US Tariffs, Sigh!

[TarrifBoy123]

A lot of usa is brainwashed into thinking healthcare for all is bad for them. Canada, Sweden, Europe... Yes we all have our own health care issues, nothing is perfect.. but it's a heck of a lot better than USA's system. My kid had a heart defect when he was born - the bills were above 200k.... All paid for. I can't imagine having to pay for that out of pocket.... Not to mention USA out of pocket price would probably have gone to 5-600k.

Obamacare has a lot of flaws too and should constantly be tweaked until it worked right, and I'm sure it left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths - healthcare ain't easy, but I still think healthcare is a basic right everyone should have, without fear of losing their house because their appendix decided to burst.

Let me present to you the difference between American Healthcare and Canadian/European Healthcare:

Canadian/European Healthcare:
Canadian Man Devastated After Government Euthanizes Both Grandmothers

Canadian Man Devastated After Government Euthanizes Both Grandmothers - Slay News

A Canadian man is sounding the alarm after both of his grandmothers were killed by government-sanctioned euthanasia within weeks in a double tragedy, he says has left deep wounds that will never fully heal.

slaynews.com

American Healthcare: https://x.com/jayplemons/status/1986197566946746847

 

[TarrifBoy123]

But you can ask any canadian, you can ask anybody that lives a healthcare country whether they would change it and go to America's system

Mom fights to save daughter from Canadian healthcare system that wants her dead - https://www.liveaction.org/news/mom-fights-save-daughter-canadian-healthcare-dead

Another happy Canadian: https://x.com/DefiantLs/status/1903871045141938424

 

[TarrifBoy123]

None of this really matters if what happened in NY last night spreads across the country. Tariffs will be the least of our problems because we won't be in business anymore.

New York completely crumbling I guess is the lesson that needs to be seen by everyone first before they realize that their suicidal altruism is to blame.

 

[TarrifBoy123]

I don't want to get into fights / arguments and cause bad blood over misread stuff...

But I never claimed every canadian agrees with my on healthcare, a good 50% of people are unhappy with healthcare. I said if you asked 1000 people if they would rather Canadian healthcare, or american healthcare... 999 out of 1000 would say Canadas healthcare...because while our universal healthcare isnt perfect, it beats going bankrupt - I even said we have our own issues...such as wait times, etc. Our doctors dont make as much because we're not private like America... So America steals our best talent.... another flaw in our healthcare.

We have plenty of flaws, and theres lots of room for improvement. As for AI... Google AI is always wrong, it will read forums posts and news posts and present it as facts. Every department is different - Coworker who had to wait 2 months to get his hernia fixed obviously was unahppy it took that long - Now if you say would you wait 2 months and get it for free, or would you rather pay $4-10,000 (What us charges) I can guarantee you he'd say he'd be willing to wait a year before he pays that. Some wait times are long, if its not life threatening, or if its in a department currently backed up like MRIS / CT scans, the wait can be forever - buddy who got diagnosed with cancer had to wait 30 days to get a CT scan because his pelvis wasnt healing... After he got that scan they found out he needed surgery... in a perfect world, he would have been prioritized and caught earlier - but again, I just googled pelvis surgery in USA and it said $50,000....

A LOT of canadians go through their whole life without needing a dr, and I'm sure to them they view it as money wasted..... but as a whole, almost every canadian agrees with universal healthcare, because it works - Some want there to be a 2 tiered system where we allow private healthcre to co-exist alongside the universal healthcare... But thats a whole different argument!


TLDR; Canadian healthcare not perfect, and some departments have long wait times... but thats because everything is prioritized on need... but even thats not perfect, Theres been cases where people waited in the ER And died due to a serious condition because they were put low on the triage list... nothing is perfect. I'm not saying Canadian healthcare is perfect or the best, I'm just saying when its used as a talking point whenever USA discusses healthcare... It gets thrown under the bus as some disaster of a system that no one would want in order to sway people away from thinking about obamacare or universal healthcare, or whatever you guys want to call it.

It's like when CNN / NYP Posts just left leaning news artictles.... For every 10 articles you find about Canadas healthcare sucking, you can find hundreds about it not.



And about Obamacare - I'll say it again... I dont know enough about it to say whether its good or sucks. Just as you don't know enough about Canadaian healthcare to say the same (Unless you've lived here and dealt with it) I remember when trump tried to gut it... And came out of the meeting saying "who knew healthcare was so hard" and didnt make many changes... Obamacare isn't perfect, but it should be a framework to make a better healthcare system... One better than Canada's.


I haven't heard any policies about healthcare this term though, is it still being re-worked, accepted as it is, or ignored for other issues?

This is why government shouldn't be in charge of healthcare: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1986753752913854795

 

[TarrifBoy123]

There are big differences in health care in europe too. But there should be one baseline: No one should have to go into debt because they are sick.

This is just another communist mantra. What about a person who eats and eats and eats bad unhealthy food and gets sick. It is their choice to do that but then we all have to pay?

Hi Geneva,

Why do you say he's a communist, as far as I can tell from searching around the web, I cannot find any legit proof he is one? If you have legit proof, I'd like to see it.

Just listen to his words.

 

[TarrifBoy123]

Well, no one with money...
Sure, walk into an ER with the flu and they'll treat you, they'll also nuke your credit score when you inevitably can't pay. But have no insurance and walk into an urgent care without insurance or moolah, they'll kick your ass to the curb.
Is this not the same as being denied medical treatment?

It seems like this cat is already out of the bag to all the illegal immigrants and most Americans both don't know about it and the ones that do don't take advantage of it because they are honest hard working people who pay their debts. But, if you go to a hospital emergency room they have to treat you and beyond that as well for what you came in for, even if you don't have money or insurance, it is the law, and it is one of the things that makes America great (because we never leave one of our own behind) until it has been absolutely taken advantage (mostly by illegals) of the way it has for decades making the medical system and medical insurance system so expensive as it is now. This is a harsh reality and the ugly truth. America has been a trust based society and that trust is being broken.

 

[TarrifBoy123]

Actually you can be denied. EMTALA only counts when it's an EMERGENCY (life threatening) - and at Medicare-participating hospitals.

Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12355

Pretty much all hospitals take medicare

 

[TarrifBoy123]

Democratic Socialist

Same thing

 

[TarrifBoy123]

Back onto tarrifs.... Anyone following the supreme Court case?

Looks like it's going to get overturned and ruled illegal. Some people are saying it'll be a 7-2 decision, some a full 9-0 decision.

Of course that's based on the people who watch / report on the courts based on their tome and questioning, so it's not a form sure thing... And could still take months. But it's not looking good! And it's speculated that if it's ruled illegal that means businesses that have had to pay tarrifs will get a refund for it, which I'm sure all the money was already spent.


It's an interesting case to watch

LOL, lefties and their pipedreams.

 

[TarrifBoy123]

Yeah, I think the de minus affects Canada more than the tarrifs do since we have cusmca. I know it's destroyed temu / shein and all the Chinese sites.... I've heard most of the Canadian retailers on eBay / Etsy and all the online sites have pretty much had to shut shop.


We ship quite a bit to America... Before it was easy, now it requires pre clearing and providing cusmca certification saying the products were made in Canada with Canadian / USA goods... And even then, our customer for an $800 charge in a $4000 order... It took us a week to get it fixed, and we're told even with all the proper documentation ups is getting billed for goods it shouldn't, and they have no choice but to pass it onto the customer while it's being fought.... Shipping is a mess right now. Would be nice if deminis change and tarrifs went away!

Open a plant in USA

 

[TarrifBoy123]

I know it's a boring read. But rather than reading cherry picked highlights, I suggest reading the actual Acts - both sides are guilty of doing it, but people pick the sections they want others to see to try a d away people's opinions and ignore the important parts of the act.

Whenever I see people arguing and listing specific sections... I always find the actual article, because even if they're not cherry picking... A lot of people are using their own interpretations of what the act actually says.


Like almost every act, there's specific steps to follow for the president to impose the act.... None of which were done.


You can be for the tarrifs, you can feel he should be able to impose them.... 10 years ago I would have said the president of a country should be in charge of these things... But these past few months have shown me Congress / the constitution was smart to have 3 seperate powers.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11346

The role of President of the United States of America is not a puppet position.

 

[TarrifBoy123]

You always seen to make accusations but never back then up. I linked the congress passed, law document that lists the law.... Can you point out where I was wrong? Or are we going to throw out more accusations and change the topic again?

In the link you sent it says nothing about a 15% maximum. What thin canadian air did you pull that from?

 

[ikarasu]

In the link you sent it says nothing about a 15% maximum. What thin canadian air did you pull that from?

The link I sent was for section 301 - the trades act has many sections, at least 301! And I linked 301 because it was specifically being brought up as to "the president can impose tarrifs due to blah blah", and it doesn't even say the president can impose tarrifs.

Section 122 of the trade act limits the president to impose temporary (150 days max, without congressional approval) up to 15% tarrifs.

The trade act is a large, legal document. If you see a section somewhere that makes you think the president can impose tarrifs... Feel free to post it.

I don't mind backing up my opinion, or even being proven wrong on my opinion. I'm not a legal scholar, and I didn't study the act word for word, I read the sections people are saying grant the president the authority... And the sections people say don't grant him the authority, and made up my mind based on that.

I just find it annoying when people post random bullet point articles some armchair warrior made up in mspaint and says "see look, the president has every authority to do it", and don't bother reading or researching the actual article themselves. When I was 5 my mom taught me not to believe everything I read on the internet.... It seems like some people didnt take that lesson to heart.

If more people questioned what they read and did their own research, we wouldn't have such biased fake news posting shit for ratings, or people believing every word their politicians say just because they're on team blue or team red.


Im sure everyone here went to school, everyone should know how to cite their sources, how to prove their thesis, if you care enough to post your point on a forum, care enough to at least back it up.


[Edit] I can't get to the official website where the law act is posted right now, and I'm not going to be a hippocrit and post some news article that says what section 122 says. I'll edit the post tomorrow if I remember with the link to section 122, or you can just click my first link when the websites up and goto it yourself.

 

[ikarasu]

The role of President of the United States of America is not a puppet position.

No, irs not, is the judicial branch a puppet branch? Or the legislative branch a puppet branch?

Remind me again... Which of the 3 branches of government has the powers of purse? The powers to impose tarrifs?

Do you really think when Congress gave the president limited powers to impose tarrifs in emergencies, this is what they meant? Because that's not what the act they passed says, and even the Republican appointed supreme Court judges are saying the same thing.

Usa has a president who governs America with 2 other branches - the president isn't a position like that of a king that gets to make up all his own laws and limits.

The president isn't a puppet position, but what he's doing is trying to turn the legislative branch into one, which isn't right. He won the election, fair and square - and he should be the president, but he should not be for lack of better terms, going outside of his job description because he thinks his way is better than what the constitution says.

 

[TarrifBoy123]

The link I sent was for section 301 - the trades act has many sections, at least 301! And I linked 301 because it was specifically being brought up as to "the president can impose tarrifs due to blah blah", and it doesn't even say the president can impose tarrifs.

Section 122 of the trade act limits the president to impose temporary (150 days max, without congressional approval) up to 15% tarrifs.

The trade act is a large, legal document. If you see a section somewhere that makes you think the president can impose tarrifs... Feel free to post it.

I don't mind backing up my opinion, or even being proven wrong on my opinion. I'm not a legal scholar, and I didn't study the act word for word, I read the sections people are saying grant the president the authority... And the sections people say don't grant him the authority, and made up my mind based on that.

I just find it annoying when people post random bullet point articles some armchair warrior made up in mspaint and says "see look, the president has every authority to do it", and don't bother reading or researching the actual article themselves. When I was 5 my mom taught me not to believe everything I read on the internet.... It seems like some people didnt take that lesson to heart.

If more people questioned what they read and did their own research, we wouldn't have such biased fake news posting shit for ratings, or people believing every word their politicians say just because they're on team blue or team red.


Im sure everyone here went to school, everyone should know how to cite their sources, how to prove their thesis, if you care enough to post your point on a forum, care enough to at least back it up.


[Edit] I can't get to the official website where the law act is posted right now, and I'm not going to be a hippocrit and post some news article that says what section 122 says. I'll edit the post tomorrow if I remember with the link to section 122, or you can just click my first link when the websites up and goto it yourself.

Based on the actual statutory text of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (codified at 19 U.S.C. § 2411):

The law does authorize tariffs to be imposed, but the authority is granted to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), subject to Presidential direction.

The specific statutory language in subsection (c)(1) states:
"For purposes of carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) or (b)... the Trade Representative is authorized to

(A) suspend, withdraw, or prevent the application of, benefits of trade agreement concessions to carry out a trade agreement with the foreign country referred to in such subsection;

(B) impose duties or other import restrictions on the goods of, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, fees or restrictions on the services of, such foreign country for such time as the Trade Representative determines appropriate;"

The law further specifies in subsections (a) and (b) that the USTR "shall take action authorized in subsection (c), subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President regarding any such action."

So to be precise: The statute grants the authority to the U.S. Trade Representative to impose duties (tariffs) and other import restrictions, but this authority is exercised subject to Presidential direction.

In practical terms, this means the President can direct the USTR to impose tariffs under Section 301.

The President doesn't personally impose the tariffs under this statute - rather, the President directs the USTR to do so, and the USTR has the legal authority to carry out that direction.

This is a delegation structure: Congress gave the power to the USTR, but the USTR operates under Presidential direction.

Is that clear?

 

[TarrifBoy123]

Hi Geneva,

Why do you say he's a communist, as far as I can tell from searching around the web, I cannot find any legit proof he is one? If you have legit proof, I'd like to see it.

 

[TarrifBoy123]

 

[TarrifBoy123]

I implore you to read the story of Malcolm Caldwell

Malcolm Caldwell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ikarasu]

Based on the actual statutory text of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (codified at 19 U.S.C. § 2411):

The law does authorize tariffs to be imposed, but the authority is granted to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), subject to Presidential direction.

The specific statutory language in subsection (c)(1) states:
"For purposes of carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) or (b)... the Trade Representative is authorized to

(A) suspend, withdraw, or prevent the application of, benefits of trade agreement concessions to carry out a trade agreement with the foreign country referred to in such subsection;

(B) impose duties or other import restrictions on the goods of, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, fees or restrictions on the services of, such foreign country for such time as the Trade Representative determines appropriate;"

The law further specifies in subsections (a) and (b) that the USTR "shall take action authorized in subsection (c), subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President regarding any such action."

So to be precise: The statute grants the authority to the U.S. Trade Representative to impose duties (tariffs) and other import restrictions, but this authority is exercised subject to Presidential direction.

In practical terms, this means the President can direct the USTR to impose tariffs under Section 301.

The President doesn't personally impose the tariffs under this statute - rather, the President directs the USTR to do so, and the USTR has the legal authority to carry out that direction.

This is a delegation structure: Congress gave the power to the USTR, but the USTR operates under Presidential direction.

Is that clear?

So let me ask you, who implemented the tarrifs Trump's been tweeting about? Was it him signing executive orders... Or was it USTR? Can you show me where USTR implemented them?

Section 301 hilights the process and what needs to be done in order for the tarrifs to be implemented.... Can you show me where even 1 of those steps were done?

It's like a judge walking out of his court room and slapping handcuffs on someone and ordering them to jail. The judge may issue a warrant but he can't arrest someone - he can't decide they're guilty without due process.

America is built on checks on balances, why are you guys ok with them being thrown out the window ?

What will you do when Biden 2.0 gets elected and starts issuing executive orders that anyone who wants a saying it's a national emergency, and anyone who wants sex change shall get one for free paid for with emergency funds?


3 branches of government, each have their own jobs. It's pretty simple, and that's why I'm sure the supreme Court will rule them illegal.

 

[FrankW]

This is just another communist mantra. What about a person who eats and eats and eats bad unhealthy food and gets sick. It is their choice to do that but then we all have to pay?

Just listen to his words.

Some people eats unhealthy food, some people smoke or drink too much alcohol, others riding motorcycles or doing risky sports, others have pre-existing conditions which others don‘t have … how much people choose their lifestyle according to a minimum health risk?