Is There ANYTHING The Left Isn’t Messing With?

[Ingomike]

Using the Amendment process to ban the people as opposed to the Federal Government from doing something was a horrible abuse of the process. And I thought the other drug related comments were silly...

You need to study the constitution more then, if they want to take rights away from the people that are not expressly in the constitution they must amend it to do so.

What is silly about the fact big pharma is against drug legalization?

 

[BugI02]

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-weed-became-new-oxycontin-marijuana-psychosis-addiction

 

[spencer rifle]

Sure there is, I know several people that always shop around before a potential medical procedure. it just requires effort. The system has already begun to make that change, a lot of providers, especially in mental health, either no longer bill insurance or only partially bill insurance.

I've mentioned this here before. SWMBO needed a shoulder x-ray. Rather than just go to the insurance-approved place, she called around to 9 other places. Just asked how much for a shoulder x-ray. Answers ranged from $60 to $2000, but the most common was "we don't know." Where else can you go to buy something and they can't tell you how much it costs?
I guess they have to differentiate between those they expect can't/won't pay, and those they can stick it to (insurance coverage) to make up the loss.

 

[two70]

You need to study the constitution more then, if they want to take rights away from the people that are not expressly in the constitution they must amend it to do so.

What is silly about the fact big pharma is against drug legalization?

Do you really think a vehicle created to enumerate and protect RIGHTS from Government is not only the appropriate vehicle to deal with alcohol consumption but the appropriate vehicle for Government to prohibit anything? The Bill of Rights is supposed to prohibit Government not the people and alcohol usage, drug usage, and even Pepsi usage are not rights.

The silly thing is the solution to big, bad pharma being the worst big, bad of them all, Government. The same Government that enables and empowers big pharma.

Since we are getting pretty far afield from the original topic, let me circle back. In answer to your original question, there is nothing that the Left won't/hasn't messed with. The Left's ideology and world view is highly invasive and seductive. Indeed, it has invaded the thought processes of many who are outwardly opposed to it. To paraphrase a quote about the Devil that seems rather fitting, the worst thing the Left ever did is convince people that the Government is the solution to problems.

 

[two70]

I've mentioned this here before. SWMBO needed a shoulder x-ray. Rather than just go to the insurance-approved place, she called around to 9 other places. Just asked how much for a shoulder x-ray. Answers ranged from $60 to $2000, but the most common was "we don't know." Where else can you go to buy something and they can't tell you how much it costs?
I guess they have to differentiate between those they expect can't/won't pay, and those they can stick it to (insurance coverage) to make up the loss.

Yes, that is exactly what it is. IMO, refusing to give a cost is an answer in and of itself.

 

[Ingomike]

alcohol usage, drug usage, and even Pepsi usage are not rights.

Yes they are. They are a part of “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

 

[Ingomike]

Yes, that is exactly what it is. IMO, refusing to give a cost is an answer in and of itself.

They didn’t refuse, they don’t know. The folks that check you in at medical places have no idea the costs. The costs vary by the contracts with whoever is paying the bill, usually the government or an insurance company.

 

[Libertarian01]

Sure there are things within the Government purview, but almost none of the ones you mention should not nor were ever intended to be.

Government involvement caused most if not all of the problems with our healthcare system and you want more Government involvement? The best thing we can demand from Government is to undo the laws that created this mess. That is the personal responsibility choice. Not to continue to demand that the Government make things worse in the futile hope that the next round of meddling with benefit them. The end result of the constant demand that Government do something about healthcare, is eventually going to be Government control of healthcare. We already took a big step in that direction with Obama Care.

I'm not going to disagree with this thought process. It is a very nuanced issue, that of health care, but let us assume that you are 100% accurate in your assessment. That, generally speaking, the bulk of health care would be better if "...Government to undo the laws that created this mess..." There are two (2) presumptions here: #1) that there is a mess. We agree. #2) That government laws created it. You say mess, I say problem. Same thing. So why isn't the right talking like hell about this mess and proposing a simple solution of repealing the laws that created it? Again, there IS a mess, and the right is doing nothing to clean it up.

Or instead of the Government being involved in "forcing" anything, the patient could take the initiative to shop around on their own. It'd be almost like the individual was taking responsibility for their own care instead of depending on the benevolence of the Government. Instead, we now have the Government forcing healthcare providers to provide care for deadbeats that have no ability or willingness to pay and who abuse the system over and over which we all get to pay for, whether by taxes or the higher healthcare costs that get passed on to us.

The patient cannot shop IF the patient cannot get accurate information. There was a documentary on health care tourism. A guy from New Jersey needed a hip replacement. He didn't have insurance (before ACA.) He DID shop around. Almost no one (in the USA) could tell him exactly how much his surgery would cost. He got a broad brush range IIRC from $50k - $120k. How on earth could he plan for that level of variation, let alone the expense? So he went to Belgium and got top notch health care.

Another was a young couple wanting to start a family. They tried in vain to use your system of individual responsibility and budget for a single babies birth. They called around. NO ONE could give them a good estimate of how much giving birth would cost in the USA.

And here we get to the crux of it, the Right is bad because they prevent people from escaping into drugs without legal repercussions. Show me in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights where the right to do drugs is enumerated. Personally, I'd be fine removing a lot of the laws against drugs provided sufficient measures are put in place to prevent users from abusing the system, but that's is extremely unlikely to happen. Elevating the issue of legalized drug use to the status of other, serious issues is itself highly indicative. That something so trivial could subsume far more important issues is depressing, that the far more important issues are merely used as trappings to support the legalization of drug use is even more so.

The problem I see here is that no one has ever, throughout human history, prevented anyone from escaping into drugs. I believe it was Sun Tzu who said, "It is foolish to wage a war you cannot win." And this is not a "trivial" problem. The war on drugs costs us billions of dollars, strains beyond breaking law enforcement and the courts. It shatters lives, creates gangs, funds terrorism and drug lords. And the right does nothing. No reform. No repeal. It doesn't even talk about it. Should people use hard drugs? Hell NO! Should the government stop them? Also NO.

The system is the way it is because the Government, made up primarily of lawyers, wants it to be that way. Do you really expect that the lawyers in Government are going to create laws resulting in the reduction of billable hours?

What about immigration? Of all issues to attack the Right on this is among the silliest. Of the political parties, the Right is the only one trying to enforce immigration laws and ensure our system works. The Left has amply demonstrated that they want a flood of illegal immigrants for the benefit of their political power. The Libertarians are little, if at all, better on the issue. Yet, it is the Right upon which you direct your ire. What exactly do you want them to do, capitulate to the Left? That seems to be about the only alternative to what they are already doing. Or do you even want our border laws enforced? Maybe I'm reading your comments wrong, but it almost seems that you want restrictions on immigration removed, not enforced. Certainly, you have clearly conflated legal and illegal immigration since the problem is not with those that attempt to come here legally and follow the process but with those that don't even bother to try, who just hop across the border. If you do want immigration enforced then perhaps holding the Left and Libertarians accountable would be far more helpful than bashing the Right.

NO, the right is NOT trying to enforce immigration laws. See, there are laws against hiring illegal immigrants. If the right truly wanted to stop illegal immigration it would increase the budget of core areas of LE tenfold and fine the hell out of AMERICAN businesses and contractors who hire them! It could also simply allow sections of the government to, gasp, share information. So the IRS sees a SSN being used for 40 years in Bloomington, IN. All of a sudden it sees the same SSN being used in four (4) other states. Can it share this with the FBI? ICE? Answer = NOPE! So a really easy reform of allowing interagency sharing of data is never even pushed by the right. The left doesn't take this on either, so both sides are equally guilty.

Also, as I stated above, the right could push for massive increases in funding for immigration courts, courts which by the way turn down about 90% of asylum claims. So the more courts we have the far fewer asylum seekers we would have. But the right hides behind the concept of "small government." I agree with this, except that government agencies should be funded so that they can actually do their jobs that the majority of us agree on.

Good, the Right shouldn't be doing s***, attempting to do so almost always makes things worse. Attacking the Right or much worse pushing them to do something, only serves to give the Left more opportunity to push their seemingly crazy ideas and gain more control. That is exactly how we've gotten here.

Expecting the Government to fix the problems it creates by enacting more laws is beyond foolhardy, Government is far better at creating problems than solving them. There is little profit in solving problems as that reduces dependency.

My issue is that government doesn't always need to add more laws to make things better. It can, and should, take some away. But the right just stays silent and sees opposition to the loony left as the only action, which is really inaction.

By the way, government has done great things. We wouldn't have the interstate highway system that we have all driven on without government. We wouldn't have had great communication for over a century without a postal service. We wouldn't have nearly as safe a nation without an American Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps. I won't forget the Coast Guard. We wouldn't be able to read Putin's emails without the NSA. There wouldn't be a Panama Canal that decreases our cost of trade and improves our military ability without government involvement.

In the end my simple concern is that the right proposes F'all nothing. Even the stuff it does propose, like getting rid of illegals, it doesn't want to fund. So this opens the door for the loony left to try to push through stupid crap. In that the OP is and was correct.

Regards,

Doug

 

[WILSON]

Is There ANYTHING The Left Isn’t Messing With?​

​

 

[Yowally]

That's true. But, are we really to believe that those who have been on the ballots are the Best suited for the job? Are those who have been on the ballots really the best LEADERS of each political party?
For many years (since I've been able to vote, 25yrs) I haven't gotten any real warm fuzzy feeling about anyone on the ballots being true leaders or national problem solvers. Just two options that come down to who do you think you can tolerate more.

Or the best of two evils.

 

[smokingman]

Air Force Academy diversity training tells cadets to use words that 'include all genders,' drop 'mom and dad'

A diversity and inclusion training by the United States Air Force Academy tells cadets to stop using gendered language like "mom and dad" and "boyfriend and girlfriend."

www.foxnews.com