Conquer Club

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

jj3044 wrote:There will always be flaws with an implementation this huge. No matter if you have a squad of the best project managers ever there will be issues. My company had an IT system replacement that took 2 years. Three years wasn't a lot of time at all to tackle something this large.

oVo wrote:I have yet to hear anyone say there are no downsides or problems with initiating and implementing this Affordable Care Act. It is a huge undertaking and one of the first surprises was that opponents to the concept are willing to spend absurd amounts of money to block it. They are not generating constructive criticism or presenting alternative proposals to improve a healthcare system that has needed overhauled for decades.

This is precisely why there should never be programs this large. The federal government was never designed to institute massive domestic programs, which is why they're so bad at it. It was designed to be a liaison to other countries, operate national defense, and mediate disputes between the states. It was never meant to rule our lives through bloated national programs.

And yes, there have been PLENTY of alternative proposals out there. Just because the progressives don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Name a private system that has WORKED, on such a large scale in all of history... then you can begin to ask if it "was never meant".

Private systems don't have to work on such a large scale because there will always be competition between different companies, causing each company to take care of a smaller portion of the large scale. However, the federal government is the most powerful monopoly ever created, which is why their "services" do such a poor job. Competition creates the best system possible, not government dictations.

You sure love law and rule and chaos and anarchy. How do you live with yourself? Perhaps you should end it now.

A lot of people care a about the next generation burdened with much higher tax rates, much higher levels of debt, higher and higher interest payments, weaker and weaker currency strength, and being robbed of opportunity and Liberty.

A lot of people do not care about any of those things, and think they can get as many golden eggs out of the goose as they want, if they can just get enough people together who vote to kill the goose.

Phatscotty wrote:A lot of people do not care about any of those things, and think they can get as many golden eggs out of the goose as they want, if they can just get enough people together who vote to kill the goose.

Isn't democracy wonderful?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:A lot of people care a about the next generation burdened with much higher tax rates, much higher levels of debt, higher and higher interest payments, weaker and weaker currency strength, and being robbed of opportunity and Liberty.

A lot of people do not care about any of those things, and think they can get as many golden eggs out of the goose as they want, if they can just get enough people together who vote to kill the goose.

Isn't democracy wonderful?

Sure.

Even more so our Republic.

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:A lot of people care a about the next generation burdened with much higher tax rates, much higher levels of debt, higher and higher interest payments, weaker and weaker currency strength, and being robbed of opportunity and Liberty.

A lot of people do not care about any of those things, and think they can get as many golden eggs out of the goose as they want, if they can just get enough people together who vote to kill the goose.

Isn't democracy wonderful?

Sure.

Even more so our Republic.

Let's make an analogy for what just happened.

Mets: Aren't apples wonderful?

Phatscotty: Sure. Fruits are even better.

nice try. Way off topic though

We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic. So you were wrong to even bring apples into it in the first place.

If you want to continue, you might want to explain what you mean "isn't Democracy wonderful" provide some context about the original topic, rather than delving into the hypothetical nuances.

Why is it wonderful?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:A lot of people do not care about any of those things, and think they can get as many golden eggs out of the goose as they want, if they can just get enough people together who vote to kill the goose.

Isn't democracy wonderful?

How do you mean that? What is wonderful about Democracy if a 51-49 majority votes to make murder legal? Why did you cut out the top part of my quote?

A lot of people care a about the next generation burdened with much higher tax rates, much higher levels of debt, higher and higher interest payments, weaker and weaker currency strength, and being robbed of opportunity and Liberty.

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:A lot of people do not care about any of those things, and think they can get as many golden eggs out of the goose as they want, if they can just get enough people together who vote to kill the goose.

Isn't democracy wonderful?

How do you mean that? What is wonderful about Democracy if a 51-49 majority votes to make murder legal? Why did you cut out the top part of my quote?

A lot of people care a about the next generation burdened with much higher tax rates, much higher levels of debt, higher and higher interest payments, weaker and weaker currency strength, and being robbed of opportunity and Liberty.

What I mean is that you speak quite freely about how important the Constitution is and that we abide by its principles. Thus, when this procedure is followed and a law is passed, and the Supreme Court states that the Constitution is not in conflict with that law, the discussion is over and we should move on.

The procedures are clear. All spending originates from the House of Representatives, and the branches of government act as checks and balances.

The Supreme Court cannot levy a tax to fund Obamacare, and in it's ruling it said it's up to the people through elections to fight the law. Obama was elected, and so was the Tea Party, Thank God. That means compromise. If the Democrats won the House and controlled Congress, I would agree with you. But the Democrats do not control Congress, so Congress is not going to put out a Democrat bill, as you seem to expect and demand.

The Executive is ordered by the Constitution to work with the Legislative branch. They MUST work together. There MUST be a compromise. Unless one side COMPLETELY caves, that is what will happen eventually.

I'm not asking for Congress to "put out a Democrat bill." The ACA was enacted in 2010. It is law. There is no compromise to be discussed, because the law already exists. What "Democrat bill" is currently being debated in Congress?

Metsfanmax wrote:I'm not asking for Congress to "put out a Democrat bill." The ACA was enacted in 2010. It is law. There is no compromise to be discussed, because the law already exists. What "Democrat bill" is currently being debated in Congress?

has the law been changed in any way since 2010? Is it in fact the same law?

Democrats/Senate want over 1 trillion in spending. Obama wants more than that. Republicans/House want less than a trillion.

btw, Democrats are joining Republicans. This is where The People are.

Fifty-seven House Democrats have broken ranks with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer to vote with Republicans to fund parts of the government like veterans programs, national parks and the National Institutes of Health.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2536826

and there is bi-partisanship in the Senate too. 79 Senators votes to repeal the medical device tax.

And about the Supreme Court upholding Obamacare, that isn't entirely true. Certain parts were held up (mandates), certain parts were ruled unconstitutional(forcing states to expand medicare/etc).

Phatscotty wrote:A lot of people care a about the next generation burdened with much higher tax rates, much higher levels of debt, higher and higher interest payments, weaker and weaker currency strength, and being robbed of opportunity and Liberty.

A lot of people do not care about any of those things, and think they can get as many golden eggs out of the goose as they want, if they can just get enough people together who vote to kill the goose.

You are assuming that our "high tax rate", (which, by-the-way is so "high" we make a nice tax haven for people from many other countries) is due to medical costs?

Even if it were true, why are you opposed to requiring people to have private insurance so that taxpayer don't have to pay when they do get sick?

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

jj3044 wrote:There will always be flaws with an implementation this huge. No matter if you have a squad of the best project managers ever there will be issues. My company had an IT system replacement that took 2 years. Three years wasn't a lot of time at all to tackle something this large.

oVo wrote:I have yet to hear anyone say there are no downsides or problems with initiating and implementing this Affordable Care Act. It is a huge undertaking and one of the first surprises was that opponents to the concept are willing to spend absurd amounts of money to block it. They are not generating constructive criticism or presenting alternative proposals to improve a healthcare system that has needed overhauled for decades.

This is precisely why there should never be programs this large. The federal government was never designed to institute massive domestic programs, which is why they're so bad at it. It was designed to be a liaison to other countries, operate national defense, and mediate disputes between the states. It was never meant to rule our lives through bloated national programs.

And yes, there have been PLENTY of alternative proposals out there. Just because the progressives don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Name a private system that has WORKED, on such a large scale in all of history... then you can begin to ask if it "was never meant".

Private systems don't have to work on such a large scale because there will always be competition between different companies, causing each company to take care of a smaller portion of the large scale. However, the federal government is the most powerful monopoly ever created, which is why their "services" do such a poor job. Competition creates the best system possible, not government dictations.

Ironically talking about the issues with the federal exchange... the only states going through the federal exchange are the states that refused to create their own exchanges. Most likely if these states had created their exchanges, they would have worked better...

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I'm not asking for Congress to "put out a Democrat bill." The ACA was enacted in 2010. It is law. There is no compromise to be discussed, because the law already exists. What "Democrat bill" is currently being debated in Congress?

has the law been changed in any way since 2010? Is it in fact the same law?

Changes to the law since it was enacted have gone through the standard legislative process, that is, through a majority of lawmakers in both houses in support. In fact, a majority of lawmakers in both houses are against the 'shutdown' response, so what we should do seems clear.

Democrats/Senate want over 1 trillion in spending. Obama wants more than that. Republicans/House want less than a trillion.

Sure, compromise is necessary in what specifically to budget. Destroying the president's signature piece of legislation in return for simply having a budget is not compromise, it is a literal refusal to do the job.

And about the Supreme Court upholding Obamacare, that isn't entirely true. Certain parts were held up (mandates), certain parts were ruled unconstitutional(forcing states to expand medicare/etc).

That is not relevant to this discussion.

Obamacare! Blah blah blah blah blah.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:A lot of people care a about the next generation burdened with much higher tax rates, much higher levels of debt, higher and higher interest payments, weaker and weaker currency strength, and being robbed of opportunity and Liberty.

A lot of people do not care about any of those things, and think they can get as many golden eggs out of the goose as they want, if they can just get enough people together who vote to kill the goose.

You are assuming that our "high tax rate", (which, by-the-way is so "high" we make a nice tax haven for people from many other countries) is due to medical costs?

Even if it were true, why are you opposed to requiring people to have private insurance so that taxpayer don't have to pay when they do get sick?

Why do I have a problem with the government forcing people to sign up for health insurance under force of penalty by fine or jail? Do you really need to ask me that?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I'm not asking for Congress to "put out a Democrat bill." The ACA was enacted in 2010. It is law. There is no compromise to be discussed, because the law already exists. What "Democrat bill" is currently being debated in Congress?

has the law been changed in any way since 2010? Is it in fact the same law?

Changes to the law since it was enacted have gone through the standard legislative process, that is, through a majority of lawmakers in both houses in support. In fact, a majority of lawmakers in both houses are against the 'shutdown' response, so what we should do seems clear.

Democrats/Senate want over 1 trillion in spending. Obama wants more than that. Republicans/House want less than a trillion.

Sure, compromise is necessary in what specifically to budget. Destroying the president's signature piece of legislation in return for simply having a budget is not compromise, it is a literal refusal to do the job.

And about the Supreme Court upholding Obamacare, that isn't entirely true. Certain parts were held up (mandates), certain parts were ruled unconstitutional(forcing states to expand medicare/etc).

That is not relevant to this discussion.

You are wrong Mets. You think all the waivers Obama gave to the super rich and his buddy system went through the legislative process? How about delaying the mandate on businesses for a year? No, Obama changed the law, and he lied to get it passed in the first place. Obamacare now is very different than what was sold to us then.



You brought the Supreme Court into this.


Obamacare isn't being destroyed LULZ. It needs to be negotiated in some areas and scaled back and the people would like the same treatment Obama gave to businesses. It's not fair to give businesses a pass but force the mandate on individuals. Where is your sense of equality on this one?

notyou2 wrote: You sure love law and rule and chaos and anarchy. How do you live with yourself? Perhaps you should end it now.

also, what the f*ck is this excretion of a post?

Phatscotty wrote: Obamacare isn't being destroyed LULZ. It needs to be negotiated in some areas and scaled back and the people would like the same treatment Obama gave to businesses. It's not fair to give businesses a pass but force the mandate on individuals. Where is your sense of equality on this one?

If equality under the law is really your problem, then wouldn't it be much easier just to get him to go back on any waivers to businesses rather than on waivers for millions of individuals?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I'm not asking for Congress to "put out a Democrat bill." The ACA was enacted in 2010. It is law. There is no compromise to be discussed, because the law already exists. What "Democrat bill" is currently being debated in Congress?

has the law been changed in any way since 2010? Is it in fact the same law?

Changes to the law since it was enacted have gone through the standard legislative process, that is, through a majority of lawmakers in both houses in support.

BS.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: Obamacare isn't being destroyed LULZ. It needs to be negotiated in some areas and scaled back and the people would like the same treatment Obama gave to businesses. It's not fair to give businesses a pass but force the mandate on individuals. Where is your sense of equality on this one?

If equality under the law is really your problem, then wouldn't it be much easier just to get him to go back on any waivers to businesses rather than on waivers for millions of individuals?

Yes, because this president has a penchant for actually following the law as written.

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I'm not asking for Congress to "put out a Democrat bill." The ACA was enacted in 2010. It is law. There is no compromise to be discussed, because the law already exists. What "Democrat bill" is currently being debated in Congress?

has the law been changed in any way since 2010? Is it in fact the same law?

Changes to the law since it was enacted have gone through the standard legislative process, that is, through a majority of lawmakers in both houses in support.

BS.

As far as I'm aware, the only significant change to the law since implementation that was done by the executive rather than by Congress was the delay on employer mandates. And it's not like that delay was implemented because the President just decided he didn't like that provision; there were good logistical reasons for delaying the deadline. In all likelihood it would have been very difficult for many employers to adhere to mandate by the January deadline, given how long it took to really set up the requirements on reporting.

But either way, my point was that legislative changes to laws occur by majority agreement of both houses of Congress, not by demands from a minority of one house.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: Obamacare isn't being destroyed LULZ. It needs to be negotiated in some areas and scaled back and the people would like the same treatment Obama gave to businesses. It's not fair to give businesses a pass but force the mandate on individuals. Where is your sense of equality on this one?

If equality under the law is really your problem, then wouldn't it be much easier just to get him to go back on any waivers to businesses rather than on waivers for millions of individuals?

Yes, because this president has a penchant for actually following the law as written.

If the waiver part were struck down, then the President couldn't give out any waivers. That seems to be a much easier way to solve the equality issue. Of course, I don't see any obvious reason why businesses and individuals should be treated equally (cf. Citizens United).

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: Obamacare isn't being destroyed LULZ. It needs to be negotiated in some areas and scaled back and the people would like the same treatment Obama gave to businesses. It's not fair to give businesses a pass but force the mandate on individuals. Where is your sense of equality on this one?

If equality under the law is really your problem, then wouldn't it be much easier just to get him to go back on any waivers to businesses rather than on waivers for millions of individuals?

Liberty is my thing, given that is the opposite of equality. Just holding the equality people's feet to the fire.

I was asking you about how you feel concerning equality under the law. Sure Obama could just go back on the waivers and that would make it equal, but he's not going to do that either. The point here is that he changed the law, it's not the same law that was passed in 2010, and the law he said he would pass was not the same law the Supreme Court ruled on; it was upheld as a tax, something Obama promised over and over and over and over again it wasn't. But looks like those things don't bother you too much.

We have every reason and every right in the world to fight it.