If the government's healthcare insurance is so good...

[Satya]

I've also been wondering how/if HIPAA will affect the IRS if/when healthcare data is given to them. Would it mean that government workers have to complete HIPAA training and sign some sort of policy (like healthcare workers do)?

The issue of dependence also comes up. If we depend on all of these things from our government (one system), what will happen if the system fails? After watching the aftermath of the financial crisis, I think it is more important than ever to be able to support yourself and to be as independent as possible. You obviously can't provide for all of your needs as a citizen (fire, police, military, healthcare, etc), but I think that overdependence can be very bad. I can't think of many entities that could help another government in trouble (except maybe another government or a large group of corporations).

Um...wasn't the financial meltdown a market failure rather than a government one? I guess you could eally stretch it and argue safety nets, but even that requires an explanation of why so many institutions would sale useless securities when it was only in their short term interest to do so. Not to mention the financial crises came after a log period of deregulation. Is it good to be dependent on the government? I don't think so, but frankly we are dependent on one oversized bureaucracy or another in this modern world anyway. What does it matter if it is a private one or a public one?

Aside from the cost argument, I think the implementation argument is one of the best concerning government health care. There are a lot of unanswered questions regarding who will do what.

 

[dMP2]

Constitution

1. Marbury versus Madison in 1803 gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
2. The Supreme Court utilized judicial review in the 1936 case of the United States versus Butler and ruled that....

As such, the Supreme Court decided within the guidelines of the Constitution that "general welfare" was not limited to the specific powers enumerated to Congress by the Constitution.

Frankly, your position is primarily ideological. It ignores 2 centuries of legal precedent to argue, what would have been the intentions of the 18th century, elitist, white slave owning males who founded the country. The founders designed the Constitution to evolve via Article V amendments and court interpretations of the Constitutionality of laws.

As such, health care reform is perfectly Constitutional.

As far as your arguments on government infringement, you are correct. It does happen little by little. Of course, what you have failed to consider is that true government infringement historically happens through military buildup aka defense spending. Look at Nazi Germany. While you are fearful of health care, have you actually looked at the trends of defense spending for the last 2 decades? The United States already spends more on defense spending than the rest of the world spends combined. Eisenhower warned Americans to look out for the military industrial complex, not the health care system. I can't think of any historical or economic precedent by which government has overthrown freedom by expanding into health care.

So, in summary the Supreme Court arbitrarily stole power (which rightfully belonged to the people as the natural potentates), used that power to give Congress the power to side-step the Constitution, whereupon Congress can now arbitrarily define what the "general welfare" consists of, thus allowing them to tax a few to benefit their selected few and pretend to do so under the power of the Constitution. Democrats in Congress then are essentially abusing their situation to buy votes with tax money... Do you see any other logical conclusion?

So, much for Democrats wanting to get the influence of money out of politics... or was that just the money of the dirty capitalists out of politics?

The legal-precedent history is crap because power (unless otherwise stated) belongs to the people. The supreme court can't just grant themselves power. If the power so called "judicial review" originally belonged to the people (which the theory that our government rests on says), then I use it now to say that this stealing of that power from the people by the government was illegal. Reviewed the process and found it that way (it doesn't take a judge in a farcical black-robe-gavel-wielding ceremony, who can't think anyway, to see the logic in this).

Racist and sexiest ad-hominem attacks against the founders doesn't nullify the fact that other things they wrote about the Constitution are relevant in understanding the meaning of the Constitution (and I thought it was the Republicans that were supposedly racist). What they said can help interpret the Constitution far better than a judge bloviating about what he/she personally believes.

If the document that constitutes our government is no longer valid (as it apparently is), then our government is no longer constituted. Don't dismiss the Constitution so glibly.

As for Article V, all of this hasn't been amended to the constitution... Look it up. Health care, I guess, would logically require a constitutional amendment (but that won't fly).

As for my supposed ignoring of the military build up. I didn't. Read my first post. I specifically mentioned a couple of historical examples. I don't like the current build up. I know Eisenhower's quote. Giving the free self-granting of power that government is doing, I don't like the situation at all. Don't suppose you know or understand what I believe until I say what I believe.

As for calling this ideology, there is great value in having good theory behind governance. If my logic is wrong, demonstrate it. Just calling this "ideology" isn't an argument.

 

[bamf]

So, in summary the Supreme Court arbitrarily stole power (which rightfully belonged to the people as the natural potentates), used that power to give Congress the power to side-step the Constitution, whereupon Congress can now arbitrarily define what the "general welfare" consists of, thus allowing them to tax a few to benefit their selected few and pretend to do so under the power of the Constitution. Democrats in Congress then are essentially abusing their situation to buy votes with tax money... Do you see any other logical conclusion?

So, much for Democrats wanting to get the influence of money out of politics... or was that just the money of the dirty capitalists out of politics?

The legal-precedent history is crap because power (unless otherwise stated) belongs to the people. The supreme court can't just grant themselves power. If the power so called "judicial review" originally belonged to the people (which the theory that our government rests on says), then I use it now to say that this stealing of that power from the people by the government was illegal. Reviewed the process and found it that way (it doesn't take a judge in a farcical black-robe-gavel-wielding ceremony, who can't think anyway, to see the logic in this).

Racist and sexiest ad-hominem attacks against the founders doesn't nullify the fact that other things they wrote about the Constitution are relevant in understanding the meaning of the Constitution (and I thought it was the Republicans that were supposedly racist). What they said can help interpret the Constitution far better than a judge bloviating about what he/she personally believes.

If the document that constitutes our government is no longer valid (as it apparently is), then our government is no longer constituted. Don't dismiss the Constitution so glibly.

As for Article V, all of this hasn't been amended to the constitution... Look it up. Health care, I guess, would logically require a constitutional amendment (but that won't fly).

As for my supposed ignoring of the military build up. I didn't. Read my first post. I specifically mentioned a couple of historical examples. I don't like the current build up. I know Eisenhower's quote. Giving the free self-granting of power that government is doing, I don't like the situation at all. Don't suppose you know or understand what I believe until I say what I believe.

As for calling this ideology, there is great value in having good theory behind governance. If my logic is wrong, demonstrate it. Just calling this "ideology" isn't an argument.

Well for starters, your statement is filled with blatant political ties. Try to take out all of your Democrats and Republicans in the statement, because in doing so you are painting everyone with the same brush, and assuming you know their thoughts/motives. Hypocritical when you're accusing Satya of doing the exact same thing to you.

Also, I fear I don't understand how Congress is sidestepping the Constitution by defining what 'promoting general welfare' means, when the constitution is extremely vague. If we can't define it, how can we follow it? Just because you don't like the way it's being defined means that it's an unconstitutional definition.

And this statement "whereupon Congress can now arbitrarily define what the "general welfare" consists of, thus allowing them to tax a few to benefit their selected few and pretend to do so under the power of the Constitution. Democrats in Congress then are essentially abusing their situation to buy votes with tax money... Do you see any other logical conclusion?" is blatantly filled with nothing but one-sided opinions, and your ideology. Hmm, perhaps Congress actually gives a damn about people who can't support themselves because the system is set up in such a way that people have to live in poverty, with no access to health care (which has been my arguement all along, that you've chosen to continuously ignore).

 

[Satya]

Just to clarify, the power does not belong to the people in our country. We live in a Constitutional Republic. The power belongs to the Constitution. The Constitution is the law, not the will of the people. Nothing the Supreme Court did was against the Constitution. It does not say that the Supreme Court could not have judicial review. It also did not say in the Constitution that one branch of government could not the expand the powers of another. Whether or not you agree with that is a different matter, but it is within the law of the land, the Constitution of the United States, to do so. If you don't like it, then you only need to push through an Article V amendment to the Constitution. That is the power that is enumerated to the people within the Constitution.

All I need to demonstrate your ideology is wrong is virtually the entire history of the United States. The Supreme Court has had judicial review since 1803. All the prosperity and freedom that Americans have enjoyed through out this country's history has not been infringed upon by that fact.

Now if you want to argue that the Constitution should be a fixed document, interpreted purely by the thoughts of men who lived back in the days when only white male, property owners were considered citizens, then have it. That is an ideological argument that has no bearing on the current health care debate. It simply indicates that you are against health care because you are conservative and for no other really valid reason.


Also, I'm not a Democrat.

 

[dMP2]

Well for starters, your statement is filled with blatant political ties. Try to take out all of your Democrats and Republicans in the statement, because in doing so you are painting everyone with the same brush, and assuming you know their thoughts/motives. Hypocritical when you're accusing Satya of doing the exact same thing to you.

Also, I fear I don't understand how Congress is sidestepping the Constitution by defining what 'promoting general welfare' means, when the constitution is extremely vague. If we can't define it, how can we follow it? Just because you don't like the way it's being defined means that it's an unconstitutional definition.

And this statement "whereupon Congress can now arbitrarily define what the "general welfare" consists of, thus allowing them to tax a few to benefit their selected few and pretend to do so under the power of the Constitution. Democrats in Congress then are essentially abusing their situation to buy votes with tax money... Do you see any other logical conclusion?" is blatantly filled with nothing but one-sided opinions, and your ideology. Hmm, perhaps Congress actually gives a damn about people who can't support themselves because the system is set up in such a way that people have to live in poverty, with no access to health care (which has been my arguement all along, that you've chosen to continuously ignore).

I haven't chosen to ignore it. I'm one of those people your supposedly fighting for. I don't like your patronization and I didn't vote for you. Congress generally doesn't give a "damn" (they repeatedly demonstrate it). The federal government is too disconnected from the people to really be able to give a "damn". I believe, maybe I'm wrong here, but Congress consists of both Republicans and Democrats. As Satya said, I come off as rather anti-government (that includes Republicans I believe). They both use that arbitrary power I pointed out to favor whomever they please while in office. You just hate it when the Republicans do it and ignore it when the Democrats do it. I don't think they should have that specific power because governments obviously tend toward abusing people that object to their views.

As for political ties... Any debate for or against health care is going to have that. Are you saying that you think I'm a Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, or Right-Leaning? I'm glad you know, because I don't. I'm just pointing out a lot of crap that is going on here on both sides that is frankly unjust (you can call it "ideology" if that makes you feel better). I've made some jabs at Republicans (apparently you missed them).

The only other option to not being vague is 100 of pages of really precise legalese... Nobody (most importantly common people) would understand that. That is what the patriot act was and that is what this health care bill is. It is a difficult dichotomy to handle.

The Constitution is there to be read and understood by the average person. I demonstrated how this is unconstitutional. But, if we prefer to just brush it aside in favor of just trusting the dubious motives of whoever is in office...

I didn't define promote and general. Look them up in a dictionary. They are not tantamount to guarantee and selected.

 

[bamf]

I haven't chosen to ignore it. I'm one of those people your supposedly fighting for. I don't like your patronization and I didn't vote for you. Congress generally doesn't give a "damn" (they repeatedly demonstrate it). The federal government is too disconnected from the people to really be able to give a "damn". I believe, maybe I'm wrong here, but Congress consists of both Republicans and Democrats. As Satya said, I come off as rather anti-government (that includes Republicans I believe). They both use that arbitrary power I pointed out to favor whomever they please while in office. You just hate it when the Republicans do it and ignore it when the Democrats do it. I don't think they should have that specific power because governments obviously tend toward abusing people that object to their views.

What computer are you typing this from? A public library, a friend, or your own? If it's yours, or you pay for your internet, you definitely aren't one of the people I'm fighting for. Also, just because you don't like this, doesn't mean that it should be denied to people who actually need it. Tell me, how is it different then any other public service, when health care is essential to quality of life. I mean compared to living vs degraded living vs death, education seems like a pretty arbitrary thing. Why don't we get rid of public schools? Make everything private because the government obviously doesn't have the people at heart. I don't like interstate highway commission and they way they justify their actions as regulating commerce between states, and since I'm free to call it unconstitutional, lets just get rid of it completely.

So if governments obviously abuse people that oppose their views, how is this done? Wouldn't that suggest some form of political unity between all branches of the government, and thus negating "Democrats" and "Republicans" out of the picture?

You talk about the government being disconnected and heartless, but I don't see any examples from you. If you distrust everything the government does, congrats; you'll never be happy. They're people just like everyone else, and while it's smart to question the motives of those in power (because power just wants more power), it's dissilusional to treat everyone in the government as mindless robots with no compassion or empathy.

As for political ties... Any debate for or against health care is going to have that. Are you saying that you think I'm a Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, or Right-Leaning? I'm glad you know, because I don't. I'm just pointing out a lot of crap that is going on here on both sides that is frankly unjust (you can call it "ideology" if that makes you feel better). I've made some jabs at Republicans (apparently you missed them).

Ironic how you don't want to be pigeon-holed, and just a few sentences ago you hinted at me being a Democrat (or at least a supporter). I'm more of a moderate. One issue doesn't define a persons political views, and I never said that you were anything. Just that your statements show obvious political bias by lumping all Democrats and Republicans into the same boat.

The only other option to not being vague is 100 of pages of really precise legalese... Nobody (most importantly common people) would understand that. That is what the patriot act was and that is what this health care bill is. It is a difficult dichotomy to handle.

Yes, but I don't think you have a problem with the length or dichotomy of the bill, I believe that even if it was one page you'd be against it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're opposed to governmental health care, not the number of pages, or difficultness of the wording.

The Constitution is there to be read and understood by the average person. I demonstrated how this is unconstitutional. But, if we prefer to just brush it aside in favor of just trusting the dubious motives of whoever is in office...

You've demonstrated a strained understanding of the constitution and national history.

"Dubious motives" is far from objective. Your posts are filled with subjective termonolgy.

I didn't define promote and general. Look them up in a dictionary. They are not tantamount to guarantee and selected.

Promote is to futher something, but the dictionary doesn't define how that's done. General is involving, or applying to, the whole. And welfare is still unclear.
The constitution is vauge. Congrats, you've pointed out that promote doesn't mean guarantee, but it also doesn't mean not to guarantee. The definition of the word itself is vague. It means to further something. If we put "promoting general welfare" it would read in laymans terms; furthering welfare of the whole. This healthcare bill is in no way defying that. Please explicitly point out how governmental healthcare is unconstitutional. Ignore what you think the government's motives are, ignore your subjective feelings, just look at the sentence and show me exactly how government provided healthcare is defying the constitution.

 

[dMP2]

The Constitution IS the law after all.

Just to clarify, the power does not belong to the people in our country. We live in a Constitutional Republic. The power belongs to the Constitution. The Constitution is the law, not the will of the people. Nothing the Supreme Court did was against the Constitution. It does not say that the Supreme Court could not have judicial review. It also did not say in the Constitution that one branch of government could not the expand the powers of another. Whether or not you agree with that is a different matter, but it is within the law of the land, the Constitution of the United States, to do so. If you don't like it, then you only need to push through an Article V amendment to the Constitution. That is the power that is enumerated to the people within the Constitution.

All I need to demonstrate your ideology is wrong is virtually the entire history of the United States. The Supreme Court has had judicial review since 1803. All the prosperity and freedom that Americans have enjoyed through out this country's history has not been infringed upon by that fact.

Now if you want to argue that the Constitution should be a fixed document, interpreted purely by the thoughts of men who lived back in the days when only white male, property owners were considered citizens, then have it. That is an ideological argument that has no bearing on the current health care debate. It simply indicates that you are against health care because you are conservative and for no other really valid reason.

Also, I'm not a Democrat.

This isn't about whether I agree. This is about the facts here (easily observable I might add). But, if it makes you feel better to call the facts "ideology" or just my point of view... Then feel free.

So, if the power belongs to the Constitution... Did it grant the Supreme Court the new found magical power?

It specifically says in the 10th amendment that other non-stated powers are reserved to the states respectively. So, either Judicial review is found in the Constitution or the Supreme Court illegally claimed it.

The whole purpose of the Constitution was to delineate and limit the power of government. That very idea of government arbitrarily increasing its power is orthogonal to the Constitution.

The Constitution is nothing more then the first and most basic legal contract between the whole population. It only has power because "We the People" framed it and agreed to abide by it. That is found in the preamble (along with the beloved promote-the-general-welfare clause). If the government isn't abiding by the terms of the contract...

If as the Constitution shows, the people are the true potentates... Then when did we give the supreme court that power? When has any of this legal-precedent-history been amended to the constitution according to the guidelines specifically mentioned in Article V?

Just remember in all of this back and forth that I don't care if individual states have health care. I say good for them if that is what works for them. I just think in general left-leaning people have come to view the federal government as the only way to do anything in this country, totally forgetting the checks and balances that is the levels of governments between city, county, state, and federal government.

Also, I don't think insurance companies are necessarily any pillar of virtue. But, at least they don't also command the military, police, jails, and monetary system. Centralizing power in the federal government is called building an empire. Save us Caesar!

All the prosperity that has happened in this country is in spite of the fact that the government is building power, but because of the fact that it was so limited to begin with. All of this is actually very easy to understand... Governments with unchecked power have been prominent through most of history. It has also been the trend through most of history that there hasn't been near the amount of technology and knowledge as there is now. Now, logically I can't just say that because there seems to be a correlation between freedom/limited-government and a subsequent explosion of knowledge and technology that freedom causes the explosion. But, there is a correlation. Another other option (which I don't think you'll like either) is that an explosion of knowledge causes limited government... Or, the final option is that a third lurking variable or set of variables causes both limited government and an explosion of knowledge. Interestingly, the last time a major free Republic turned into an empire and then necessarily colapsed (the Romans), Europe fell into the Dark Ages...

What is wrong with being white exactly?
What is wrong with being male exactly?
What is wrong with owning property?

Let's be logically precise here. If you were using those characteristics disjointedly, then you have problems. But, if you're using them jointly, then I see your point. I'm glad we are past those days. But, these characteristics have no baring on the fact that the men you refer to DID write the Constitution. The Constitution IS the supreme law of the land. What they said about it means far more than the drivel that most legal minds now spout.

I'm against the health care debate because, like most any other legislation in our era, it serves to increase the government's power and favors a select few chosen by whoever is in power. It is a fair honest and obvious analysis to say that the Democrats are using their position to buy more political power via taxes, isn't it? But, don't worry the Republican's will do something similar when they get back in power (but at least they talk about limited government and heeding the Constitution, which isn't saying much because lately they don't practice it).

I'm sorry for assuming you're a Democrat. I apologize.

 

[Satya]

It specifically says in the 10th amendment that other non-stated powers are reserved to the states respectively. So, either Judicial review is found in the Constitution or the Supreme Court illegally claimed it.

It might do you good to read Marbury versus Madison. The Supreme Court justified judicial review under Article III of the Constitution. However, it was indeed an incredibly loose interpretation of the Constitution, and one that has been debated for over 200 years. As such, I doubt it is one we will come to agreement on in this thread.

What is clear is that an Article V amendment would be required to change it. Unless you are advocating that position, then it does no good to argue it.

I'm against the health care debate because, like most any other legislation in our era, it serves to increase the government's power and favors a select few chosen by whoever is in power. It is a fair honest and obvious analysis to say that the Democrats are using their position to buy more political power via taxes, isn't it? But, don't worry the Republican's will do something similar when they get back in power (but at least they talk about limited government and heeding the Constitution, which isn't saying much because lately they don't practice it).

It seems to me you are rather particular in the areas in which the government is allowed to increase its power and the areas in which is not. That is my primary issue with folks like yourself, who make this big ideological stink about the big bad government increasing its power. I seldom hear word of the increases to military spending, which is where the real danger lies, but you are afraid of the government entering into an already broken health care system. Frankly, what would you do with health care? What would you do with 50 million or so uninsured? What would you would do with children, who by no fault of their own are born into poverty and can't obtain health care? It disgusts me that while you can base such strong convictions on your fear of authority, you can't find just as strong convictions to see providing such a vital thing as health care to all those who may need it. In essence, it seems to me you argue that your personal freedom is more important than the lives and welfare of everyone else in this country.

 

[dMP2]

By The Metrics...

What computer are you typing this from? A public library, a friend, or your own? If it's yours, or you pay for your internet, you definitely aren't one of the people I'm fighting for. Also, just because you don't like this, doesn't mean that it should be denied to people who actually need it. Tell me, how is it different then any other public service, when health care is essential to quality of life. I mean compared to living vs degraded living vs death, education seems like a pretty arbitrary thing. Why don't we get rid of public schools? Make everything private because the government obviously doesn't have the people at heart. I don't like interstate highway commission and they way they justify their actions as regulating commerce between states, and since I'm free to call it unconstitutional, lets just get rid of it completely.

So if governments obviously abuse people that oppose their views, how is this done? Wouldn't that suggest some form of political unity between all branches of the government, and thus negating "Democrats" and "Republicans" out of the picture?

You talk about the government being disconnected and heartless, but I don't see any examples from you. If you distrust everything the government does, congrats; you'll never be happy. They're people just like everyone else, and while it's smart to question the motives of those in power (because power just wants more power), it's dissilusional to treat everyone in the government as mindless robots with no compassion or empathy.


Ironic how you don't want to be pigeon-holed, and just a few sentences ago you hinted at me being a Democrat (or at least a supporter). I'm more of a moderate. One issue doesn't define a persons political views, and I never said that you were anything. Just that your statements show obvious political bias by lumping all Democrats and Republicans into the same boat.

Yes, but I don't think you have a problem with the length or dichotomy of the bill, I believe that even if it was one page you'd be against it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're opposed to governmental health care, not the number of pages, or difficultness of the wording.


You've demonstrated a strained understanding of the constitution and national history.

"Dubious motives" is far from objective. Your posts are filled with subjective termonolgy.

Promote is to futher something, but the dictionary doesn't define how that's done. General is involving, or applying to, the whole. And welfare is still unclear.
The constitution is vauge. Congrats, you've pointed out that promote doesn't mean guarantee, but it also doesn't mean not to guarantee. The definition of the word itself is vague. It means to further something. If we put "promoting general welfare" it would read in laymans terms; furthering welfare of the whole. This healthcare bill is in no way defying that. Please explicitly point out how governmental healthcare is unconstitutional. Ignore what you think the government's motives are, ignore your subjective feelings, just look at the sentence and show me exactly how government provided healthcare is defying the constitution.

I already did demonstrate how it is unconstitutional. If you don't like my self-evident and cited assessment... Then that is that.

I used my own computer. But, first, I do have several very serious medical conditions. Second, my finances are such that my wife and I support ourselves, but just BARELY. We currently have insurance, but it is tenuous at best. If you are fighting for the poor with serious health conditions that don't have insurance, then by two of those metrics I reasonably am in that group. I'm one step away from your special project group. I don't know how long we can hold out especially with the current tinkering with of the financial system.

I don't like the idea of bread and circuses. But, that is precisely where this government is going.

Sorry, I hinted you were a Democrat. How is you're being moderate little more than fence sitting? This isn't meant to be offensive because I don't think you are a fence sitter. But, it seems to me that most independents/moderates are because they don't know what to think and try to please everyone with a middle ground response.

You are for helping the poor. So, am I (especially those who are worse of then me because I have it relatively good, which really says something about the state our country is in). But, empowering the federal government to supposedly do it is not the long term solution. In the end it will do more harm to the poor than good. DO HEALTH CARE THROUGH INDIVIDUAL STATE GOVERNMENTS! The federal government is not the be all to end all solution.

Again, I repeat. Most of these things that people compare health care to are local government institutions (e.g., fire fighters, roads, public schools). If you'd realize that simple fact and at least seriously question what level of government would solve this health care problem properly... You'd easily over come objections that this "ideologue" has.

Sure, capitalistic companies are greedy and can be abusive. But, they are and never will as dangerous as an unrestrained federal government. Empowering the federal government isn't in the best interests of the poor!

 

[Satya]

What is wrong with being white exactly?
What is wrong with being male exactly?
What is wrong with owning property?

Nothing, unless they are the prerequisites to being able to vote and hold office, as they were back in the 18th century.

 

[BenW]

Lets stop funding public schools, police and fire, and infrastructure as well.

Not a bad plan.

 

[Satya]

All the prosperity that has happened in this country is in spite of the fact that the government is building power, but because of the fact that it was so limited to begin with. All of this is actually very easy to understand... Governments with unchecked power have been prominent through most of history. It has also been the trend through most of history that there hasn't been near the amount of technology and knowledge as there is now. Now, logically I can't just say that because there seems to be a correlation between freedom/limited-government and a subsequent explosion of knowledge and technology that freedom causes the explosion. But, there is a correlation. Another other option (which I don't think you'll like either) is that an explosion of knowledge causes limited government... Or, the final option is that a third lurking variable or set of variables causes both limited government and an explosion of knowledge. Interestingly, the last time a major free Republic turned into an empire and then necessarily colapsed (the Romans), Europe fell into the Dark Ages...

If you want to talk about logic...

Correlation does not imply causation.

The most technologically advanced country 70 years ago was Nazi Germany. Does that imply that Nazi Germany was anything but a totalitarian government?

 

[Satya]

Not a bad plan.

Just move to Montana already.

 

[dMP2]

To MF and Satya

Thanks for the back and forth. I want to understand different sides of this and you've helped me.

I think I've stated well what I believe and why I believe it. I believe I've provided responses with proper logic behind them.

I think that we can agree that we need to take care of each other in society. We're just arguing about what means would be the best.

Anyway, I think from this point on either you guys or I will just be arguing in circles.

So, thanks for the debate. And I'll be sure to read your responses to my most recent posts, but I won't reply.

 

[dMP2]

Last one (I promise)

If you want to talk about logic...

Correlation does not imply causation.

The most technologically advanced country 70 years ago was Nazi Germany. Does that imply that Nazi Germany was anything but a totalitarian government?

That's what I was saying. It's an over simplification, though. The relationship between correlation and causation is either that "a caused b", "b caused a", "z caused a and b", or "x, y, z, etc. caused a and b" (I'm a math/statistics/computer nerd). The point is that they are correlated and that says something. By the way, have you asked Al Gore about his CO2 levels and global temperature causation vs. correlation issues? Just a thought...

And I agreed with the point about being a white male land owner as criteria for voting. But, logically it has no barring on discussing the meaning of the Constitution... It is a red herring to distract from the issue at hand (apparently you did get distracted).

 

[Satya]

That's what I was saying. It's an over simplification, though. The relationship between correlation and causation is either that "a caused b", "b caused a", "z caused a and b", or "x, y, z, etc. caused a and b" (I'm a math/statistics/computer nerd). The point is that they are correlated and that says something.

Correlated simply means there is a relationship. There is a strong correlation between the decreasing number of pirates over the years and the increasing of global temperatures. Would you advicate that means that the best way to fight global warming would be to increase the number of pirates in the world? Even a strong correlation can be utterly meaningless, so I have no idea what the hell you mean by arguing that it "says something". If you really think so, then I think you might want to go back to your statistics courses Mr. Math Geek.

And I agreed with the point about being a white male land owner as criteria for voting. But, logically it has no barring on discussing the meaning of the Constitution... It is a red herring to distract from the issue at hand (apparently you did get distracted).

Not a red herring at all. A perfectly valid point that the perspectives of today are a little bit more advanced than they were in the 18th century. I think you are fooling yourself if you think that the concepts can be applied today as they were 200 years ago.

 

[Satya]

So, thanks for the debate. And I'll be sure to read your responses to my most recent posts, but I won't reply.

Meh, I'm not surprised. I have a highly pragmatic position on this issue. I don't really care about the fixed constitutional and anti government ideology, I look to actual solutions to problems. It's good for those who can't provide such solutions or follow them to simply get the hell out of the way.

 

[dMP2]

To Satya

I politely am stepping out. You didn't win. You just keep responding to my logic with fallacies. You're fallacious ad hominem attacks (against me and the founders) are there to be seen. You over simplified the relationship between correlation and causation. I expounded on at least part of it. Here's more: causation implies correlation. I freely admit that I don't know exactly what the relationship between free societies and development is. But the relationship is easily observed in history.

No reasonable debate can be had unless played by the rules. You don't want to play by the rules so this little game of tag is over. I'm stepping out. If you want to declare victory (under whatever rules you define) feel free. You are wrong on many points and no amount of logic or evidence will convince you otherwise. End of story.

You've still failed to demonstrate any flaws in many of my arguments.

P.S. I hope you like Republicans using the same arbitrary power to benefit their selected few whenever they get back in power. (Can someone please start the circus music).

 

[Satya]

I politely am stepping out. You didn't win. You just keep responding to my logic with fallacies. You're fallacious ad hominem attacks (against me and the founders) are there to be seen. You over simplified the relationship between correlation and causation. I expounded on at least part of it. Here's more: causation implies correlation. I freely admit that I don't know exactly what the relationship between free societies and development is. But the relationship is easily observed in history.

Correlation does not imply causation.

That is one of the simplest statistical rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

I don't know where the hell you learned stats, but you were clearly taught incorrectly.

I also resent the implication that because I question the ideological motivations you have proposed that I am using ad hominem attacks towards you, and the interpretation of my charge the the founding fathers were living in contextually different times is as an ad hominem against them.

No reasonable debate can be had unless played by the rules. You don't want to play by the rules so this little game of tag is over. I'm stepping out. If you want to declare victory (under whatever rules you define) feel free. You are wrong on many points and no amount of logic or evidence will convince you otherwise. End of story.

You've still failed to demonstrate any flaws in many of my arguments.

P.S. I hope you like Republicans using the same arbitrary power to benefit their selected few whenever they get back in power. (Can someone please start the circus music).

You argument is ideological. What am I suppose to disprove? That you don't believe the Constitution should be strictly interpreted by the founding father's intentions? That you aren't anti government? That you don't believe that increased government involvement inherently leads to infringement on freedom? You cited only personal facts about what you believe. That is why from the beginning of your part in this thread, I told you it was stupid to debate ideology. I can't reason you out of something you were never reasoned into in the first place. All your arguments are based on value judgments, not reasoned facts. How you feel the Constitution should be interpreted is a value judgment, how you feel about the role of government is a value judgment, how you feel about the extent to which government infringes on freedom is a value judgment. That is ideology! That is not logic! That is not evidence!

You have not provided any logic or evidence in this thread, just your personal value judgments, or in other words, your ideology.

Also, I'm not a Republican.

Why do you insist on trying to categorize people? Are you that insistent on living within dichotomies?

 

[Azure_Knight]

Um...wasn't the financial meltdown a market failure rather than a government one? I guess you could eally stretch it and argue safety nets, but even that requires an explanation of why so many institutions would sale useless securities when it was only in their short term interest to do so. Not to mention the financial crises came after a log period of deregulation. Is it good to be dependent on the government? I don't think so, but frankly we are dependent on one oversized bureaucracy or another in this modern world anyway. What does it matter if it is a private one or a public one?

I was more worried who the government would turn to if there was a large failure (on par or above) with the financial crisis. I think the government should be involved in monitoring what is going on within the markets to protect consumers.

I think that people will be dependent on government for some services. I am wary of overdependence though because you could put yourself in a bad situation if the programs that you depend on won't be able to cover your needs completely (and you have no other way of meeting those needs). An example would be a senior on Social Security and Medicare (with a fixed income).

Aside from the cost argument, I think the implementation argument is one of the best concerning government health care. There are a lot of unanswered questions regarding who will do what.

Lots of new agencies apparently. I have a peculiar feeling that our best interests are being bartered and sold in closed room deals.

Mf, what do you think about the IRS being involved in health care? I don't think you've said anything about it yet.