I would respect him more if he tried that stuff against union thugs counter-protesting or at a New Black Panther rally.

Also, in response to all of the confused posters here: New Hampshire is somewhat of a "Don't Tread On Me" state. Its citizens generally distrust government, especially if it interferes with individual liberty. The reason for its shift from a "Red" state to a "Blue" state over the past decade is primarily due to wealthy, self-important Bostonites encroaching into its borders.

You mean to tell me NH is still thought of as a red state?  Other then some radicals this state is suprising liberal for what its consider.  At one time (and maybe in some areas) it was a lot more towards the red.  In the last 10 years or so its really gone blue like the rest of new england.  (ie same sex marrage passed a few months back).  10  years ago that never would have passed. 

We may not be as liberal as MA but saying we are not just false.  The people that are the don't tread on me type are still around and always will be, those in the middle are still in the middle.  But the number of people from other states has increased and they brought their ideas with them.

He *is* funny, but more because the protest is fragmented and they have a bunch of generic right-wing rhetoric than anything, it would be just as funny on the other side of the street if the left wing had four disconnected left wing signs that had no particular connection to the issue.

As someone that *has* read a good portion of HR 3200 - it's a pretty good bill, hope the GOP doesn't manage to kill this.

Jonnan

Even when bill is littered with the phrase 'or other such requirements as the Secretary may determine' (or similar) all over the place?  Congress completely shirks its responsibility by setting up a monstrous bureaucracy & says, "You guys write the rules.'  Which means we don't really know what the rubber-meets-the-road consequences of these bills will be.  We're supposed to believe that the hundreds of new Secretaries & department heads will act in our best interests - I'm not as sanguine about that as some of you appear to be.

Furthermore, it ain't the GOP that'll 'kill it' - the GOP can't stop it - it'll be the risk that those who vote for it will be thrown out of office that will 'kill it.'

Interrupting his fantasy with facts, that's just wrong!

I'm sorry, but she looks likes she's 10 years old. What are the odds she actually knows what she's talking about? I'd guess she's just there because her parents are.

Regardless, awesome picture

Likely to better understand it than the clueless Congressmen & Senators.

That may be true, but I still wouldn't trust a 10 year old to make policy decisions.... actually, on second thought, she'd probably give everyone in the country free cookies, so it might not be too bad

Right - we'll have *Congress* write out the actual regulations, because we have in fact 538 insurance spoecialists here . . . no, wait, instead of having the worlds most powerful committee micromanage the entire thing, lets instead have them set up a framework, and then have the 'executive' branch (So named because it actually 'executes' the laws) set up some form of regulatory implementation of that framework.

You know, like we do for every *other* department of the government. We even have this third branch of government called the 'judicial' branch that can, if people feel the law is being 'executed' incorrectly, look at the original laws and see if they believe the executive is interpreting it in a reasonable manner. 'adjudicate' if you will.

Yeah - I'm thinking that would be a better method. I know it's not popular among a certain set of people, and has had some genuine failures, but it *is* the same method we used from the period where we were a third rate power that could  have our capital burned to the ground in a backwater action of the Napoleonic wars, all the way through to our arising as the most powerful economic and miltary superpower the world has ever known. It has a fairly good track record.

Jonnan

edit: With apologies - but that kind of phrasing is not at all unusual - look at any of the laws that set-up departments in the executive, from the old 'department of war' to the IRS to the State Department. They *all* give leeway for the actual regulatory setup to be determined by the people doing the actual work.

Your comments suffer from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

Gee, nobody with a semi-automatic assault rifle shouldered and ready for some action instead of written or spoken words on that image?

Strange how invariably obvious & constitutionally opportunist any form of public protests are in the USA.

ID please.

Given that false premise is a formal term with an exact meaning, one would presume that someone familiar with it would have noticed either that A: in order to make such a charge, one has to actually both state and debunk the premise they consider incorrect, or B: my comment is in the form of sarcasm, and does not even loosely follow the form of a syllogism.

Neither of these evidently being noticed by you, one might think you would refrain from attempting to debunk an argument using 'logic' that only advertises that you can search wikipedia for a good official sounding term rather than actually arguing against the argument presented, i.e. that this is standard form for this type of legislation.

Jonnan

Derp, derp:

Premise: Government has made America great (FALSE: assumed statement that is not widely accepted nor factually justified)

Premise: Government wants to run healthcare

Conclusion: Government will make healthcare great

Except that's not what I said, nor is it implied. I said that certain specific portions of our legal system have kept a format for 200+ years, and it is a tried and true format. Since that format was being criticised as being, in and of itself, a bad and foolish way of doing things, it was entirely germane to the conversation that it has a track record.

But even in that conversation I noted, albeit in passing, that their had been both successes and failures using this system - had the original poster offered some alternative method rather than merely screaming about how stupid it was to use this system, then by not commenting upon it I might at least be accused of being intellectually dishonest - but there was no such alternate given.

At best it would be:

Premise: Creating a framework, but leaving the detailed regulatory decisionmaking to an officer of the executive is a tried and true format, with long historical record.

Premise: The Format in use under HR 3200 largely complies with the previously described format

Conclusion: The format in used under HR3200 is a tried and true format (...)

I *AM* a fan of big government programs, within certain highly specific areas, but none of that is actually germane to my original post and I think one can only try to posit that as a premise by entirely distorting the post.

Jonnan

Alright then, let's look at what was said:

Above, you make an irrelevant set of statements. These statements are irrelevant because they make no logical claim on why the government would run healthcare well, but only demonstrate how the various branches of government may implement a healthcare system. Saying that the executive branch will provide a "regulatory implementation" for government-run healthcare does not speak to the quality of said implementation, and therefore holds no gravity in your argument. You summarize the workings of Federal Government of the United States, according to your understanding. You follow with,

You conclude that our federal constitutional republic has succeeded due to its very design. You claim that our type of government has helped to make our nation great. However, you use this to suggest that the government will therefore handle government-run healthcare well.

Humor me, but for the sake of logic, how can you conclude that a government will run healthcare better than private industry when your premise is that our style of government has made us a great nation? You cannot rightly conclude that it is government that has made us great, as elements other than government have contributed to the growth and prosperity of the US. Such elements include individual innovation, free enterprise, and geographic/territorial advantages. You also fail to consider the role of the Constitution itself, as the document is intended to stand above government (surely it must have a greater influence than that which it oversees, no?). Thus, if your premise has no sound footing, your conclusion certainly cannot be upheld.