest medical technologies should be available at all health care facilities.

And the colleges that train Dr.'s and nurses... Should they be non-profit as well?

How about the companies that develop, build, and maintain medical technology... Should they also be non-profit?

If you're simply unhappy about the expense, then you should be blaming government intervention and third party pay systems in the healthcare market for the soaring costs, not companies making profit.

 

[Pepper]

Government intervention?