Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Because....

Just because

I think one thing the federal government needs to look at is all of these states who are passing laws to over ride what the Fed says.

Gun control, health care, marriage(in either direction), drugs. All of these issues have laws passed by various states that are in direct violation of Federal law.

If that trend continues too far, then states will see the Federal government as superfluous and expensive and therefore make a move to either remove or restructure the federal government.

Everyone acts like slavery was the only issue behind the Civil War, and it wasn't. States rights were a major issue.


There are a few states that the US cannot honestly afford to lose. California is likely top of that list, due in large part to it's population size and it's GDP and economic value. Texas would likely be second, and New York third iirc.

So what happens when Texas decides they want out, and they convince New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma to go with them?

If the states lose the ability to govern themselves then why have states at all?


The federal government is trying to micromanage an issue that is far too big to micromanage.

Require states to have SOME form of public healthcare, excellent. But let those states decide how they want to regulate and run that program. If you don't like the way your state runs it's free healthcare, move to somewhere with a better plan.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
It's also not the government's place to tell me I need to buy health insurance. I'm currently covered by my employer, but I'm probably going to knock off and go the self-employed route within a year or so here, and if I wasn't obliged to have coverage, I certainly wouldn't have any.

Over the course of this debate I've asked in dakka maybe 30 times how you remove the ability of insurers to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, without requiring people to get insurance while they are well (otherwise they'll just wait until they do get sick and then go out and get insurance).

Only answer I've ever heard is 'freedom!'

Seb... that still happens.

If you don't have insurance (and you're healthy), you can still refuse to purchase insurance. When tax time comes every April, you'd just pay the tax (fine) for not having insurance. It's waaaaaaaay cheaper now to pay for the tax, than to purchase the insurance. If you get sick, you simply signup for one right away and the insurance cannot deny you. At. All.

See the problem? It actually makes it EASIER to game the system a bit.

The fact that citizens will be taxed for abstaining from a service is absolutely insulting.


Regardless, the problem is (and I hate to say this, because in nearly all cases I oppose government intervention) unregulated, opaque hospital management.

That's part of the problem due to the complexity of getting government cheese... these hospitals have to jump through hoops of fire in order to qualify.

There is literally zero relationship between the price they pay for a medical device and the value that you are billed.

Of course there is... it's just ridiculously complex how "that" price got there...

This would be nothing more than free market capitalism were it not for the fact that, in many cases, people are unable to consent one way or another: If you are in a serious car accident and unconscious, and you make it to a hospital, you're going to get treatment whether you like it or not. In an industry where A) people can't "shop around" for the best hospital, B) people are often given services without ever consenting to them, and C) we're talking something that is already heavily involved with the government anyway (NIH research, etc.), hospitals are one of the few areas where government ought to intervene.

Hospital don' make it their life's mission to make things overly complex. The issue is much more complex than just the hospitals.

Intervening in the health insurance side of things only makes the problem worse.

Agreed... it's taking an already complex system and throwing Pandora into the mix.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aerethan wrote:
I think one thing the federal government needs to look at is all of these states who are passing laws to over ride what the Fed says.

Gun control, health care, marriage(in either direction), drugs. All of these issues have laws passed by various states that are in direct violation of Federal law.

If that trend continues too far, then states will see the Federal government as superfluous and expensive and therefore make a move to either remove or restructure the federal government.

Everyone acts like slavery was the only issue behind the Civil War, and it wasn't. States rights were a major issue.


There are a few states that the US cannot honestly afford to lose. California is likely top of that list, due in large part to it's population size and it's GDP and economic value. Texas would likely be second, and New York third iirc.

So what happens when Texas decides they want out, and they convince New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma to go with them?

If the states lose the ability to govern themselves then why have states at all?


The federal government is trying to micromanage an issue that is far too big to micromanage.

Require states to have SOME form of public healthcare, excellent. But let those states decide how they want to regulate and run that program. If you don't like the way your state runs it's free healthcare, move to somewhere with a better plan.

Erm... States passing laws that contravene Federal codes occurs ALL THE TIME.

It's usually a tactic by the state to build a case (grounds) so that they can take the Feds to court.

Nothing new here... just how a normal dysfunctional family argues with one another.

If Texas leaves and takes Oklahoma with them, then the federal budget looks more balanced already.

 d-usa wrote:
If Texas leaves and takes Oklahoma with them, then the federal budget looks more balanced already.

Why? Texas sends off substantially more in taxes then it gets back. A big argument against secession is that we'd get stuck with some of the crap federal debt.

At this point I'm not far against the concept. I no longer wish to be in a union with nanny states like New York and California.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If Texas leaves and takes Oklahoma with them, then the federal budget looks more balanced already.

Why? Texas sends off substantially more in taxes then it gets back. A big argument against secession is that we'd get stuck with some of the crap federal debt.

At this point I'm not far against the concept. I no longer wish to be in a union with nanny states like New York and California.

Agreed.

I currently live in CA and I hate it here. The only things nice about it are the geography and SOME of the people. My company is moving to Texas solely because CA decided to add on to our taxes and with their democratic supermajority they can keep on doing it without it going to public vote. I'm all for taxing large corporations, but my company is 70 people. So when CA wants to take another 4% in taxes on top of what we already pay, and it stops us from hiring 2 people, we'll take our business elsewhere where we can grow and not be penalized so heavily for it.

It is not MY fault that CA is a bankrupt state despite it's massive economy. Gross mismanagement. I'm out.


Dear Texas,

Please don't leave till I get there.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If Texas leaves and takes Oklahoma with them, then the federal budget looks more balanced already.

Why? Texas sends off substantially more in taxes then it gets back. A big argument against secession is that we'd get stuck with some of the crap federal debt.

At this point I'm not far against the concept. I no longer wish to be in a union with nanny states like New York and California.

Agreed.

I currently live in CA and I hate it here. The only things nice about it are the geography and SOME of the people. My company is moving to Texas solely because CA decided to add on to our taxes and with their democratic supermajority they can keep on doing it without it going to public vote. I'm all for taxing large corporations, but my company is 70 people. So when CA wants to take another 4% in taxes on top of what we already pay, and it stops us from hiring 2 people, we'll take our business elsewhere where we can grow and not be penalized so heavily for it.

It is not MY fault that CA is a bankrupt state despite it's massive economy. Gross mismanagement. I'm out.


Dear Texas,

Please don't leave till I get there.

Where in Texas?

We'll let you come here, but leave the Cali "government as the answer to everything and so can tell you what to do" style behind at the border please.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If Texas leaves and takes Oklahoma with them, then the federal budget looks more balanced already.

Why? Texas sends off substantially more in taxes then it gets back. A big argument against secession is that we'd get stuck with some of the crap federal debt.

At this point I'm not far against the concept. I no longer wish to be in a union with nanny states like New York and California.

Was thinking about New Mexico instead of Texas, my screw-up there.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If Texas leaves and takes Oklahoma with them, then the federal budget looks more balanced already.

Why? Texas sends off substantially more in taxes then it gets back. A big argument against secession is that we'd get stuck with some of the crap federal debt.

At this point I'm not far against the concept. I no longer wish to be in a union with nanny states like New York and California.

Agreed.

I currently live in CA and I hate it here. The only things nice about it are the geography and SOME of the people. My company is moving to Texas solely because CA decided to add on to our taxes and with their democratic supermajority they can keep on doing it without it going to public vote. I'm all for taxing large corporations, but my company is 70 people. So when CA wants to take another 4% in taxes on top of what we already pay, and it stops us from hiring 2 people, we'll take our business elsewhere where we can grow and not be penalized so heavily for it.

It is not MY fault that CA is a bankrupt state despite it's massive economy. Gross mismanagement. I'm out.


Dear Texas,

Please don't leave till I get there.

Where in Texas?

We'll let you come here, but leave the Cali "government as the answer to everything and so can tell you what to do" style behind at the border please.

The office will be on Anderson Mill in Austin/Cedar Park. I'll be moving to either Cedar Park or southern Georgetown.

Also, I hate the CA government, and they have no answers.

No gak?
If you're driving on the weekend and you see what looks like a caveman in a Hawaiian shirt, drinking coffee and shuffling along with what looks like the world's oldest wiener dog, thats not a horrible fragment of some old dream. Don't stare too long though, or you'll miss the other wiener dog sneaking up on you.

When you get here, you must acquaint yourself with several things:
1) Alamo Drafthouse/Flix brewhouse (if you end up in Round Rock).

2) Lupe Tortillas

3) Amy's icecream. The server's like to throw the icecream around and other tricks like bartenders.

I always thought that deep within the politically conservative borders of Texas, you guys collected all the liberals and stuck them into Austin (aka Little California).

 d-usa wrote:
I always thought that deep within the politically conservative borders of Texas, you guys collected all the liberals and stuck them into Austin (aka Little California).

That would be correct. Sometimes a few get out once in a while, but we have constant pickupdriving rednecks patrolling.

I'm probably moving to Texas or Arizona shortly before Colorado becomes too purple to stand. Both states are more friendly to small business and gun owners too. The former and latter both help me with my career. Keep an eye out for a Wild Arms Forge opening near you!

 Frazzled wrote:
No gak?
If you're driving on the weekend and you see what looks like a caveman in a Hawaiian shirt, drinking coffee and shuffling along with what looks like the world's oldest wiener dog, thats not a horrible fragment of some old dream. Don't stare too long though, or you'll miss the other wiener dog sneaking up on you.

When you get here, you must acquaint yourself with several things:
1) Alamo Drafthouse/Flix brewhouse (if you end up in Round Rock).

2) Lupe Tortillas

3) Amy's icecream. The server's like to throw the icecream around and other tricks like bartenders.

4) Whattaburger

5) Southern Sweet TEA

6) Bill Miller's BBQ (if its still open?)

7) Rattle Snake Round Up Festivals

8) Babes!

Aerethan wrote:Everyone acts like slavery was the only issue behind the Civil War, and it wasn't. States rights were a major issue.

Yeah, the states' right to keep slaves.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Aerethan wrote:Everyone acts like slavery was the only issue behind the Civil War, and it wasn't. States rights were a major issue.

Yeah, the states' right to keep slaves.

They were so concerned about state rights that the confederate states made it illegal for states to outlaw slavery. So....go figure that one out.

 Aerethan wrote:

No.

In fact, if anyone ever wanted a nice, clear display of why something as abstract as 'state's rights' just fething isn't the kind of thing you go marching off to war over, look at the US right now. There's lots of disaffected people who believe very strongly that their state's rights to self-govern are being trampled by a large and getting larger Federal Government... and yet there is absolutely zero chance of this producing any real kind of secession movement, let alone one backed by force.

But the abolition of slavery... well that challenged the pocket books of the wealthy and influential, and challenged the way the rest of the population understood their place in the social order. That's the kind of thing people freak out about enough to start a war over.

So if you ever really thought 'states rights' was real and meaningful enough to justify war well just look at the US now. ANd look at it in 1860. States rights as a major cause for war is bs.

 sebster wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

No.

In fact, if anyone ever wanted a nice, clear display of why something as abstract as 'state's rights' just fething isn't the kind of thing you go marching off to war over, look at the US right now. There's lots of disaffected people who believe very strongly that their state's rights to self-govern are being trampled by a large and getting larger Federal Government... and yet there is absolutely zero chance of this producing any real kind of secession movement, let alone one backed by force.

But the abolition of slavery... well that challenged the pocket books of the wealthy and influential, and challenged the way the rest of the population understood their place in the social order. That's the kind of thing people freak out about enough to start a war over.

So if you ever really thought 'states rights' was real and meaningful enough to justify war well just look at the US now. ANd look at it in 1860. States rights as a major cause for war is bs.

Not to derail the thread too much... but, isn't the fact that the southern state wanted to maintain the status quo (thus, slavery) in fact, an excercise in defending their "state's right"?

There were also a plethora of other things the south didn't like... like the taxes/tariff on the texttile industries...

I really don't get this antagonistic debate on this.

And, yeah... as virulent the political debate has been, we ain't no where close to sucession.