jma23
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2019 13:27:18 GMT -5
Posts: 1,403 
|
Post by jma23 on Jun 11, 2019 12:58:19 GMT -5
since Reagan, we have been paying for the uninsured.the only difference between Reagan and Obama in this respect is that Obama's universal mandate got skin in the game for the uninsured. so, you would rather go back to the free ride that Reagan instituted in 1986? what are you? a commie? Which has absolutely nothing to do with a mandated purchase, as a law, and used for my reference in regards to thyme's post I was answering. Or carbon dioxide levels for that matter.  There's big money in mandated purchase. You just have to be ready for it ! One persons economic damage is another's gravy train. (Nice try on the "commie" thing, you won't find me very deflectable, lol.) |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 59,700
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 12, 2019 17:48:57 GMT -5
since Reagan, we have been paying for the uninsured.the only difference between Reagan and Obama in this respect is that Obama's universal mandate got skin in the game for the uninsured. so, you would rather go back to the free ride that Reagan instituted in 1986? what are you? a commie? Which has absolutely nothing to do with a mandated purchase, as a law, and used for my reference in regards to thyme's post I was answering. Or carbon dioxide levels for that matter. There's big money in mandated purchase. You just have to be ready for it ! One persons economic damage is another's gravy train. (Nice try on the "commie" thing, you won't find me very deflectable, lol.)me neither. so, getting back to the point, THIS is what you said:
Obama started that train a rolling on this at the federal level, with the medical insurance mandate.
I didn't argue with you. what i was suggesting is that this fixed a problem whereby uninsured people had no skin in the game. apparently you don't think that is a good idea. you would rather have those that have insurance pay for those that don't- which is great for scofflaws, and terrible for everyone else. in this case i was using commie and pro-scofflaw as synonyms. so, i guess you are pro-scofflaw, because that is what being against the universal mandate means, in practical terms.
and no, i don't consider that changing the subject, moving the goalposts, etc. i actually consider it the most important fact in the debate.
|
|
NastyWoman
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 9,655
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jun 13, 2019 18:33:17 GMT -5
Or, all the rich, powerful people should push the theory and create new, expensive technologies that everyone will be forced to adopt, and they can make a bunch of money. Shhh. Don't let the cat out of the bag.  There's big money in mandated purchase. Obama started that train a rolling on this at the federal level, with the medical insurance mandate. Easy to move on to AGW mandates, now that the precedent has been set. California has jumped right on this, with mandated solar panels on all new home construction. Very small step from there, to require all structures to have them. If I wasn't retired, I'd be importing low cost panels from China.While organizing protests against fossil fuel companies, to keep the hysteria at full throttle. I'd be helping to save the world from catastrophic warming. Making money on this would just be a side benefit. In that case if you weren't retired you would be running headlong into the Trump tariffs  |
|
jma23
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2019 13:27:18 GMT -5
Posts: 1,403
|
Post by jma23 on Jun 14, 2019 13:21:20 GMT -5
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a mandated purchase, as a law, and used for my reference in regards to thyme's post I was answering. Or carbon dioxide levels for that matter. There's big money in mandated purchase. You just have to be ready for it ! One persons economic damage is another's gravy train. (Nice try on the "commie" thing, you won't find me very deflectable, lol.)me neither. so, getting back to the point, THIS is what you said:
Obama started that train a rolling on this at the federal level, with the medical insurance mandate.
I didn't argue with you. what i was suggesting is that this fixed a problem whereby uninsured people had no skin in the game. apparently you don't think that is a good idea. you would rather have those that have insurance pay for those that don't- which is great for scofflaws, and terrible for everyone else. in this case i was using commie and pro-scofflaw as synonyms. so, i guess you are pro-scofflaw, because that is what being against the universal mandate means, in practical terms.
and no, i don't consider that changing the subject, moving the goalposts, etc. i actually consider it the most important fact in the debate.
No, mandating a purchase, was not the way to do it. It's taxation without representation, since the bill originated in the Senate. |
|
jma23
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2019 13:27:18 GMT -5
Posts: 1,403
|
Post by jma23 on Jun 14, 2019 13:32:02 GMT -5
Shhh. Don't let the cat out of the bag. There's big money in mandated purchase. Obama started that train a rolling on this at the federal level, with the medical insurance mandate. Easy to move on to AGW mandates, now that the precedent has been set. California has jumped right on this, with mandated solar panels on all new home construction. Very small step from there, to require all structures to have them. If I wasn't retired, I'd be importing low cost panels from China.While organizing protests against fossil fuel companies, to keep the hysteria at full throttle. I'd be helping to save the world from catastrophic warming. Making money on this would just be a side benefit. In that case if you weren't retired you would be running headlong into the Trump tariffs I would be importing the double sided ones. |
|
|
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Jun 15, 2019 9:45:41 GMT -5
|
|
jma23
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2019 13:27:18 GMT -5
Posts: 1,403
|
Post by jma23 on Jun 15, 2019 17:48:55 GMT -5
Not a chance of me actually doing that. It was just a point of discussion. I am fully retired. However, thanks for the link. I still have an interest in these things. |
|
|
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Jun 15, 2019 21:51:24 GMT -5
Not a chance of me actually doing that. It was just a point of discussion. I am fully retired. However, thanks for the link. I still have an interest in these things. I hear ya. I took that point of discussion to make the point that solar is obsolete. If you can't go carbon negative, you can't produce power. I had a feeling you might like the study. Coal as clean energy, who would have thought ?  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 59,700
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 16, 2019 12:55:48 GMT -5
me neither. so, getting back to the point, THIS is what you said:
Obama started that train a rolling on this at the federal level, with the medical insurance mandate.
I didn't argue with you. what i was suggesting is that this fixed a problem whereby uninsured people had no skin in the game. apparently you don't think that is a good idea. you would rather have those that have insurance pay for those that don't- which is great for scofflaws, and terrible for everyone else. in this case i was using commie and pro-scofflaw as synonyms. so, i guess you are pro-scofflaw, because that is what being against the universal mandate means, in practical terms.
and no, i don't consider that changing the subject, moving the goalposts, etc. i actually consider it the most important fact in the debate.
No, mandating a purchase, was not the way to do it. It's taxation without representation, since the bill originated in the Senate. neither is the way Reagan did it, which is basically to shift costs to those that carry insurance.
what IS the proper way to do it, in your opinion?
|
|
jma23
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2019 13:27:18 GMT -5
Posts: 1,403
|
Post by jma23 on Jun 17, 2019 12:03:21 GMT -5
No, mandating a purchase, was not the way to do it. It's taxation without representation, since the bill originated in the Senate. neither is the way Reagan did it, which is basically to shift costs to those that carry insurance.
what IS the proper way to do it, in your opinion?
Originate the bill in the House of Representatives. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 59,700
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 17, 2019 15:08:53 GMT -5
neither is the way Reagan did it, which is basically to shift costs to those that carry insurance.
what IS the proper way to do it, in your opinion?
Originate the bill in the House of Representatives. does this satisfy your objection?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26809161
|
|
jma23
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2019 13:27:18 GMT -5
Posts: 1,403
|
Post by jma23 on Jun 18, 2019 10:56:27 GMT -5
Yes, I was aware of the ruling. And the difficulty of origination cases. I didn't go through the whole thing, but the summary by the court, that it was a tax ? |
|
