Obamacare vs Romneycare

[derspiess]

So you like laws changing drastically as you move from one district to another?

District?  You mean "state", right?  Anywho-- yeah, pretty much.  That way I can pick up & move to another state if I don't like my own state's laws.  I can happily live in a red state while some fruitcake left coaster lives happily in his state.

Are there laws that you support but wouldn't want as a federal laws?

Yeah, probably.  More importantly there are laws in other states (and some laws in Ohio) that I don't want to see implemented on a federal level.

Say gun ownership laws or conceal and carry or whatever?

While I generally favor more gun rights across the country, I'd leave it to individual states to decide how they permit concealed carry.

[CountDeMoney]

While I generally favor more gun rights across the country, I'd leave it to individual states to decide how they permit concealed carry.

Wayne wants his membership card back. 

[Razgovory]

So you believe that good laws should be restricted by state borders?  That political ideas you hold true and political rights you cherish shouldn't apply anymore 30 miles down the road. You don't believe that people in some states just don't have the right to defend themselves or their homes?  You believe you should have to keep moving around the country as state change laws back and forth? Do you believe that neighboring states should be able enact bad laws that could get you arrested and jailed because you are carrying an innocuous item in your car that violates a law you didn't even know about?

[MadImmortalMan]

Well, they can't all be the same. What if the next state over comes up with something even better? Without the opportunity to experiment, we'd never know.

[derspiess]

So you believe that good laws should be restricted by state borders?  That political ideas you hold true and political rights you cherish shouldn't apply anymore 30 miles down the road. You don't believe that people in some states just don't have the right to defend themselves or their homes?  You believe you should have to keep moving around the country as state change laws back and forth? Do you believe that neighboring states should be able enact bad laws that could get you arrested and jailed because you are carrying an innocuous item in your car that violates a law you didn't even know about?

How about you pick the two most important questions and I'll answer them

But to sum it up, yes I believe in a federal system with many powers delegated to the states.  Do you honestly favor a unitary government for a nation as big as ours?

[Razgovory]

Okay... Question 3 and 5.  I didn't think I had any bad ones.  4 is pretty good.


State laws tend to be a pain.  Contradictory, and troublesome.  Also bad ideas and corruption can creep into state laws easier then Federal Laws.  Fewer people paying attention and so such stuff just gets through.   Also that civil war thingy.  Besides, I see "States Rights", as a fall back position.  If you can't win nationally you try to get your will enacted locally at least.  It's as political tactic.  Our Republican friends enjoy crowing about State Rights and keep the Feds out, but when ball is their court they have no problem using Federal law to enact their agenda.  Take for example the conceal and carry law last year.  They had no problem using the federal government to force states to accept conceal and carry permits from other states.  But making other states accept a marriage from another state is Verbotten.

[derspiess]

Okay... Question 3 and 5.  I didn't think I had any bad ones.  4 is pretty good.

Answers:
3.  Yes, people do have a right to defend themselves and their homes.
5.  What inocuous item?  A gun?  I think it's the responsibility of the traveler to know the state laws where he's traveling.  There's a handy book about gun laws in the 50 states that I happen to use a lot.

Since I'm in a good mood, I'll answer #4.  Yeah, pretty much.  I moved out of West Virginia because (among other reasons) it was a Democrat-dominated state.  I later settled in Ohio, which isn't perfect but more pleasant for me than WV or Delaware, partly due to state laws/politics.  And it's not as if state laws tend to change *that* drastically.

State laws tend to be a pain.  Contradictory, and troublesome.  Also bad ideas and corruption can creep into state laws easier then Federal Laws.  Fewer people paying attention and so such stuff just gets through.   Also that civil war thingy.  Besides, I see "States Rights", as a fall back position.  If you can't win nationally you try to get your will enacted locally at least.  It's as political tactic.  Our Republican friends enjoy crowing about State Rights and keep the Feds out, but when ball is their court they have no problem using Federal law to enact their agenda.  Take for example the conceal and carry law last year.  They had no problem using the federal government to force states to accept conceal and carry permits from other states.  But making other states accept a marriage from another state is Verbotten.

State laws can be a pain.  But in a country this large, I think a federal system is the only thing that would work.  What's good for California is not what's good for Arkansas, and vice-versa.

[Razgovory]

For 5 it could be any innocuous item.  Maybe it's a clothes hanger which has been classified as an abortionist tool by some lunatics in Indiana.

Maybe I'm biased because I live in a state with puppy mills and shit, but I just don't trust state governments.

[viper37]

Federal vs. state level.

I'm trying to figure out why that is meaningful.

apparently, there's a been a war over that issue, some time in the past.

[viper37]

Boston.com

Massachusetts is in a unique position today. In some ways it shares part of the spotlight on the Affordable Care Act. The state's 2006 health care law, signed by Governor Mitt Romney, served as a model for the national law. But, because of that state law and others, a decision to overturn the Affordable Care Act would mean fewer changes for people in Massachusetts than in other states.

The mandate requiring most people in Massachusetts to have health insurance would stand. About 98 percent of people in the state have coverage. The question before the court is, in part, whether the federal government can require people to purchase a product. The ability of states to do so was not in dispute.

State law already protects coverage of people with pre-existing conditions, requires insurers to use a large majority of premium dollars for actual medical expenses and cover some young adults. But many of those state provisions do not apply to people who get their insurance from large employers who are self-insured. The federal law extends such coverage requirements to them, as well.

Aside from the direct impacts on consumers, there are hundreds of millions of dollars in new federal funding at stake for Massachusetts.

thank you Merry

[viper37]

So you believe that good laws should be restricted by state borders?  That political ideas you hold true and political rights you cherish shouldn't apply anymore 30 miles down the road. You don't believe that people in some states just don't have the right to defend themselves or their homes?  You believe you should have to keep moving around the country as state change laws back and forth? Do you believe that neighboring states should be able enact bad laws that could get you arrested and jailed because you are carrying an innocuous item in your car that violates a law you didn't even know about?

Should Texas justice be an inspiration for all States?

I think the Obamacare has some good things in it, but I'm uneasy at the way a Federal entity will trample the State's rights.  But I guess to the Republicans, the idea of State's rights is only valid when it suits them.  I can't see the gun or abortion issue leaving the Federal level to be only a state issue.

[Iormlund]

State law ... requires insurers to use a large majority of premium dollars for actual medical expenses ...

Outrageous!

[MadImmortalMan]

This stuff is all theater anyway. If Romney were President right now, he'd have passed essentially the same thing as Obamacare and the the dems would have been against it. 

[Darth Wagtaros]

This stuff is all theater anyway. If Romney were President right now, he'd have passed essentially the same thing as Obamacare and the the dems would have been against it. 

Yes.  I think the American political system is increasingly bent towards keeping things broken and scoring points off the blame game than actually fixing things.

[Razgovory]

So you believe that good laws should be restricted by state borders?  That political ideas you hold true and political rights you cherish shouldn't apply anymore 30 miles down the road. You don't believe that people in some states just don't have the right to defend themselves or their homes?  You believe you should have to keep moving around the country as state change laws back and forth? Do you believe that neighboring states should be able enact bad laws that could get you arrested and jailed because you are carrying an innocuous item in your car that violates a law you didn't even know about?

Should Texas justice be an inspiration for all States?

I think the Obamacare has some good things in it, but I'm uneasy at the way a Federal entity will trample the State's rights.  But I guess to the Republicans, the idea of State's rights is only valid when it suits them.  I can't see the gun or abortion issue leaving the Federal level to be only a state issue.

I'd rather not have Texas Justice in Texas.  I still think they may have executed an innocent man in the arson/murder case.