Could you please give me the difference between the Federal health care program and the one Romney passed in Massachussets?
Wondering myself.
a'int been payin much attention to either.
I have yet to pass anything in Mass.
One is massive destroyer of liberty and an enslaver of the people.
Isn't it basically zero?
Federal vs. state level.
Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/whitecoatnotes/2012/06/28/what-will-the-affordable-care-act-decision-mean-for-mass/4Q118wiLzNeXAZGQsAYl6L/story.html)
QuoteMassachusetts 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.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 10:53:10 AM
Federal vs. state level.
I'm trying to figure out why that is meaningful.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 11:47:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 10:53:10 AM
Federal vs. state level.
I'm trying to figure out why that is meaningful.
Because our government is a federal, not unitary, system. Not that hard to figure out, really.
I hate the concept of an insurance mandate, but it doesn't bother nearly as much if some far away leftist state tries it out as it does to have it implemented on the national level.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 12:18:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 11:47:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 10:53:10 AM
Federal vs. state level.
I'm trying to figure out why that is meaningful.
Because our government is a federal, not unitary, system. Not that hard to figure out, really.
I hate the concept of an insurance mandate, but it doesn't bother nearly as much if some far away leftist state tries it out as it does to have it implemented on the national level.
So you like laws changing drastically as you move from one district to another? Are there laws that you support but wouldn't want as a federal laws? Say gun ownership laws or conceal and carry or whatever?
One signficant difference between Romneycare and Obamacare is that AFAIK Romneycare is financed entirely out of revenue.
Romneycare left us with huge bills.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 12:43:14 PM
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.
QuoteAre 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.
QuoteSay 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.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 01:42:46 PM
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. :mad:
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?
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 02:40:31 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 03:33:53 PM
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.
QuoteState 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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 11:47:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 10:53:10 AM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on June 28, 2012, 10:59:34 AM
Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/whitecoatnotes/2012/06/28/what-will-the-affordable-care-act-decision-mean-for-mass/4Q118wiLzNeXAZGQsAYl6L/story.html)
QuoteMassachusetts 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 :)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 02:40:31 PM
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.
Quote
State law ... requires insurers to use a large majority of premium dollars for actual medical expenses ...
:lol:
Outrageous!
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. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 28, 2012, 06:33:15 PM
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. :P
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.
Quote from: viper37 on June 28, 2012, 04:31:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 02:40:31 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 28, 2012, 06:33:15 PM
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. :P
I was wondering that. I'm not so sure. There would have been complaints, but not as rabid. Compare some of the early Bush initiatives. You didn't see massive protests about Medicare part D and if I recall correctly Democrats genuinely worked with Bush on his tax cut and no child left behind.
It wasn't until about 2005 did people just tired of his fuck ups and dug in their heels with the social security scheme.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 28, 2012, 03:03:03 PM
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.
Well, the states don't have to worry about today's ruling; lost in all the fuss over the "mandate" was the shoot down by the SCOTUS of the part of the Act compelling of the states to expand their Medicaid programs.
QuoteIn effect, the Roberts compromise left it up to the states to choose whether to take the added money available to fund the expansion, and thus submit to the fund cut-off condition, or to confine their participation in the Medicaid program to its existing limits within each state. In the existing program, without the expansion, a state need not open its Medicaid program to all adults under age 65, if their income level is no higher than 133 percent of the federal poverty line, as would be the case is states joining in the expansion.
At this point, it is unclear how many of the projected 9 million poor people that would have been brought into the program will not become eligible, because some states opt to stay with their existing coverage formulas.
So, all those GOP governors can ensure their state citizens don't participate by grabbing all the funds available upfront. Texans and the rest of the Dumbfuckistanis in the South get what they want: nothing.
CHOP DONT WANT NO HELP CHOP DONT GET NO HELP
Yes. My State is that way. Our Lieutenant Governor still wants to sue over it. That and Black helicopters that scare away the deer. Guys fucking nuts. Think people are tying assassinate him.
Quote from: viper37 on June 28, 2012, 04:24:55 PM
apparently, there's a been a war over that issue, some time in the past.
Was there? When was this? :hmm:
Quote from: viper37 on June 28, 2012, 04:31:10 PM
Should Texas justice be an inspiration for all States?
There is nothing particularly unique or distinctive about our justice system.
I mean it is highly politicized with elected judges and DAs and the like who love to lock people away for politicial points and it is pretty corrupt (but how could it not be with all the drug money involved?) and all that but those things are not exactly unique or have anything to do with how the system is supposed to work on paper :P
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 02:40:31 PM
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?
Self-determination is a wonderful thing. That's the reason that we haven't conquered you and forced you onto socialized medicine, the metric system and hockey as a national sport.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 08:55:35 PM
It wasn't until about 2005 did people just tired of his fuck ups and dug in their heels with the social security scheme.
It would have been really interesting if it had passed though.
Quote from: Neil on June 29, 2012, 11:29:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 02:40:31 PM
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?
Self-determination is a wonderful thing. That's the reason that we haven't conquered you and forced you onto socialized medicine, the metric system and hockey as a national sport.
That and Second Amendment, baby. :yeah:
Militias didn't do so well against Canada last time.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2012, 12:51:16 PM
Militias didn't do so well against the British last time.
fyp. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 08:52:30 PM
I'd rather not have Texas Justice in Texas. I still think they may have executed an innocent man in the arson/murder case.
he's probably not the only one.
Still, that applies. What if the Federal justice model was based on Texas procedures, where a sleeping lawyer is no ground for a mistrial? It would be the same justice accross all States, exactly the same laws, the same procedures, one bar exam to serve in California, New York, Texas, everywhere. Would that be wonderful?
You could also have concealed&carry at Federal level: same gun laws everywhere.
The point being that it's not because it's the same law everywhere that it will be for the better.
No, if laws I didn't like became federal law, I wouldn't like it, but I would at least have some representation on the issue. I don't get any form of representation in Texas, yet I'm subject to their laws if I for some reason am forced to travel through it.
When are you forced to travel through Texas? :huh:
More importantly, what laws does he expect to run afoul of in Texas that he wouldn't have to deal with in Missouri?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 08:55:35 PM
You didn't see massive protests about Medicare part D and if I recall correctly Democrats genuinely worked with Bush on his tax cut and no child left behind.
The lousy Medicare "reform" we got and No Child Left Behind are the kind of crap that big-government Democrats tend to like, and why fiscal conservatives didn't care much for Bush. Heck, Ted Kennedy pretty much wrote No Child Left Behind.
I think the fact that you can easily change the state of residence is an argument against going overboard with "state rights" as much as it is for. Let's say one state introduces a single-payer healthcare system. What's going to happen is that all the sick people from 50 states are going to flock to that one state, and that experiment is going to fail for externality reasons alone. Likewise, states that relax environmental laws to attract businesses can pollute their more civilized neighbors.
What dps said. Republicans have been extremely cooperative about keeping Gitmo open.
Quote from: viper37 on June 28, 2012, 04:31:10 PM
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.
If the best argument that you have against PPACA is the myth that states somehow have "rights," I'd say you got nothin'.
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2012, 03:59:49 PM
I think the fact that you can easily change the state of residence is an argument against going overboard with "state rights" as much as it is for. Let's say one state introduces a single-payer healthcare system. What's going to happen is that all the sick people from 50 states are going to flock to that one state, and that experiment is going to fail for externality reasons alone. Likewise, states that relax environmental laws to attract businesses can pollute their more civilized neighbors.
I don't think it as bad as that, and Canada provides a fairly good example:
- Only prove the medical care costs for state residents. Bill non-residents.
- Have solid requirements for residency to exclude "transient" patients, much like Alaska does for those collecting the PFD (except this would probably need to be stricter for a lower 48 state).
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2012, 03:30:34 PM
When are you forced to travel through Texas? :huh:
When I need to go from Louisiana to New Mexico.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 29, 2012, 03:36:24 PM
More importantly, what laws does he expect to run afoul of in Texas that he wouldn't have to deal with in Missouri?
Failure to display a "Don't Mess with Texas" bumper sticker. Failure to wear giant Texas belt buckle. Punishable by up to five years imprisonment.
Quote from: dps on June 29, 2012, 03:50:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 08:55:35 PM
You didn't see massive protests about Medicare part D and if I recall correctly Democrats genuinely worked with Bush on his tax cut and no child left behind.
The lousy Medicare "reform" we got and No Child Left Behind are the kind of crap that big-government Democrats tend to like, and why fiscal conservatives didn't care much for Bush. Heck, Ted Kennedy pretty much wrote No Child Left Behind.
Quick check. There were 3 Republicans who voted no on NCLB (out of 10) in the Senate, there were a 34 Republicans who voted "no" in the house and 10 Dems who voted "No", in the House
Medicare part D votes in the Senate 5 Republicans voted no (out of a total 44 no votes). In the house 19 Republicans voted no out of 215 no votes.
So it would appear that this is the kind big government crap that Republicans do like. If The GOP is the party of fiscal conservatives, then they seemed okay with Bush.
Do you notice how for a few posts you and dps were talking about Democratic support for NCLB and Medicare Part D, then you switched to discussing Republican support? That's called a non sequitur Raz.
Did you read what I was responding to? dps shifted it slightly suggesting that it was really just bills that Democrats (and possibly are secret Democratic initiatives written by the arch devil Ted Kennedy), and not what fiscal conservatives want. If the GOP is the party of fiscal conservatives (as they loudly proclaim themselves), then my post is a refutation of his suggestions. I am willing to concede they are not the party of fiscal conservatives, and just use that rhetoric as a political tool to sucker in people. If so it's just a bland truth and non sequitur and people who buy into Republican claims are fiscal conservatism (such as the Ryan plan), are unwitting dupes. Your choice.
Point taken.
Still, not much closure on the previous argument about Democrats and NCLB and Medicare drugs.
You didn't see them dress up like Paul Revere and shit.
Quick question for the smarties:
AFAIK, the feds can do two kinds of taxes, tariffs and income taxes. Is this one being considered a type of income tax or what?
Income. Among other items the amount of the penalty depends on income to start.
Quote from: ulmont on July 02, 2012, 11:07:56 AM
Income. Among other items the amount of the penalty depends on income to start.
Thought so. Thanks!