Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz to debate Obamacare at CNN town hall tonight at 9 PM ET - Polidicks

[QUOTE=toaster468;51792566] What gave you that idea?[/QUOTE] I don't know about others, but Benjamin Franklin was critical in forging our alliance with France that was pivotal in the Revolution.

[QUOTE=OvB;51792494]I agree. I've had the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution memorized since I was young. I think the founding fathers, if thrust into this modern world, would want us to spend our immense wealth on defending our fellow citizens with a military, establishing justice for everyone of all races, religions, etc, etc, etc, providing for the welfare of our poor and needy, ensuring domestic tranquility through minimizing crime through programs designed to rehabilitate instead punish, and giving [B]all[/B] Americans the liberty to live a life without having to worry about dying form a preventable disease. The founding fathers existed in the 1700s. They were very wise and smart for their generation. If brought to this world, they would look at the issues, and adjust the Constitution to fit what is [I]right for now.[/I] The Constitution was right for 1787. It was designed to be living, to be amended, so that it could [I]change with the times,[/I] to secure the blessings of liberty to the posterity.[/QUOTE] We'll said. I agree completely. This has long been my perspective, too.

[QUOTE=OvB;51792494]I agree. I've had the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution memorized since I was young. I think the founding fathers, if thrust into this modern world, would want us to spend our immense wealth on defending our fellow citizens with a military, establishing justice for everyone of all races, religions, etc, etc, etc, providing for the welfare of our poor and needy, ensuring domestic tranquility through minimizing crime through programs designed to rehabilitate instead punish, and giving [B]all[/B] Americans the liberty to live a life without having to worry about dying form a preventable disease. The founding fathers existed in the 1700s. They were very wise and smart for their generation. If brought to this world, they would look at the issues, and adjust the Constitution to fit what is [I]right for now.[/I] The Constitution was right for 1787. It was designed to be living, to be amended, so that it could [I]change with the times,[/I] to secure the blessings of liberty to the posterity.[/QUOTE] I really doubt it. They had the resources in the country to do federally mandated food service, for example, but they didn't. They left those services to the local community to deal with. The founders had a totally different idea of what responsibilities the federal government should have. It's fine to argue that society has changed, but I don't think it's accurate to argue that the founders would have agreed, even seeing our modern level of wealth. They would probably be thrilled with high standard of living that even those in poverty experience today compared to their time period.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51792624]I really doubt it. They had the resources in the country to do federally mandated food service, for example, but they didn't. They left those services to the local community to deal with. The founders had a totally different idea of what responsibilities the federal government should have. It's fine to argue that society has changed, but I don't think it's accurate to argue that the founders would have agreed, even seeing our modern level of wealth. They would probably be thrilled with high standard of living that even those in poverty experience today compared to their time period.[/QUOTE] Federally mandated food services. (you mean like communist bread lines, or government run farms?) would not be liberty, though. Since that would require dependence on the state by everyone. I don't think the founding fathers would've been communists, but I think they would be in favor of federal funding going towards providing for the welfare of the people. Benjamin Franklin helped set up the Pennsylvania Hospital, which was a semi-publicly funded hospital. Patients had to be sponsored by two tax-paying citizens to be admitted. It wasn't perfect, far from it. But the seeds were there. (Benjamin also started Pennsylvanias first fire brigade) I don't think they would be in favor of mandating that you buy health insurance, either. They would probably be more for a single payer system, where people are taxed to pay for a program that everyone uses when needed. I think since the concept of what is a right has changed so drastically in the last 200 years, that they would've been more open to modern liberal ideas. [editline]7th February 2017[/editline] At the end of the day, they're all corpses. I can't say what they would to today. I just think they would look at us and say that the constitution is not a holy document and it's okay to amend it more often than we've been doing.

[QUOTE=OvB;51792664]Federally mandated food services. (you mean like communist bread lines, or government run farms?) would not be liberty, though. Since that would require dependence on the state by everyone. I don't think the founding fathers would've been communists, but I think they would be in favor of federal funding going towards providing for the welfare of the people. Benjamin Franklin helped set up the Pennsylvania Hospital, which was a semi-publicly funded hospital. Patients had to be sponsored by two tax-paying citizens to be admitted. It wasn't perfect, far from it. But the seeds were there. (Benjamin also started Pennsylvanias first fire brigade) I don't think they would be in favor of mandating that you buy health insurance, either. They would probably be more for a single payer system, where people are taxed to pay for a program that everyone uses when needed. I think since the concept of what is a right has changed so drastically in the last 200 years, that they would've been more open to modern liberal ideas.[/QUOTE] Oh, I think they were in favor of states doing whatever they wanted. I'm specifically talking about federal programs. They considered states as fairly sovereign entities and the federal government as extremely limited. Even the so called "big government" founders would be considered laughably conservative by today's standards. It was a big deal, for example, that Hamilton wanted federal tax collectors to be stationed in each state in order to collect the federal tariffs. Many just wanted the states to collect the tariffs and give it to the federal government. When I mentioned food services, I was referring to a welfare system that would be comparable to the modern food stamp program. Many towns and cities had soup kitchens and the like that provided for the poor, but they were kept up locally by the town or city in question. It would have been very easy for the founders to mandate that every town over X population had a soup kitchen like this, yet they didn't. I doubt they even considered it. It would have been absurd for the federal government to involve themselves with the individual lives of people.

anyone got a VOD of the debate?

Really solid program tonight. Both [del]candidates[/del] senators kept their cool for the most part and seemed to lay out their points very well. My only issue was possibly this: [T]http://i.imgur.com/ryAceV3h.jpg[/t] I was watching audio-only so I can't confirm, was this from tonight's debate? If so I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for this, or at least I hope.

@Toaster/Sgman But would a system that would massively benefit the majority of US population be a positive addition to the country, rather than a round-about and incredibly limited implementation such as insurance? Surely a country's government main goal is to improve the lives of their citizens in a way that benefits the most? And while the concept of taxation does remove individual's complete control over specific sums of money, is the fact that more individuals would benefit from the same sum a greater negative rather than a positive? You could counter that with a slippery slope idea of providing for more services until individual receives no further income under their own control, of course. Although in that case, that's merely a fallacy, as stated, as each further program of such kind would be argued in the same way as Public Healthcare, reducing the possibility of such outcome.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51792774]Really solid program tonight. Both [del]candidates[/del] senators kept their cool for the most part and seemed to lay out their points very well. My only issue was possibly this: [T]http://i.imgur.com/ryAceV3h.jpg[/t] I was watching audio-only so I can't confirm, was this from tonight's debate? If so I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for this, or at least I hope.[/QUOTE] Can't completely confirm it, but I think that was the woman with MS. Could easily be explained though as her just printing out her question after she submitted it and it was approved. Doesn't seem likely that it's significant in any way.

I particularly enjoyed Cruz's idea that killing the ACA would create a 50-state choice and competition. As if an incredibly sick person that can't afford health insurance under the ACA could afford flying across the country instead. It's like he can't even comprehend what it would be like to not have money.

[QUOTE=toaster468;51792566]Maybe, but at the same time there is no right for food and shelter in the constitution and the human need for those two have been constant forever. [/QUOTE] But food stamps and subsidized housing are already a thing. The constitution doesn't have to specifically spell something out unless you're one of those people who thinks the government should only ever do whatever the constitution specifically spells out instead of what people interpret from it.

[QUOTE=Anderan;51792976]But food stamps and subsidized housing are already a thing.[/QUOTE] Yeah but around 45 million Americans need food stamps to survive. That's WAY too big a number for 'the most powerful country in the world'

[QUOTE=EcksDee;51793016]Yeah but around 45 million Americans need food stamps to survive. That's WAY too big a number for 'the most powerful country in the world'[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing about whether or not the number of people on it is a good or a bad thing. I was responding to the argument that food and shelter are not a right granted by the constitution.

[QUOTE=OvB;51792494]I agree. I've had the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution memorized since I was young. I think the founding fathers, if thrust into this modern world, would want us to spend our immense wealth on defending our fellow citizens with a military, establishing justice for everyone of all races, religions, etc, etc, etc, providing for the welfare of our poor and needy, ensuring domestic tranquility through minimizing crime through programs designed to rehabilitate instead punish, and giving [B]all[/B] Americans the liberty to live a life without having to worry about dying form a preventable disease. The founding fathers existed in the 1700s. They were very wise and smart for their generation. If brought to this world, they would look at the issues, and adjust the Constitution to fit what is [I]right for now.[/I] The Constitution was right for 1787. It was designed to be living, to be amended, so that it could [I]change with the times,[/I] to secure the blessings of liberty to the posterity.[/QUOTE] i actually always wondered why people have to cite the "founding fathers" often whenever they want to strengthen their argument about whatever. is it meant to make the argument stronger? nobody in other countries regularly makes the argument that we should always cite some 18th century aristocrats and politicians in favour of arguments - i can't imagine anyone in britain citing pitt the elder whenever it comes to talking about the merits of public healthcare

I was unable to watch, but did Cruz outline any specific info about an actual replacement plan for the ACA?

[QUOTE=toaster468;51792496]This was already answered[/QUOTE] Here's a little hypothetical: An elderly man with a heart condition has just been to a hospital to talk about an operation that would definitely fix it. He still wouldn't be able to work afterwards, but he could survive a reasonable number of years. Sadly, he has established that he has no possible way to pay for the operation, and therefore he walks home. Now, just outside the entrance to the hospital, he suffers a heart attack, for which the same operation would helpful. But the man has already established that he would be a money sink to the hospital. Should the hospital be obligated to save the man's life, even though they know he will probably never pay them back? If they aren't, should they also be allowed, for example, to not treat a black kid if he came in with a hoodie, gun and drugs on his person and a heart attack? Surely they would risk losing money on saving this guy's life. Also, the fact that you want a fire department but think social healthcare is totally out there is kinda hypocritical. Many house fires start at no fault of yours or anyone else - no one is threatening your life or rights, other than this impersonal house fire. Of course, if you lack insurance, you shouldn't be saved, because people with illnesses who they had no fault in acquiring shouldn't be saved either, because they aren't threatened by a person, but rather an impersonal illness.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51793209]Here's a little hypothetical: An elderly man with a heart condition has just been to a hospital to talk about an operation that would definitely fix it. He still wouldn't be able to work afterwards, but he could survive a reasonable number of years. Sadly, he has established that he has no possible way to pay for the operation, and therefore he walks home. Now, just outside the entrance to the hospital, he suffers a heart attack, for which the same operation would helpful. But the man has already established that he would be a money sink to the hospital. Should the hospital be obligated to save the man's life, even though they know he will probably never pay them back? If they aren't, should they also be allowed, for example, to not treat a black kid if he came in with a hoodie, gun and drugs on his person and a heart attack? Surely they would risk losing money on saving this guy's life. Also, the fact that you want a fire department but think social healthcare is totally out there is kinda hypocritical. Many house fires start at no fault of yours or anyone else - no one is threatening your life or rights, other than this impersonal house fire. Of course, if you lack insurance, you shouldn't be saved, because people with illnesses who they had no fault in acquiring shouldn't be saved either, because they aren't threatened by a person, but rather an impersonal illness.[/QUOTE] They already are obligated to preform life saving procedures regardless if the person can pay it back. The problem with socialized anything is there is a limit to what it can provide. We've seen this in our own country with the VA, with Medicaid. Police and firefighters operate at a local level. Generally paid for by city taxes (normally property or sales taxes). The city has a vested interest in preventing the city from going up in flames (i.e., affecting multiple people) or from gangs trying to establish their own government (again affecting multiple people). The city generally does not have a vested interest in your health (affecting only you). Medical healthcare is something that affects the individual the majority of the time. The only time you see government really get involved is for infectious diseases (like small pox, plague, etc). But most healthcare problems are individual problems. If the collective is at risk then you see a collective response. If the individual is at risk then you see an individual response. There is nothing that prevents a state from setting up a single payer system if they so choose. But there is Constitutional limitations on federal power that prevents the federal government from setting up such a system.

[QUOTE=Kigen;51793231]They already are obligated to preform life saving procedures regardless if the person can pay it back. The problem with socialized anything is there is a limit to what it can provide. We've seen this in our own country with the VA, with Medicaid. Police and firefighters operate at a local level. Generally paid for by city taxes (normally property or sales taxes). There is nothing that prevents a state from setting up a single payer system if they so choose. But there is Constitutional limitations on federal power that prevents the federal government from setting up such a system.[/QUOTE] That's not the point, saving that life is inconsistent with his opinion that no one should pay for someone else's healthcare. And it's kinda sad that the only difference between who you're required to save is urgency. Maybe because it's harder to accept doing nothing when someone is literally dying in front of your eyes rather than over a period of months and years. I don't care if your system is a state or federal one - he said one was justified and one wasn't, and his position didn't seem to have anything to do with states or local government. It was simply that paying for police and fire departments are cool, healthcare is not. We could also include the military here - why should I be forced to pay for more than the bare minimum of what's required for the defense of the country just because other people want to? It's simply a fact that in a democracy, taxes will be levied because the majority, but perhaps not you, think something is good. The fixation on not having your dollaridoos go to saving people's lives is weird in my opinion, because you spend it on many other policies that also don't serve to protect your life and property (like excess spending in the military or education etc.). Edit: Also we could get into how in the majority of cases, socialized healthcare is massively cheaper and of comparable quality to the US system.

[QUOTE=toaster468;51792518]I disagree because I think it's obvious they valued personal liberty more than the benefits of the collective. They had the idea of a small government, which is why our system was designed in the decentralized way it still is today.[/QUOTE] Because everyone either having to pay more than in countries with socialized healthcare or not being able to benefit from healthcare at all somehow improves personal liberties?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51793081]I was unable to watch, but did Cruz outline any specific info about an actual replacement plan for the ACA?[/QUOTE] Not really, and there were at least 4 questions from the audience where they asked if Cruz could guarantee that they wouldn't lose something that they got under the ACA. He basically just said a bunch of times that if we get government out of healthcare and allow competition over state lines that everybody will have lots of options and will be able to find a plan they can afford.

[QUOTE=toaster468;51792375]Is it fair that I pay for his illness?[/QUOTE] Bit late, but Yes, that is fair. It's part of living in a community, if you don't accept that you have a obligation to help others, to help the less fortunate even if it is in a small way you shouldn't be part of a community. :EDIT: Can't Spell Today.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51793081]I was unable to watch, but did Cruz outline any specific info about an actual replacement plan for the ACA?[/QUOTE] "get a job, hippie, spend all your job money on access"

VOD [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NagNEycK_Ew[/media]

[QUOTE=toaster468;51792518]I disagree because I think it's obvious they valued personal liberty more than the benefits of the collective. They had the idea of a small government, which is why our system was designed in the decentralized way it still is today.[/QUOTE] Except the founding fathers broke into "strong central government" vs "small weak central government" groups from the get go. You make it sound like they were a unanimous hivemind.

Tax the rich, heal the poor?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51793081]I was unable to watch, but did Cruz outline any specific info about an actual replacement plan for the ACA?[/QUOTE] Opening up a 50 state marketplace for people to buy insurance from.any state, not just their own. Aka private insurers can still deny you/charge you massively for preexisting conditions.

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51794282]Opening up a 50 state marketplace for people to buy insurance from.any state, not just their own. Aka private insurers can still deny you/charge you massively for preexisting conditions.[/QUOTE] He spoke about making it illegal to drop coverage when you get diagnosed and having insurance stay with you through job changes. He also agrees with having a global drug marketplace and decreasing Fda regulation on getting drugs to market. For example, he proposed giving the FDA 30 days to approve or deny drugs that have already been approved by our major and comparable allies. There's no reason for the FDA to do a full investigation when other countries have already done one.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51794313]He spoke about making it illegal to drop coverage when you get diagnosed and having insurance stay with you through job changes.[/quote] But that doesn't apply to changing insurance, does it? If you can't change insurance because of preexisting conditions there's not a lot of point to technically being able to choose one out of state.

Drink every time Bernie mentions the 1%

[QUOTE=sgman91;51794313]He spoke about making it illegal to drop coverage when you get diagnosed and having insurance stay with you through job changes. He also agrees with having a global drug marketplace and decreasing Fda regulation on getting drugs to market. For example, he proposed giving the FDA 30 days to approve or deny drugs that have already been approved by our major and comparable allies. There's no reason for the FDA to do a full investigation when other countries have already done one.[/QUOTE] But if you don't currently have insurance, companies don't have to insure you [editline]8th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;51794313]He spoke about making it illegal to drop coverage when you get diagnosed and having insurance stay with you through job changes. He also agrees with having a global drug marketplace and decreasing Fda regulation on getting drugs to market. For example, he proposed giving the FDA 30 days to approve or deny drugs that have already been approved by our major and comparable allies. There's no reason for the FDA to do a full investigation when other countries have already done one.[/QUOTE] He agreed with Bernie on the global drug marketplace. I personally do too. If GOP loves competition so much, they should be open to international competition. My only thought about forcing the FDA to approve drugs within 30 days is that perhaps other approval organizations around the world may not have the same standards of approval the FDA does. It'll definitely be worthy of further debate.