Why is Health Care 'Reform' a Federal Issue?

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I support eskimospy's explanation... but that's not what TruePaige posted:

The government as a whole can negotiate the best pricing scheduls, ensure standards of care.

The implication being that, because federal control generates a desirable outcome, it therefore has the right to assume control. By itself, the statement is correct... but it is not a basis for the conclusion.

The implication that you impute to TruePaige's words is simply not there.

He is not using his contention that the gov't. can best control pricing and ensure care standards as a basis for the legal/constitutional legitimacy of federal gov't. control/intervention, but merely as two signal benefits to such an action, as he sees it.

I tend to agree.

Thank you Perknose for understanding the point behind my statement.

Like you and Eskimo have outlined, the government is in no way prohibited from involving itself in the healthcare industry, and I was merely pointing out logical benefits.

For a group of people who are so intent to see actual savings I don't know why some of the posters here would want to make things overly complicated and more expensive with differing standards of care and funding.

The context of your statement was "why is health care reform a Federal issue." Your reasoning? Because it was cost effective. Cost effective or not, that's not why it's a Federal issue. It's a Federal issue because, Constitutionally, it must be.

If you read the thread in order you will see the legal reasoning presented before I posted. Why would I need to reiterate it?

Also, I said to ensure standards of care are presented equally to all citizens.

Well I certainly won't argue over your intent. If you say that's what you meant, then that's what you meant. :beer:

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I support eskimospy's explanation... but that's not what TruePaige posted:

The government as a whole can negotiate the best pricing scheduls, ensure standards of care.

The implication being that, because federal control generates a desirable outcome, it therefore has the right to assume control. By itself, the statement is correct... but it is not a basis for the conclusion.

The implication that you impute to TruePaige's words is simply not there.

He is not using his contention that the gov't. can best control pricing and ensure care standards as a basis for the legal/constitutional legitimacy of federal gov't. control/intervention, but merely as two signal benefits to such an action, as he sees it.

I tend to agree.

Thank you Perknose for understanding the point behind my statement.

Like you and Eskimo have outlined, the government is in no way prohibited from involving itself in the healthcare industry, and I was merely pointing out logical benefits.

For a group of people who are so intent to see actual savings I don't know why some of the posters here would want to make things overly complicated and more expensive with differing standards of care and funding.

The context of your statement was "why is health care reform a Federal issue." Your reasoning? Because it was cost effective. Cost effective or not, that's not why it's a Federal issue. It's a Federal issue because, Constitutionally, it must be.

You have a tendency to read into something what you want it to say so you can make your argument easier to defend. LOL, now your going to tell the person who posted the comment what "his" context was..... because you know more about what he meant then he does.

:laugh:

It was an issue of nuance, idiot. But, for the record, look up: that's what it looks like when someone admits they were wrong. You could learn something from it .

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I support eskimospy's explanation... but that's not what TruePaige posted:

The government as a whole can negotiate the best pricing scheduls, ensure standards of care.

The implication being that, because federal control generates a desirable outcome, it therefore has the right to assume control. By itself, the statement is correct... but it is not a basis for the conclusion.

The implication that you impute to TruePaige's words is simply not there.

He is not using his contention that the gov't. can best control pricing and ensure care standards as a basis for the legal/constitutional legitimacy of federal gov't. control/intervention, but merely as two signal benefits to such an action, as he sees it.

I tend to agree.

Thank you Perknose for understanding the point behind my statement.

Like you and Eskimo have outlined, the government is in no way prohibited from involving itself in the healthcare industry, and I was merely pointing out logical benefits.

For a group of people who are so intent to see actual savings I don't know why some of the posters here would want to make things overly complicated and more expensive with differing standards of care and funding.

The context of your statement was "why is health care reform a Federal issue." Your reasoning? Because it was cost effective. Cost effective or not, that's not why it's a Federal issue. It's a Federal issue because, Constitutionally, it must be.

If you read the thread in order you will see the legal reasoning presented before I posted. Why would I need to reiterate it?

Also, I said to ensure standards of care are presented equally to all citizens.

Well I certainly won't argue over your intent. If you say that's what you meant, then that's what you meant. :beer:

You're right, at this point we would be silly to argue with each other over nothing.

:beer:

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

It was an issue of nuance, idiot. But, for the record, look up: that's what it looks like when someone admits they were wrong. You could learn something from it .

After he straightened you out you had no choice... you were busted. I find it amazing that you even tried to tell him what he meant in the first place?? It's clear to me who is the idiot here and it's not me or TruePaige.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: jbourne77

It was an issue of nuance, idiot. But, for the record, look up: that's what it looks like when someone admits they were wrong. You could learn something from it .

After he straightened you out you had no choice... you were busted. I find it amazing that you even tried to tell him what he meant in the first place?? It's clear to me who is the idiot here and it's not me or TruePaige.

You mean after he clarified it. I suppose you've NEVER misunderstood someone. How many times have we seen you dead to rights and still unwilling to budge? Frequently, to say the least.

Fuck off, troll.

 

[Stuxnet]

dp

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: jbourne77

It was an issue of nuance, idiot. But, for the record, look up: that's what it looks like when someone admits they were wrong. You could learn something from it .

After he straightened you out you had no choice... you were busted. I find it amazing that you even tried to tell him what he meant in the first place?? It's clear to me who is the idiot here and it's not me or TruePaige.

You mean after he clarified it. I suppose you've NEVER misunderstood someone. How many times have we seen you dead to rights and still unwilling to budge? Frequently, to say the least.

Fuck off, troll.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: jbourne77

It was an issue of nuance, idiot. But, for the record, look up: that's what it looks like when someone admits they were wrong. You could learn something from it .

After he straightened you out you had no choice... you were busted. I find it amazing that you even tried to tell him what he meant in the first place?? It's clear to me who is the idiot here and it's not me or TruePaige.

You mean after he clarified it. I suppose you've NEVER misunderstood someone. How many times have we seen you dead to rights and still unwilling to budge? Frequently, to say the least.

Fuck off, troll.

Is this the part where I run to personal forum issues and cry about you and ask to have you banned? LMAO@U little baby.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: jbourne77

It was an issue of nuance, idiot. But, for the record, look up: that's what it looks like when someone admits they were wrong. You could learn something from it .

After he straightened you out you had no choice... you were busted. I find it amazing that you even tried to tell him what he meant in the first place?? It's clear to me who is the idiot here and it's not me or TruePaige.

You mean after he clarified it. I suppose you've NEVER misunderstood someone. How many times have we seen you dead to rights and still unwilling to budge? Frequently, to say the least.

Fuck off, troll.

Is this the part where I run to personal forum issues and cry about you and ask to have you banned? LMAO@U little baby.

No, this is the part where you send everyone who's disagreed with you a nasty little PM and then block them from replying . Sorry, being called a baby by the likes of you is... humorous... :lips: .

Now let the thread get back on track.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: jbourne77

It was an issue of nuance, idiot. But, for the record, look up: that's what it looks like when someone admits they were wrong. You could learn something from it .

After he straightened you out you had no choice... you were busted. I find it amazing that you even tried to tell him what he meant in the first place?? It's clear to me who is the idiot here and it's not me or TruePaige.

You mean after he clarified it. I suppose you've NEVER misunderstood someone. How many times have we seen you dead to rights and still unwilling to budge? Frequently, to say the least.

Fuck off, troll.

Is this the part where I run to personal forum issues and cry about you and ask to have you banned? LMAO@U little baby.

No, this is the part where you send everyone who's disagreed with you a nasty little PM and then block them from replying . Sorry, being called a baby by the likes of you is... humorous... :lips: .

Now let the thread get back on track.

Me thinks you doth protest too much, way too much.

You have to wait until I start a thread in PFI about getting you banned because you have the gall to disagree with me before you can send nasty PM's.

Funny how you took it upon yourself to try and get me banned though. Yup, you definitely protest too much. I clearly piss you off. That's because I'm an older, wiser man then you..... so get used to it..... PUNK hahahahaha

 

[Stuxnet]

No, you don't piss me off. The PFI thread was created because of behavior just like this: you are an obstacle to mature conversation. When you get straightened out - and there are plenty of examples - you resort to nonsense just like this. There are no apologies. There is no being a man about it. You're just a gnat who severely craves attention.

So I am not part of the problems you love to create (for attention, maybe?), this will be my last response to you. Permanently. That you get off on running interference like this is pathetic, to say the least. If I gave a shit about you, it would also be sad.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
No, you don't piss me off. The PFI thread was created because of behavior just like this: you are an obstacle to mature conversation. When you get straightened out - and there are plenty of examples - you resort to nonsense just like this. There are no apologies. There is no being a man about it. You're just a gnat who severely craves attention.

So I am not part of the problems you love to create (for attention, maybe?), this will be my last response to you. Permanently. That you get off on running interference like this is pathetic, to say the least. If I gave a shit about you, it would also be sad.

Who the fuck are you to decide what is "mature" conversation? You're not even a mod so FUCK OFF YOURSELF!!!

Maybe you should start another PFI thread and try to get me banned again? :laugh:

 

[Perknose]

Awww, geez, you two. Last I looked in this thred TP and J77 were coming to a much welcomed adult conclusion to a disagreement.

Now this.

As a poster, I'm merely asking you two to let it go completely -- no getting in the last word! -- and live to fight another day over something more worthwhile.

P&N brings out the stupid in ALL of us from time to time.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: charrison
Actually due to state regulations it is difficult for health insurance to operate across state lines. I worked for a national company at one point and they had to offer different plan depending on where you lived.

Good to see you making an argument for a national plan!

No I am saying I have no problem with being able to buy insurance across state lines. Require virtually no govt involvement for this to happen. It was even a good idea when republicans proposed the idea several years ago....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Awww, geez, you two. Last I looked in this thred TP and J77 were coming to a much welcomed adult conclusion to a disagreement.

Now this.

As a poster, I'm merely asking you two to let it go completely -- no getting in the last word! -- and live to fight another day over something more worthwhile.

P&N brings out the stupid in ALL of us from time to time.

Well, yeah it does.

BTW, I wasn't saying you were incorrect. I agree with your analysis as to why the federal government can get involved, because of interstate commerce.

My point was that the OP was asking something which I could interpret two ways, one technical and the other restated as "why is the federal government pursuing this", which would be a matter of motivation. Obama and Congress collectively want this, and that's the "why". People are concerned about losing their insurance and not being able to get it, and others wanting it, but not being rich enough to afford it, nor poor enough for medicaid. It's a combination of timeliness and opportunity.

Sure that's painfully obvious, however I don't see much depth in the question as worded. It is what it is.