If the insurance company would let you and if the plan met the criteria of the ACA, he was actually correct.
Before ACA, my insurance premiums went up, copays increased and coverages went down every single year from 2001 - 2010. Every. single. year.
Now that's crazy talk.
for my family it was the difference between having or not having access to any health insurance at all. getting to use the same network (we are in kaiser/hmo) was just icing on the cake.
And I think this model is fine. The issue is that the House is no longer proportional, and therefore no longer serves its intended purpose.
I'm still unclear why you oppose giving the citizens who reside in the district the choice whether they be governed by themselves or by a neighboring state. But I think we've run this hypothetical sufficiently into the ground.
We are never going to get an exact proportion. The question seems to be how much disproportionality is acceptable and how painful would it be to fix that disproportionality. 10,000 members of the lower house seems to be a cure worse than the disease.
I guess I value precedent.
Fair enough point. I’d argue we’re wel past the point of unacceptable disproportionality. When both the House and Senate grant significantly exaggerated power to rural states, the system has ceased to function as intended and as agreed to at its inception. Maybe Madison’s amendment is the best compromise between fair population representation and chamber functionality. But since that almost certainly won’t be ratified by enough states to become law, the realistic options are either a wildly unbalanced Congress in both Houses or a balanced House that needs more chairs. I’ll take the system as designed over a broken government.
However if the creation of those widgets produces a toxin that destroys the water table for 100 miles around the widget plant or causes children to be born with 3 heads then the government is just about the only entity that can theoretically hold the creator of those widgets responsible and help make sure other widget producers aren't destroying other things. Yes there are lawsuits but when you're talking about huge corporations they have mostly proven to be a non-deterrent.
I think you are getting carried away with the progressive propaganda on this. The House gets rebalanced every ten years to reflect population shifts. The Senate is the house that is unbalanced. The House is the house that is proportional. That is why California gets 54 seats and Montana gets 1.
And, under any system, imbalances between representation and policy outcomes are unavoidable. Let's say the Democrats run on a policy of increasing taxes and Republicans run on a policy of decreasing taxes. If, in every race in the country Democrats win every election by a narrow margin, say for the sake of argument, by one vote in each race. No matter how you apportion seats, the "50% - 1" party get no representation at all. How fair is that?
If an expanded government role is the best way to go, then so be it .... via constitutional amendment.
You're trying to put people out of business. If you get elected on this platform you better wear Kevlar and have a food tester.
I prefer a cruder analogy ... They create a massive pile of crap then complain about the smell and green bottle flies. When pressed for a solution, instead of reducing the pile of crap, they say they'll make crap that smells good and repels the flies.Now that's crazy talk.
I am reminded of Renee Zellwigger's character in Cold Mountain.
"They make the weather and then they stand in the rain and shout [crap] it's raining!"
Yeah, the genie has long been out of the bottle. He's not going back in. And the idea that the genie is the subservient one? Well, those parameters no longer apply either.
He actually said that your major medical catastrophic plan would be grandfathered in. It was not. So no he was not factually correct.
The House gets re-balanced under strict guidelines, and the result is that a citizen in Wyoming has approximately twice the voting power (in the House) as one from, say, Delaware. That said, I've seen the Wyoming Rule and think that would be a reasonable compromise.
Well, the advantages of proportional representation is an entirely different conversation.
In my simple mind, the scenario's you mention don't sound like you are a lobbyist at all. You are simply a constituent reaching out to one's duly elected representatives to do what they've been elected to do. Reflect the interests of their constituents.
