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.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


You misperceive my intent. Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life.

Hence the staunch defense of universal healthcare.

While I am fully in support of a Canadian or Swiss system, I don't understand your point.

He means since the GOP is so in favor of defending human life. They do nothing for the people already alive and their heavy opposition to universal health care.

Obamacare is most definitely NOT universal healthcare.

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


You misperceive my intent. Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life.

Hence the staunch defense of universal healthcare.

While I am fully in support of a Canadian or Swiss system, I don't understand your point.

Do you think healthcare is needed to "protect human life" ?

If not ...well.. congrats on those genes

 Sarouan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


You misperceive my intent. Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life.

Hence the staunch defense of universal healthcare.

While I am fully in support of a Canadian or Swiss system, I don't understand your point.

He's talking about the future of an unwanted child, in a country where everything is clearly showing that cuts will be hitting hard the poor people.

Meaning the sanctity of life seems to stop as soon as it is out of the womb of a woman.

I'd rather he answered the question than other interpreting for him.

I see no cuts yet.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


You misperceive my intent. Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life.

Hence the staunch defense of universal healthcare.

While I am fully in support of a Canadian or Swiss system, I don't understand your point.

He means since the GOP is so in favor of defending human life. They do nothing for the people already alive and their heavy opposition to universal health care.

Obamacare is most definitely NOT universal healthcare.

Pretty sure he isn't talking about Obama care. They have been against proper Universal Healthcare for a long time now

Do you think healthcare is needed to "protect human life" ?

Yep. The SCOTUS decision predates The Trump administration by about 5 decades though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


You misperceive my intent. Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life.

Hence the staunch defense of universal healthcare.

While I am fully in support of a Canadian or Swiss system, I don't understand your point.

He means since the GOP is so in favor of defending human life. They do nothing for the people already alive and their heavy opposition to universal health care.

Obamacare is most definitely NOT universal healthcare.

Pretty sure he isn't talking about Obama care. They have been against proper Universal Healthcare for a long time now

Judging by Obamacare, so have the Democrats.

EDIT: Historically Republicans have been against universal healthcare, no doubt. I will note the historical Republican Party is no more. Trump is a populist, with more in line with other NY Democrats then traditional Republicans. We have yet to see what the Republican Party evolves into. Same to same for the Democrat Party.

 Frazzled wrote:

Yep. The SCOTUS decision predates The Trump administration by about 5 decades though.

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Yep. The SCOTUS decision predates The Trump administration by about 5 decades though.

So what has it done to ensure people have access to healthcare then ?

Obamacare, Romney Care, expansion of Medicade and Medicare.

What has SCOTUS had to do with those ?

Aside from, presumably, not ruling against them in some fashion or other ?

 reds8n wrote:

Obamacare, Romney Care, expansion of Medicade and Medicare.

What has SCOTUS had to do with those ?

Aside from, presumably, not ruling against them in some fashion or other ?

Very little (although they ruled Obamacare was legal as a tax but held up some other portions. Rulings on the legality of abortion are not very related to healthcare, but you brought it up.

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

Obamacare, Romney Care, expansion of Medicade and Medicare.

What has SCOTUS had to do with those ?

Aside from, presumably, not ruling against them in some fashion or other ?

Very little (although they ruled Obamacare was legal as a tax but held up some other portions. Rulings on the legality of abortion are not very related to healthcare, but you brought it up.

I beg to differ. There are other health reasons for abortion and family planning beyond just what the fanatics in the GOP label as "Killing Babies"

 Ahtman wrote:
I think you underestimate the stupidity of the average American. I mean, all you have to do is look at who was elected President and that will tell just how idiotic we are. His competitor wasn't a good choice either. Our dumb game is strong and I'm betting we got it in us to be fooled for many years regardless of the truth or facts.

Yeah, I only meant the theatre of having CEOs kiss the Trump ring then announce 'new' jobs won't work for long. The whole Trump show - I agree that could last four years if Democrats feth up the opposition to him. I mean as amazingly awful as Trump has been already, he'll still get the same 60 million turning up for him.

My evangelical cousins living in the US are a good example. In the lead up to the election my cousin posted a whole bunch of very weird stuff about why you had to vote Trump despite him being Trump. "Imperfect vessel" got used a lot, and everything came back to abortion, basically. About a day after the election he started posting stuff about keeping oneself above the mess of politics, trying to walk away from what he'd just done by supporting Trump. But next election he'll be making the same abortion driven arguments. It simply doesn't matter who the Republican candidate is what bs they're peddling.

Glad to see the Brexit, Trump, global lunacy phenomenon continues to roll around the planet...German elections this year, kiddies.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-23/germany-is-growing-more-tolerant-of-extremism

 sebster wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I think you underestimate the stupidity of the average American. I mean, all you have to do is look at who was elected President and that will tell just how idiotic we are. His competitor wasn't a good choice either. Our dumb game is strong and I'm betting we got it in us to be fooled for many years regardless of the truth or facts.

Yeah, I only meant the theatre of having CEOs kiss the Trump ring then announce 'new' jobs won't work for long. The whole Trump show - I agree that could last four years if Democrats feth up the opposition to him. I mean as amazingly awful as Trump has been already, he'll still get the same 60 million turning up for him.

My evangelical cousins living in the US are a good example. In the lead up to the election my cousin posted a whole bunch of very weird stuff about why you had to vote Trump despite him being Trump. "Imperfect vessel" got used a lot, and everything came back to abortion, basically. About a day after the election he started posting stuff about keeping oneself above the mess of politics, trying to walk away from what he'd just done by supporting Trump. But next election he'll be making the same abortion driven arguments. It simply doesn't matter who the Republican candidate is what bs they're peddling.

I too have listened so some very agile mental gymnastics to try and square circle their convictions with Trump. It is nauseating at best. That is one thing I can never understand I suppose.

 Frazzled wrote:

Very little (although they ruled Obamacare was legal as a tax but held up some other portions. Rulings on the legality of abortion are not very related to healthcare, but you brought it up.

I don't understand your point.

You said

Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life. That interest begins to kick in when that life can effectively be carried outside the womb.

and then agreed that healthcare is needed to protect human life.

Are you saying then that SCOTUS has, on fairly fundamental level, failed to do its job correctly as there were/are/will/might be so many people with inadequate healthcare coverage ?

 Peregrine wrote:
Fortunately, if the whim of the economic gods does not line up with the wishes of the Dear Leader we can always have some alternative facts to fix the problem.

The GOP already routinely have big tantrums when the Bureau of Labor stats gives figures that don't fit what they want to believe. I can only imagine what's going to happen when Trump gets some bad monthly numbers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vash108 wrote:
I too have listened so some very agile mental gymnastics to try and square circle their convictions with Trump. It is nauseating at best. That is one thing I can never understand I suppose.

Its one of those amazing phenomenons that's utterly predictable but completely inexplicable. You know it will happen, but it is impossible to understand why.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

Obamacare, Romney Care, expansion of Medicade and Medicare.

What has SCOTUS had to do with those ?

Aside from, presumably, not ruling against them in some fashion or other ?

Very little (although they ruled Obamacare was legal as a tax but held up some other portions. Rulings on the legality of abortion are not very related to healthcare, but you brought it up.

I beg to differ. There are other health reasons for abortion and family planning beyond just what the fanatics in the GOP label as "Killing Babies"

beg to differ about what? The tangential linkage to universal healthcare is whether that the govs would pay for it correct? Thats not an issue for SCOTUS, unless the government unconstitutionally funds it somehow.

Unless you get weird and mandate abortion of course, then envision civil war within hours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Very little (although they ruled Obamacare was legal as a tax but held up some other portions. Rulings on the legality of abortion are not very related to healthcare, but you brought it up.

I don't understand your point.

You said

Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life. That interest begins to kick in when that life can effectively be carried outside the womb.

and then agreed that healthcare is needed to protect human life.

Are you saying then that SCOTUS has, on fairly fundamental level, failed to do its job correctly as there were/are/will/might be so many people with inadequate healthcare coverage ?

Ok I think we're (we as in the Royal Wienie) are seeing the issue.
SCOTUS = US Supreme Court. They ruled on the legality of abortion of when the government has an interest which can override the right to privacy. To be clear I was just noting that once technology advances to the point where they can keep a fertilized egg going to full trim outside of the womb then that kind of follows the existing SCOTUS framework. Now that may have advanced since I left Shank em University School of Law (our motto: "you keep what you kill") and can't be arsed to research, but I doubt it.

As noted, SCOTUS would only be involved in the future healthcare plans if they somehow violated the Constitution

 Frazzled wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Very little (although they ruled Obamacare was legal as a tax but held up some other portions. Rulings on the legality of abortion are not very related to healthcare, but you brought it up.

I don't understand your point.

You said

Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life. That interest begins to kick in when that life can effectively be carried outside the womb.

and then agreed that healthcare is needed to protect human life.

Are you saying then that SCOTUS has, on fairly fundamental level, failed to do its job correctly as there were/are/will/might be so many people with inadequate healthcare coverage ?

Ok I think we're (we as in the Royal Wienie) are seeing the issue.
SCOTUS = US Supreme Court. They ruled on the legality of abortion of when the government has an interest which can override the right to privacy. To be clear I was just noting that once technology advances to the point where they can keep a fertilized egg going to full trim outside of the womb then that kind of follows the existing SCOTUS framework. Now that may have advanced since I left Shank em University School of Law (our motto: "you keep what you kill") and can't be arsed to research, but I doubt it.

As noted, SCOTUS would only be involved in the future healthcare plans if they somehow violated the Constitution

Yeah, just to try to add further clarification, SCOTUS ruled that the state has to give the same legal protections to the life of an unborn baby that was far enough along in gestation to be viable outside the womb that it gives to newborn babies. It basically just sets a time limit for abortions being legal on demand prior to viability outside the womb and making a baby still in the womb but viable to survive outside out it the same degree of legal personhood as a newborn outside the womb. The ruling does nothing to change the fact that the State, on either the state or Federal level isn't legally required to give healthcare to anyone. Beyond the Veterans' Administration the government isn't a healthcare provider, it just subsidizes private insurance plans for qualifying people.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Beyond the Veterans' Administration the government isn't a healthcare provider, it just subsidizes private insurance plans for qualifying people.

The government is also a healthcare provider via the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Indian Health Service, and the Public Health Service.

Working "artificial wombs"/similar & related technologies will & should change the debate/issue, no argument there.

I know what SCOTUS is

The bit I don't get is that you claim that the court has a duty to protect human life -- and yeah yeah there'll be wars, murders still etc etc -- and that access to healthcare is part of this protection.

However things like the 1st executive order Trump issued will restrict or prevent people from accessing this healthcare -- especially given the somewhat.. nebulous ? ... inchoate ? nature of the plans to replace it -- thus harming the people -- literally might kill them.


One appreciates -- alas -- $$$ will always be an issue but presumably if the Govt. put... say a $1,000,000 tax on firearms one would see people arguing that would be very much against the grain of the 2nd amendment.

Obviously there's limits here -- the Govt. isn't required to subsidise firearm sales to ensure that people can have the gun the want/need/deserve etc etc

The bit I don't get is that you claim that the court has a duty to protect human life -- and yeah yeah there'll be wars, murders still etc etc -- and that access to healthcare is part of this protection.

Not the court, the state. The state has a "compelling state" interest in protecting human life, so if a state wants to ban abortion, then that interest overrides the privacy interest of the invidual. This is the same reasoning that is used for a variety of things. Other variants are found in a compelling state interest to protect children-thus allowing state intervention in certain circumstances, up to and including termination of parental rights.

However things like the 1st executive order Trump issued will restrict or prevent people from accessing this healthcare -- especially given the somewhat.. nebulous ? ... inchoate ? nature of the plans to replace it -- thus harming the people -- literally might kill them.

The government is not required under the constitution to provide healthcare. You're trying to argue with me here about something, but I don't know why.

One appreciates -- alas -- $$$ will always be an issue but presumably if the Govt. put... say a $1,000,000 tax on firearms one would see people arguing that would be very much against the grain of the 2nd amendment.

The Second Amendment is a protection, incorporating THE LIMIT expressly prohibiting government interference in that fundamental right. It has literally nothing to do with anything else you are talking about.

In the words of the ancient Buddha (GC painted me a picture of a sailing ship named Ancient Budha for Xmas): dude are you stoned?

 Frazzled wrote:

Not the court, the state.

Yes, and the actions/responsibilities of the court oversee the the Govt. to ensure it is keeping within the law.

The state has a "compelling state" interest in protecting human life,

Indeed.

And as agreed access to healthcare is part of protecting human life.

And the state/govt. is actively taking this away from people .

The government is not required under the constitution to provide healthcare. You're trying to argue with me here about something, but I don't know why.

One appreciates there's no specific requirement for them to provide healthcare.

However one would raise the issue about that whole protecting human life.

The Second Amendment is a protection, incorporating THE LIMIT expressly prohibiting government interference in that fundamental right. It has literally nothing to do with anything else you are talking about.

Are saying the Govt. couldn't/doesn't have the ability/right to put a tax on firearms, bullets etc etc ?

And as agreed access to healthcare is part of protecting human life. And the state/govt. is actively taking this away from people .

***Government is confiscating healthcare from people? Please cite there. I don’t think you meant to type what you typed.

One appreciates there's no specific requirement for them to provide healthcare.

However one would raise the issue about that whole protecting human life.

***That is in fact the primary argument for universal healthcare, that everyone should have the same right to healthcare.

The Second Amendment is a protection, incorporating THE LIMIT expressly prohibiting government interference in that fundamental right. It has literally nothing to do with anything else you are talking about.


Are saying the Govt. couldn't/doesn't have the ability/right to put a tax on firearms, bullets etc etc ?

Not sure why you’re arguing about the Second Amendment. A brightline intent reading would say the government literally has no authority to do that yes. This is my view, that the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct.

SCOTUS, which I disagree with, has determined there can be some limitations on the Bill of Rights, but those limits cannot be (depending on the chain of cases) defacto bans or even material burdens (aka voting rights).



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also am I the only one who caught the Kelly Anne statement afer her alternative facts one about "revisiting the relationship" with the media if the media's poor coverage kept up.

While Constitutionally the press has F'all rights to access, what exactly did she mean by that?
If someone really wanted to take down the Trump juggernaut they would hack and disable Twitter.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The biggest difference, imo, is that Bush really did want the US to do well, and really tried his best to make that happen. He wasn't very good at being President but his intentions were good. Trump, as you said, has no desire to help the nation or the people beyond how it will increase his own prestige.

I think Bush43 and Obama were both good people with good intentions that wanted to help make the country better. However, given the nature of the Executive branch and the current state of politics both were really just vessels through which their Party could obtain control of the White House. I think the visions both had for the country and goals they wanted to accomplish with the economy, healthcare, education, Middle East policy etc. would resonate with most Americans. Unfortunately, the actual legislation that was produced by the hyper partisan Congress fell pretty short of the mark for the last 16 years. It's even more unfortunate that while I believe Trump wants to have a successful presidency that increases the value of his Trump brand I haven't seen any evidence that Trump understands what the country needs or what work is really required for his presidency to really be successful. I'm concerned that Trump is surrounded by partisan zealots and media manipulators to the extent that he'll be convinced that whatever policies he advance and legislation he signs is popular enough to make Trump Inc. more valuable than ever. Thankfully I don't think it's possible for a POTUS to really harm the country in one term but I'm fearful that Trump's fumbling along will only lead to even more populist angst in 2020 which would produce volatility across the ballots that could lead to some real craziness.

Government is confiscating healthcare from people? Please cite there. I don’t think you meant to type what you typed.

Are you unaware that the ACA is going to gutted and/or removed ?

And currently there is nothing more than vague promises about replacing it.

Will the removal and potential non replacement of their healthcare coverage not endanger them ?

Especially if they have ongoing conditions and the like.

Not sure why you’re arguing about the Second Amendment. A brightline intent reading would say the government literally has no authority to do that yes. This is my view, that the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct.

My understanding is that there are -- in places as ever one assumes it'll vary from state to state -- tax/taxes on firearms

There have been challenges on this calling on the 2nd amendment

eg :

https://www.saf.org/attorneys-file-notice-of-appeal-in-challenge-to-seattle-gun-tax/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law_in_the_United_States

I have some -- admittedly vague -- memories about cases being brought against Wilson in California when he brought in the sales tax on newspapers wwaayy back with regards to the Govt. and press regulation.

Also am I the only one who caught the Kelly Anne statement afer her alternative facts one about "revisiting the relationship" with the media if the media's poor coverage kept up.

No.

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Very little (although they ruled Obamacare was legal as a tax but held up some other portions. Rulings on the legality of abortion are not very related to healthcare, but you brought it up.

I don't understand your point.

You said

Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life. That interest begins to kick in when that life can effectively be carried outside the womb.

and then agreed that healthcare is needed to protect human life.

Are you saying then that SCOTUS has, on fairly fundamental level, failed to do its job correctly as there were/are/will/might be so many people with inadequate healthcare coverage ?

SCOTUS don't *make* laws...

They can't just say, "I decree from this point forward that healthcare is a right, so Congress, I'll hold you in contempt if you don't pass some sort of Universal Healthcare!".

If you need to blame someone... that's on Congress' (and eventually the President's) lap.

Furthermore, you do know that every Emergency Room is REQUIRED to take any anyone who needs to be stabilized... right?

This isn't like Panem, where only the connected gets care...

Yes, emergency rooms will stabilize, but thats often far from enough. I know several people, including a close personal friend of mine since middle school, that would have been dead without the ACA and the extra care it allowed beyond mere stabilization that missed stuff like the internal bleeding from esophageal varices.

I understand that

But emergency rooms aren't much good for, say, treating cancer or similar on a long term basis.

But if Congress passes a law -- such as the removal of healthcare -- which could actively lead to the demise of a USA citizen --

-- and I'm happy to accept there would have to be some limits here of course -- because there's no replacement, does SCOTUS have the right or duty to step in ?


I have a friend.. well more a friend of a friend , Facebook kinda thing -- who is undergoing treatment for Liver cancer & a few related odds and sods and said person appears to be facing an effective death sentence when/if their h'care coverage is removed.

Didn't have access prior to the ACA due to pre-existing conditions AFAIK.

... I had to google Panem

 whembly wrote:


Furthermore, you do know that every Emergency Room is REQUIRED to take any anyone who needs to be stabilized... right?

This isn't like Panem, where only the connected gets care...

Also this can/will/has put people into crippling debt for the rest of their lives...

Just ask a friend of mine who was flown and operated on in a out of coverage ER room after a car accident.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Maybe being in charge of the Department of Education could have some effect, but I honestly don't know enough about what DoEd is all about.

It can't change anything here. There is no way the federal government is going to impose a policy of "you must invite conservative speakers" on state-owned or private schools.

The Federal govt routinely dictates policies to state and private universities the same way they've always made states comply with Federal standards for things that the Feds don't really have jurisdiction over, they tie it to funding. State and private universities still get Federal funds and they still rely on students getting Federal student loans to pay the tuition that keeps the schools in business. How does the Federal govt get state and private universities to comply with Title IX? They withhold Federal funds if schools don't comply or violate the regulations.

Universities are supposed to be promoting education and the free exchange of ideas and information not encouraging groupthink and turning themselves into echo chambers by banning speakers whose politics may not appeal to the entire student body. That's the antithesis of the mission of higher education and it's incredibly short sighted and intolerant.

It's a problem when a state university like Rutgers acquiesces to a student protest against having Condoleezza Rice give a commencement speech because she worked for the Bush administration. Allowing somebody like Rice to give a commencement speech doesn't mean that every student and faculty member at Rutgers supports every position on issues like the legality of torture that the Bush administration took while Rice was a cabinet member. Faculty and students should be able to discuss the pros and cons of legal positions taken by the Bush administration without having to shut down speeches by heads of state for political reasons. The Federal govt has a vested interest in making sure that university systems they subsidize allow for the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions.

Here are Obama's comments on the issue when he gave his commencement speech at Rutgers last year:

And if participation means voting, and it means compromise, and organizing and advocacy, it also means listening to those who don’t agree with you. I know a couple years ago, folks on this campus got upset that Condoleezza Rice was supposed to speak at a commencement. Now, I don't think it's a secret that I disagree with many of the foreign policies of Dr. Rice and the previous administration. But the notion that this community or the country would be better served by not hearing from a former Secretary of State, or shutting out what she had to say -- I believe that’s misguided. (Applause.) I don't think that's how democracy works best, when we're not even willing to listen to each other. (Applause.) I believe that's misguided.

If you disagree with somebody, bring them in -- (applause) -- and ask them tough questions. Hold their feet to the fire. Make them defend their positions. (Applause.) If somebody has got a bad or offensive idea, prove it wrong. Engage it. Debate it. Stand up for what you believe in. (Applause.) Don't be scared to take somebody on. Don't feel like you got to shut your ears off because you're too fragile and somebody might offend your sensibilities. Go at them if they’re not making any sense. Use your logic and reason and words. And by doing so, you’ll strengthen your own position, and you’ll hone your arguments. And maybe you’ll learn something and realize you don't know everything. And you may have a new understanding not only about what your opponents believe but maybe what you believe. Either way, you win. And more importantly, our democracy wins. (Applause.)

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/05/15/remarks-president-commencement-address-rutgers-state-university-new

You're correct that student protests that result in the cancellation of guest speakers/lecturers isn't a violation of constitutionally protected free speech but while lawful it's still a terrible, unreasonable and intolerant practice.

Are you unaware that the ACA is going to gutted and/or removed ?

That’s not “confiscating” healthcare. You know that. Quit playing semantics games. We don’t do alternative facts here. We do Real Facts! 
Babylon Five comes true 200 years early.

My understanding is that there are -- in places as ever one assumes it'll vary from state to state -- tax/taxes on firearms

There are state sales taxes in general. I do not know what each state does more specifically as that would fill up a couple of dozen Bibles.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes, emergency rooms will stabilize, but thats often far from enough. I know several people, including a close personal friend of mine since middle school, that would have been dead without the ACA and the extra care it allowed beyond mere stabilization that missed stuff like the internal bleeding from esophageal varices.

Why were they not on Medicaid? This is a question not a criticism.