Because the government has no business handling health care!So I take it you are for the complete abolishment of Medicare?
Greg
How about a phase out. Those that have been already forced into paying into the system get the benefits, but we don't allow any one else in and don't charge them. Of course this won't work, since to pay for gramps you have to rob young timmy in order to make it work.
So I take it you are for the complete abolishment of Medicare?
Greg
;-p
I do have a problem with Medicare...
It is bloated far beyond what it needs to be, and many that do actually NEED it, are denied...
I'm sorry if you feel that I've taken you out of context. I really don't see that.
But I get it. You don't want universal health care. As I said in my very first post in this thread, I'm not here to change anyone's mind.
And I've think I've said my fill. Besides, I have laundry to fold.
(That and Big Bang Theory starts in 10 min...)
Greg
Some politicians said it, so it has to be true. Staggering intellectual achievement there. Give me a damn break.
IF a bullfrog had wings it wouldn't bump its hind end every time it hit the ground.You are working under the assumption that IF this is implemented what we end up paying WILL actually be the same. You are working under the assumption that if this is passed the extra spending won't be covered by more taxes. You are working under the asumption that if it isn't covered by more taxes it won't hurt the economy. You are working under the assumption that my insurance coverage will not change. And on and on.
If you end up paying more then you are being lowered closer to their level. You spoke in hyperbole and so I returned the hyperbole in the other direction. It really is a pretty easy concept to understand. I don't see the problem in figuring the hyperbole comparison out.
You're absolutely right, why should anyone trust anyone else? Let Anarchy rule!
Or is it only those on the left that can't be trusted? I'm sure all the conservative or libertarian politicians can be trusted to a much higher degree, right?
Staggering intellectual achievement there indeed.Did you even watch the clip (there are more clips about this particular House Resolution on there)? The resolution seems to cover how it's paid for. It says that it'll cover even more than most, if not all, current insurances cover now.
But you're right, it's the damn guvernmend! and it can't be trusted.
More hyperbole.
I never stated or insinuated that you can trust no one. I never stated or insinuated that you can trust no one on the left. I never stated that you can trust everyone on the right or all conservatives. I never stated that some subset of the right and conservatives is the only group that can be trusted. I never stated that the government can't be trusted because it is the government.
With respect to the wages paid to doctor's who treat medicare patients, the government has previously made reduced estimates of healthcare costs by adding plans to reduce these payments. The first time it happened many doctors left the program because they were not receiving enough funding. So, evbery time since that such cuts have been a part of legislation to cut the cost to the taxpayer, the cuts are never implemented when the time for them comes. So, they make a lowball bid for the price fully knowing that it will be exceeded.
That is all I will go into about this for now
The hyperbole is tiring and means nothing.
*sigh*
Yes, I watched the clip.
But, at least now you are attempting to discuss a topic (stating that you believe it has redeeming qualities) rather than just calling all those who oppose your view a hypocrit based upon the asumption that your view of the resolution is infallibly wrong.
The little hyperbole fiasco would have been avoided if you had simply introduced the resolution for discussion
It SEEMED to cover how it was paid for.
But, what it talked about was combining all the money currently paid and then only allowing insurance companies to exist in the form of offering extras that are not offered by the program.
So, some of the money (all?) that would be going to cover a higher quality insurance plan will be siphoned to the general fund. The leftover would be what I had available to cover my improvements to the government plan. That small amount of money just to cover the small improvements would make the market so small as to not be marketable any more. The improvements will disappear.
Further, if everyone has government healthcare, there is little or no incentive for companies to pay extra out of their pockets to provide the bonus healthcare options. Company B could undercut company A by not offering the extras and use the extra money on the bottom to increase their wages. Thus, companies will not be able to compete with their rivals if they continue to offer the extras. So, we would end up losing our extras and be brought down.
|
Here's what we really need in the US. We need to amend tax forms to include a line that will allow you to add however much money you want to your total taxes on the year. We can call it a "social responsibility election" and it can be sort of a donation to the government for all those who either don't feel like they paid enough taxes or feel "socially responsible" for another's healthcare or whatever.
That way, the socially responsible among us can give whatever amount to the government they want, while those of us that feel we already pay enough in taxes can go on with our lives with the knowledge that we paid (what the government's own rules and laws have determined to be) our fair share.
-Skeld
PS: And it would be really interesting, after 10 years or so, to see statistics on what percentage of the population actually paid extra money to the government and what the demographics of the contributors were.
That doesn't answer the question.
Lots and lots of replies, and I still haven't seen anyone even attempt to answer my question.
|
That to me is what being a part of country is all about. It's part of my responsibility.My question for those who think this way is always "And what part of your responsibility gives you the right to force me into thinking it is my responsibility as well?"
I see a LOT of people paraphrase that high horse stuff above, and I have no problem with that mentality at all whatsoever. It's when that code of social responsibility is forced upon people that it gets murky...where does it stop? Are you going to try to force your morality on me next?
Quoted to bring it back to the top.
Under the rules of the game doesn't winning a majority in house and senate give one party the right to legislate within the limits set out by the consitution? One consequence of living in a republic.
That to me is what being a part of country is all about. It's part of my responsibility.My question for those who think this way is always "And what part of your responsibility gives you the right to force me into thinking it is my responsibility as well?"
I see a LOT of people paraphrase that high horse stuff above, and I have no problem with that mentality at all whatsoever. It's when that code of social responsibility is forced upon people that it gets murky...where does it stop? Are you going to try to force your morality on me next?
Quoted to bring it back to the top.
Under the rules of the game doesn't winning a majority in house and senate give one party the right to legislate within the limits set out in the consitution? One consequence of living in a republic.
Where in the Constitution is the right given to the government to legislate social responsibility? For that matter, where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the right to legislate income taxes? (Hint: it's not in there.)
Our powermongering political parties ceased to work "within the limits set out in the Constitution" ages ago. That particular pile of paper isn't given one bit of notice unless it happens to be politically convenient for one side or the other.
|
|
That to me is what being a part of country is all about. It's part of my responsibility.My question for those who think this way is always "And what part of your responsibility gives you the right to force me into thinking it is my responsibility as well?"
I see a LOT of people paraphrase that high horse stuff above, and I have no problem with that mentality at all whatsoever. It's when that code of social responsibility is forced upon people that it gets murky...where does it stop? Are you going to try to force your morality on me next?
Quoted to bring it back to the top.
Under the rules of the game doesn't winning a majority in house and senate give one party the right to legislate within the limits set out in the consitution? One consequence of living in a republic.
Where in the Constitution is the right given to the government to legislate social responsibility? For that matter, where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the right to legislate income taxes? (Hint: it's not in there.)
Our powermongering political parties ceased to work "within the limits set out in the Constitution" ages ago. That particular pile of paper isn't given one bit of notice unless it happens to be politically convenient for one side or the other.
I'm not that familiar with your constitution but...
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States?
Laying taxes and providing for general welfare?
Is there an important constitutional restriction on socialized healthcare that hasn't been addressed? Would it be within an individual state's ability to provide? I would like to hear more about this.
That to me is what being a part of country is all about. It's part of my responsibility.My question for those who think this way is always "And what part of your responsibility gives you the right to force me into thinking it is my responsibility as well?"
I see a LOT of people paraphrase that high horse stuff above, and I have no problem with that mentality at all whatsoever. It's when that code of social responsibility is forced upon people that it gets murky...where does it stop? Are you going to try to force your morality on me next?
Quoted to bring it back to the top.
Under the rules of the game doesn't winning a majority in house and senate give one party the right to legislate within the limits set out in the consitution? One consequence of living in a republic.
Where in the Constitution is the right given to the government to legislate social responsibility? For that matter, where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the right to legislate income taxes? (Hint: it's not in there.)
Our powermongering political parties ceased to work "within the limits set out in the Constitution" ages ago. That particular pile of paper isn't given one bit of notice unless it happens to be politically convenient for one side or the other.
I'm not that familiar with your constitution but...
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States?
Laying taxes and providing for general welfare?
Is there an important constitutional restriction on socialized healthcare that hasn't been addressed? Would it be within an individual state's ability to provide? I would like to hear more about this.
Not on personal income without apportionment.
See the 16th amendment.
That to me is what being a part of country is all about. It's part of my responsibility.My question for those who think this way is always "And what part of your responsibility gives you the right to force me into thinking it is my responsibility as well?"
I see a LOT of people paraphrase that high horse stuff above, and I have no problem with that mentality at all whatsoever. It's when that code of social responsibility is forced upon people that it gets murky...where does it stop? Are you going to try to force your morality on me next?
Quoted to bring it back to the top.
Under the rules of the game doesn't winning a majority in house and senate give one party the right to legislate within the limits set out in the consitution? One consequence of living in a republic.
Where in the Constitution is the right given to the government to legislate social responsibility? For that matter, where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the right to legislate income taxes? (Hint: it's not in there.)
Our powermongering political parties ceased to work "within the limits set out in the Constitution" ages ago. That particular pile of paper isn't given one bit of notice unless it happens to be politically convenient for one side or the other.
I'm not that familiar with your constitution but...
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States?
Laying taxes and providing for general welfare?
Is there an important constitutional restriction on socialized healthcare that hasn't been addressed? Would it be within an individual state's ability to provide? I would like to hear more about this.
The taxes referred to in that article were at the time meant to be duties on imports/exports, not an individual income tax...that was shoehorned in within an Amendment in 1913 (when it was convenient for those in power, of course). Edit: also, taxes are supposed to be uniform throughout the country, which has been clearly disregarded at whim by those in power.
As far as the welfare comment, Congress is supposed to provide for the common defense and welfare of the United States, not the individual citizens therein. That is the exact sentence I expected you to quote, so unless Congress would like to also assume responsibility for my private debts, and hire me an individual bodyguard to provide for my defense, to take the word welfare as it is written in the document there and call it a governmental responsibility for my personal well-being is pushing it.
ghost post
Very interesting. In our constitution hospitals and the like are explicitly dealt with and so is the taxation issue.
Taking what you say to be true:
Would it still be open to a state to run healthcare?
Those powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved to the states.
There might be something to prevent it but that is the gist.
Thus, you could move from one state to another if you did not like what the state offers.
|
|
Then returning back to Moro's question - can a state legislate a sense of responsibility then?
I'm just trying to feel out the problem here - is it a state vs feds issue, a local vs non local, individual vs collective type issue, etc..
I am all for the rule of law and the executive, legislative or judicial branch being smacked down for acting outside of their respective roles and powers.
How does healthcare issue differ from education (is it controlled by state or by feds) and is there anything to be learned from education? I understand homeschooling is an alternative available in the States - can you get a tax break or funding if you homeschool?
Then returning back to Moro's question - can a state legislate a sense of responsibility then?
I'm just trying to feel out the problem here - is it a state vs feds issue, a local vs non local, individual vs collective type issue, etc..
I am all for the rule of law and the executive, legislative or judicial branch being smacked down for acting outside of their respective roles and powers.
How does healthcare issue differ from education (is it controlled by state or by feds) and is there anything to be learned from education? I understand homeschooling is an alternative available in the States - can you get a tax break or funding if you homeschool?
I don't think the state should be allowed to legislate my morality at all, and would certainly challenge any attempt to do so in a court of law. That said, each state has it's own articles set down regarding what powers they do and do not have, and I am sure that there are several that could find a hole within those documents and attempt to pass such legislation if they chose to do so...whether or not it would interfere with any federal provision I do not know, but such broad powers are generally either adopted federally or struck down by the fed when they are enacted by the states.
There is no Constitutionally enumerated right to an education, but the US as a whole is a signatory on several international treaties that have a provision for it, such as the UNs Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which, as with all UN documents, is worth about as much as a used scrap of toilet paper if any country with a formidable military should choose to violate it). In any case, even if there were such, this proposed healthcare bill would work in an opposite manner in that it would penalize and impose an EXTRA fine or tax on those not wishing to participate in the system.
|
|
When you say "my morality" what do you mean? Would you consider the current criminal and property laws to be over reaching? Are property rights and personal rights a proper area for the government to step in and legislate?
I'm asking because I see a lot of dictating moral behaviour going on in most of the laws I've run across - from famility, to insurance law through tax and on to wills and estates (spousal support legislation for instance). Crime and property laws are probably the most obvious ones though.
Probably a better way to ask the question would be - what should the government be legislating?
If the proposed health care bill worked in such a way that it was opt out for the individual tax payer would it be acceptable? (everyone pays 100 bucks, but if you chose not to go with ObamaCare, you are refunded or never taxed on it)
Former Congressman Tom DeLay has stepped into this arguement.
|
|
Given that DigitalElf previously supported Veterans Care, I'm quite surprised to see that he thinks the Government has no business running healthcare. Cause they clearly do, for veterans, the elderly and all federal employees. Infact, Government run healthcare systems already cover 27.8% of the US Population, making them the largest provider.
Here's the thing that is most bizarre to me. The US spends 16.0% of GDP on Healthcare, and not everyone's covered. We Brits spend 8.4% of our GDP on Healthcare, and everyone is. The US Government spends a full 18.5% of it's Revenue on Healthcare, which is more then our government. Yet, you only have 2.4 Doctors per 1,000 people, while we have 2.5.
You spend much more money on healthcare, and get a less efficient system that doesn't cover everyone. The only argument against public healthcare that I can see is an ideological objection. Is ideological purity that important? You're not all going to have to put pictures of Lenin on the wall once you realise that providing for the health of the populace is a good thing.
|
Given that DigitalElf previously supported Veterans Care, I'm quite surprised to see that he thinks the Government has no business running healthcare. Cause they clearly do, for veterans, the elderly and all federal employees.
Speaking as a federal employee, the gov't does not run my healthcare. I have an insurance company - Bluecross/Blueshield, to whom I pay "x" amount of my pay. The Gov't covers "x" amount as well. That's about the extent of the gov't involvement.
I'm fairly certain it works the same way for most fed employees.
My 2 cp's.
Given that DigitalElf previously supported Veterans Care, I'm quite surprised to see that he thinks the Government has no business running healthcare. Cause they clearly do, for veterans, the elderly and all federal employees.Speaking as a federal employee, the gov't does not run my healthcare. I have an insurance company - Bluecross/Blueshield, to whom I pay "x" amount of my pay. The Gov't covers "x" amount as well. That's about the extent of the gov't involvement.
I'm fairly certain it works the same way for most fed employees.
My 2 cp's.
My mom is a state employee, specifically California, and for the last few years it seems that what the state does do for employee health care gets worse and worse by the quarter. Seriously, she gets a letter quite often (I can't quote exactly how often, as I don't pay THAT close of attention) saying that her benefits are being reduced. So yeah, the gov't shafts their employees on health care, which only strengthens Uzzy's point.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hmmph, my post must have gotten stealthed or something :-)
The 50 states can legislate 'morality' subject to the Federal Constitution. The 14th ammendment has been used as a bludgeon at times, but has also been used to deprive states of rights (for example, lets see Utah vote to have Mormonism as the official state religion, or Deerbournistan vote Islam as theirs). Part of the balance to state and local control is you can just move if the cost (moral or otherwise) is too high there.
Interesting case before the Supremes on this. Can a state regulate firearms where the Federal Government can't? It's a moral bind because folks like me want the answer to be 'no' but don't want the 14th ammendment used to prove it.
Aside:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. "
(of course the military does use sawed off shotguns, but we'll ignore that fact getting in the court's way)
But the law in question regulates Machine Guns which are used by the military. So one law has been read to say I can't own a machine gun because it's a military grade fire arm, the same law then says I can't own a sawed off shotgun because it's not a military grade firearm? /end rant
As I pointed out earlier, heath care in the US is a sterling example of where the private industry does it better, faster, and cheeper. Federal price controls on drugs and services will succeed in making those services like the stated goal of abortion. "Safe, Legal and rare."
Oh and Aberzombie, it's a running joke that we can make anyone a small government conservative in two weeks. Just have them take Fed Calls. :P
Disclaimer:
|
Given that DigitalElf previously supported Veterans Care, I'm quite surprised to see that he thinks the Government has no business running healthcare. Cause they clearly do, for veterans, the elderly and all federal employees. Infact, Government run healthcare systems already cover 27.8% of the US Population, making them the largest provider.
It should also be pointed out that those programs have a higer denial rate than any of the insurance companies. In fact the goverment denies a larger percentage of claims than three of the four largest insurance companies combined.
But you're right, it's the damn guvernmend! and it can't be trusted.
Show me an American social program that works well. Our public schools are a disaster, the post office is broke, and social security is in serious trouble. How do you expect people to trust turning over one-sixth of our economy to the government when its track record is so poor?
|
|
Given that DigitalElf previously supported Veterans Care, I'm quite surprised to see that he thinks the Government has no business running healthcare. Cause they clearly do, for veterans, the elderly and all federal employees.Speaking as a federal employee, the gov't does not run my healthcare. I have an insurance company - Bluecross/Blueshield, to whom I pay "x" amount of my pay. The Gov't covers "x" amount as well. That's about the extent of the gov't involvement.
I'm fairly certain it works the same way for most fed employees.
My 2 cp's.
So the government runs it quite efficiently. Now, what would be wrong with extending that policy to everyone in the US? You know, mandating insurance, and then having the government pay "x" amount, ranging from 100% to 0% depending on a person's income. That's what Massachusetts is doing at the moment, and it seems like quite an easy way to do it.
Regarding California, I do have to mention that the state budget is in rather appalling form over there, given the consistent tax cuts and lack of tax rises to pay for investment, so it's unsurprising that benefits get reduced, given that the people aren't willing to pay for them. It's a very sad situation.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Question for the non-US posters. How is lawsuit abuse in other countries?
I know Canada's a free speech optional zone now, but this lists some of the burdens to Health Care costs on our side of the pond/border.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So the government runs it quite efficiently. Now, what would be wrong with extending that policy to everyone in the US? You know, mandating insurance, and then having the government pay "x" amount, ranging from 100% to 0% depending on a person's income. That's what Massachusetts is doing at the moment, and it seems like quite an easy way to do it.
so Uzzy, are you offering to pay 100% of my insurance premiums out of your own pocket? Because the problem is you're demanding me to pay that for someone else.
and the Government doesn't run it effeciently. The Private insurance companies run it quite effeciently.
Edit: and let's hear it for Romneycare!
|
|
So the government runs it quite efficiently. Now, what would be wrong with extending that policy to everyone in the US? You know, mandating insurance, and then having the government pay "x" amount, ranging from 100% to 0% depending on a person's income. That's what Massachusetts is doing at the moment, and it seems like quite an easy way to do it.so Uzzy, are you offering to pay 100% of my insurance premiums out of your own pocket? Because the problem is you're demanding me to pay that for someone else.
and the Government doesn't run it effeciently. The Private insurance companies run it quite effeciently.
I do already. Or at least, I pay for other people's health insurance over here in the UK via the taxes I pay. I see no problem with this, given that the benefits of a healthy workforce and citizenry are plain to see. Also, I'd argue that the government runs it's side efficiently, by letting the experts do it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I do already. Or at least, I pay for other people's health insurance over here in the UK via the taxes I pay. I see no problem with this, given that the benefits of a healthy workforce and citizenry are plain to see. Also, I'd argue that the government runs it's side efficiently, by letting the experts do it.
Thank you. I didn't realize you were on the other side of the pond.
That being said, I don't feel the US government has the authority to deprive me of my property without my consent, especially when it is outside the enumerated powers laid out. Plus, if the government has the power to make me buy a product, then they also can claim the power to make me do thngs to 'use' that product. Isn't the rallying cry of the pro-death movement here in the US, 'my body, my choice'?
"You see, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener". "
|
|
Question for the non-US posters. How is lawsuit abuse in other countries?
I know Canada's a free speech optional zone now, but this lists some of the burdens to Health Care costs on our side of the pond/border.
Our damage awards are much much much lower across the board (from medical malpractice to simple torts). Spilling hot coffee on your lap will get you enough money to buy new pants. Not a gagillion dollars.
Former Congressman Tom DeLay has stepped into this arguement.
Well, we've all been schooled in what the "proper answer" to that is:
Some politicians said it, so it has to be true. Staggering intellectual achievement there. Give me a damn break.
"You see, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener". "
Dude, you don't even know how the shells work.
|
|
Now, if the NHS started mandating that people should eat less fatty foods, smoke less and the like, I'd protest that, as I do have the right to stick whatever I want in my body. The NHS doesn't do that though. It certainly advertises and encourages people to exercise, to quit smoking and reduce alcohol intake, all of which are good things to encourage. I think that'd be the same over in the US. Heck, you don't have Seatbelt Laws in all your states yet, right?
Now, if the NHS started mandating that people should eat less fatty foods, smoke less and the like, I'd protest that, as I do have the right to stick whatever I want in my body. The NHS doesn't do that though. It certainly advertises and encourages people to exercise, to quit smoking and reduce alcohol intake, all of which are good things to encourage. I think that'd be the same over in the US. Heck, you don't have Seatbelt Laws in all your states yet, right?
The only state that doesn't have seat belt laws is New Hampshire.
Now, if the NHS started mandating that people should eat less fatty foods, smoke less and the like, I'd protest that, as I do have the right to stick whatever I want in my body. The NHS doesn't do that though. It certainly advertises and encourages people to exercise, to quit smoking and reduce alcohol intake, all of which are good things to encourage. I think that'd be the same over in the US. Heck, you don't have Seatbelt Laws in all your states yet, right?The only state that doesn't have seat belt laws is New Hampshire.
Maybe helmet laws would be more appropriate to compare.
I see a LOT of people paraphrase that high horse stuff above, and I have no problem with that mentality at all whatsoever. It's when that code of social responsibility is forced upon people that it gets murky...where does it stop? Are you going to try to force your morality on me next?
This is one of the ongoing questions on how you build a society. And it's a crying shame that Civics has essentially been dropped entirely from American school curriculums.
I'd like to turn that question around, when does individualism meet it's limits? By definiton social codes against murder, child abuse, theft, and graft are "forced" upon you by the fact that you reside in a civilised society.
I think the textbook answer is when your "individualism" infringes on anothers, that is where the limit is. See your examples as evidence of this, all of those examples deal with situations where one person is infringing on another.
No, not a model of individual liberty. Just a real world instance of your crank anarchism put in practice. I'd call it the very opposite of individual liberty and freedom, just as I would Stalin's USSR.
There are other African nations with larger governments that have very similar conditions and higher death tolls. I take it that you see Somalia as a model of individual liberty.Interesting.
In your world view is there anything that the government should not control?
There are only two things the government should control: those things that private industry cannot control and those that private industry must not control. Where we disagree is what things fall into that category. Bitter Thorn, your comments read as though you believe that almost nothing falls into those two categories. I believe medical care for the general public does fall into something that private industry must not control, in our current circumstances through insurance companies. It is as basic to protecting us collectively as the military is.
I see a LOT of people paraphrase that high horse stuff above, and I have no problem with that mentality at all whatsoever. It's when that code of social responsibility is forced upon people that it gets murky...where does it stop? Are you going to try to force your morality on me next?
This is one of the ongoing questions on how you build a society. And it's a crying shame that Civics has essentially been dropped entirely from American school curriculums.
I'd like to turn that question around, when does individualism meet it's limits? By definiton social codes against murder, child abuse, theft, and graft are "forced" upon you by the fact that you reside in a civilised society.
We live in societies because we're a social species. The one man is an island mentality meets very severe limitations in the real world. Appropriately societies are designed to meet the needs of groups as a collective and collective needs are more than just codifications of individual neeeds, they are frequently compromises and reconciliations.
The question you should be asking is what kind of society do we build collectively? How much of it should be weighed by brutal aspects of Darwin and Malthus and how much personal responsibility will you take for your input into those decisions?
Where do one man's rights end, and another man's begin?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I believe medical care for the general public does fall into something that private industry must not control, in our current circumstances through insurance companies. It is as basic to protecting us collectively as the military is.
I was unaware of insurance companies standing in the doorways of emergency rooms across the country, yelling, "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!!" like Gandalf at Kharzad Dun.
I believe medical care for the general public does fall into something that private industry must not control, in our current circumstances through insurance companies. It is as basic to protecting us collectively as the military is.I was unaware of insurance companies standing in the doorways of emergency rooms across the country, yelling, "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!!" like Gandalf at Kharzad Dun.
I didn't say they were. The preamble of the constitution says that the federal government is to provide for the common defense as well as general welfare. In my view, medical care falls into the general welfare of the public. I have seen attempts to errode access to healthcare just as others on this board have seen attempts to expand it.
For those with a lot of faith in the system, this story should probably make you think twice.
I believe medical care for the general public does fall into something that private industry must not control, in our current circumstances through insurance companies. It is as basic to protecting us collectively as the military is.I was unaware of insurance companies standing in the doorways of emergency rooms across the country, yelling, "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!!" like Gandalf at Kharzad Dun.
They don't and that's one of the problems. No, not that they should turn people away from emergency rooms, but that it might be the only access some people have to "health care" - as has been agreed upon before, it's one of the things that drive the cost of health care in general up, when people use the ER for non-emergency treatment.
That's also one of the reasons why health care is cheaper to run outside the US, people go to their own doctors with anything that's not an emergency. They might get referred to the hospital, but the first point of contact is usually your own doctor, not the whole ER staff.|
|
I was unaware of insurance companies standing in the doorways of emergency rooms across the country, yelling, "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!!" like Gandalf at Khazad-dûm.
Fixed that for you. We wouldn't want any LotR fanatics to see you misspelling such a thing. They'd go all Gollum on your ass, and that's the kind of ugly nobody wants to see.
:)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well you did say that private insurance was 'controlling' health care. I'm sorry if I did misinterept your words. I have encountered people who honestly believe that though. *rolls eyes*
I've always looked at the 'General Welfare' clause as giving the government the authority to take actions to fufil their enumerated powers. I don't see how healthcare falls under those enumerated powers. At the most basic level, you're mandating how someone has to use/charge for their skills and training. That's not the government's job, that's my job to determine what I feel my skillset is worth, and it's my job as an employer to figure iut what your skillset is worth to me.
|
I'm just throwing this out there...
What would your collective opinions be (on both sides) of a "best of both worlds" approach?
Universal coverage that is not administered by the federal government. What would you think of a system where the administration of health care claims is processed by either for-profit companies contracted by the government, or non-profit organizations set up to administer health care? (This would assume a certain level of oversight, giving patients avenues for redress if they feel like the companies/NPOs have treated them unfairly.) It could either be funded directly through tax dollars or paid for individually, with subsidies for those who cannot afford it. It seems like that could potentially address the issue of waste and general distrust of government, while addressing the glaring issues with the status quo.
I know some object to having to pay for coverage for those who cannot afford it in any form. All I can say to that is - you're already paying for it, and not just through Medicare and Medicaid. Any time someone doesn't pay their hospital bill, the hospital is absorbing that cost and it gets passed on to everyone else who uses their services. Every time someone files bankruptcy because of their medical expenses and defaults on other loans and obligations, financial institutions absorb the loss and pass it on to their other customers. The money ALWAYS has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is your pocket and mine.
Well you did say that private insurance was 'controlling' health care. I'm sorry if I did misinterept your words. I have encountered people who honestly believe that though. *rolls eyes*
I've always looked at the 'General Welfare' clause as giving the government the authority to take actions to fufil their enumerated powers. I don't see how healthcare falls under those enumerated powers. At the most basic level, you're mandating how someone has to use/charge for their skills and training. That's not the government's job, that's my job to determine what I feel my skillset is worth, and it's my job as an employer to figure iut what your skillset is worth to me.
I can see how my statement could have been worded more clearly, and I apologize for that. I do believe that in many cases insurance companies interfere with health care decisions and as an industry strive to increase their control over the field. As an example of that, I'd cite the Bush administration trying to move private health insurance providers for Medicare recipients. That is by no means a comprehensive abolishment of public influence in health care. But I would cite it as an step in that direction much as others say Obama's public option would have been a step toward abolishing private health care.
As far as mandating how someone uses their skills, our current public healthcare programs don't necessarily work that way. In the case of the VA and military, it does except in some rural situations. However, doctors can accept or refuse Medicare patients. Those serving Medicare patients still own their own practice or are employed by a private or non-profit hospital.
|
|
Mark, may I direct you to what the authors of the Constitution had to say about the "general welfare clause?"I didn't say they were. The preamble of the constitution says that the federal government is to provide for the common defense as well as general welfare. In my view, medical care falls into the general welfare of the public. I have seen attempts to errode access to healthcare just as others on this board have seen attempts to expand it.I believe medical care for the general public does fall into something that private industry must not control, in our current circumstances through insurance companies. It is as basic to protecting us collectively as the military is.I was unaware of insurance companies standing in the doorways of emergency rooms across the country, yelling, "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!!" like Gandalf at Kharzad Dun.
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America.
Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.
When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.