Pages: 1 … 8 9 10 11 12

 

2009-08-27 23:28:16
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6963|Canberra, AUS
Of course you will since you already made up your mind long before anyway.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-08-27 23:59:56
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6668|MN

Kmarion wrote:

Lets address the litigious part first.
Funny thing this.  I agree with you, but some are hesitant to try that.

I attended Tim Walz's Town hall meeting in my home town a week ago.  His first argument against TORT reform was that it was tried in Texas and health care costs increased during that time.  Of course he didn't mention that it did cut down on the number of suits brought against the doctors, sparked a huge increase in out of state doctors license applications, and drew more insurance companies to the state which actually drove down prices.  The last part he forgot to mention was the amount of illegal immigrants leaching on the health care system in that area.  Basically, he cherry picked the part about overall helath care costs going up, and ignored the real story.  Source
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-08-28 04:36:13
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6699|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Considering that multinational corporations didn't have near as much power over the world then as they do now, no...  it's not so applicable.  At least, not so much with regard to economic policy.
The Constitution isn't about economic policy. It is about law and governance.
Then how can you suggest that the Founding Fathers would have been against government intervention in healthcare?  You implied that earlier, yet now you're saying what they wrote had nothing to do with economic policy.
Because government intervention in healthcare isn't economic policy. It's government intervention in our private lives.

The whole point of the Constitution is to limit government intervention in our private lives. To minimize the power of the federal government to that which is explicitly provided in the Constitution.

Turquoise wrote:

By the way, I would agree that the Constitution isn't relevant to economic policy, but my suggestion was that, had the Founding Fathers lived in this age, they would have probably recognized the tyranny of corporations in addition to the tyranny of government.
I think they would've had more problems with the tyranny of the government than the expansion of corporations.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-08-28 19:57:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6693|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The Constitution isn't about economic policy. It is about law and governance.
Then how can you suggest that the Founding Fathers would have been against government intervention in healthcare?  You implied that earlier, yet now you're saying what they wrote had nothing to do with economic policy.
Because government intervention in healthcare isn't economic policy. It's government intervention in our private lives.

The whole point of the Constitution is to limit government intervention in our private lives. To minimize the power of the federal government to that which is explicitly provided in the Constitution.
In most First World countries, a socialized healthcare system is treated as a staple of the economic system.  While it is true that you could look at it as intervention in your private life, it is a collective institution.

A more clear cut case of government intervention in your private life is the War on Drugs, because it prohibits you from using certain substances.

Socialized healthcare does often involve some limits on your personal choices, but it is more representative of economic policy -- in that the systems that have socialized care usually devote more taxes to it than anything else.  Given this, it is more commonly seen as economic policy in most of the First World.  It's also seen as necessary for keeping the workforce healthy, which is, again, an economic concern more than a personal one.

FEOS wrote:

I think they would've had more problems with the tyranny of the government than the expansion of corporations.
James Madison spoke a lot about factionalism within American politics.  I'm pretty sure he would loathe what lobbyism has become and the corporate money behind it.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-08-28 19:58:35)

2009-08-29 13:28:52
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6699|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Then how can you suggest that the Founding Fathers would have been against government intervention in healthcare?  You implied that earlier, yet now you're saying what they wrote had nothing to do with economic policy.
Because government intervention in healthcare isn't economic policy. It's government intervention in our private lives.

The whole point of the Constitution is to limit government intervention in our private lives. To minimize the power of the federal government to that which is explicitly provided in the Constitution.
In most First World countries, a socialized healthcare system is treated as a staple of the economic system.  While it is true that you could look at it as intervention in your private life, it is a collective institution.

A more clear cut case of government intervention in your private life is the War on Drugs, because it prohibits you from using certain substances.

Socialized healthcare does often involve some limits on your personal choices, but it is more representative of economic policy -- in that the systems that have socialized care usually devote more taxes to it than anything else.  Given this, it is more commonly seen as economic policy in most of the First World.  It's also seen as necessary for keeping the workforce healthy, which is, again, an economic concern more than a personal one.
That is just a basic philosophical difference. I'm surprised you see it that way, considering your views on Social Security.

The two positions seem to contradict one another.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I think they would've had more problems with the tyranny of the government than the expansion of corporations.
James Madison spoke a lot about factionalism within American politics.  I'm pretty sure he would loathe what lobbyism has become and the corporate money behind it.
I think far more than Madison would be disgusted by that aspect of our governance.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-08-29 17:27:54
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6693|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

That is just a basic philosophical difference. I'm surprised you see it that way, considering your views on Social Security.

The two positions seem to contradict one another.
I believe healthcare is a public responsibility but that retirement is a private one.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I think they would've had more problems with the tyranny of the government than the expansion of corporations.
James Madison spoke a lot about factionalism within American politics.  I'm pretty sure he would loathe what lobbyism has become and the corporate money behind it.
I think far more than Madison would be disgusted by that aspect of our governance.
Indeed....
2009-08-29 17:43:32
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6837|San Diego, CA, USA

Turquoise wrote:

I believe healthcare is a public responsibility but that retirement is a private one.
Not to sound contentious, but does that mean we should have universal health care and drop social security?

I think we should privatize social security as well as have health savings accounts.  If you could put away say $50/paycheck (pretax) to an HSA and use it to spend on dental/optical/health care and KEEP whatever you don't spend then bonus.

It would make more sense for the government to give vouchers to the very poor to buy private insurance instead of trying to take over the whole system (and alot cheaper too).

Anyone realize that the new healthcare system would cost ~$60,000 per uninsured person?  We could buy private heath carefor them ALL (47 million, 20 million of them illegals btw, ~9 million who are young and don't want insurance, ~13 million who just don't want it, and the rest, about 9 million who actually can't afford it) - that's my understanding of the 47 million uninsured.




Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I think far more than Madison would be disgusted by that aspect of our governance.
Indeed....
Agreed.




BTW, tort reform would go a long way reducing costs for health care for everyone, but the Democrat's won't go for that because they get ALOT of money from trial lawyer (like Edwards who made his millions on malpractice lawsuits bankrupting hospitals).




P.S.  I'm a little conservative :-P
P.S.S. The numbers about the uninsured as all estimates and should not be considered accurate - no one really knows for sure.
2009-08-29 19:31:53
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6693|North Carolina

Harmor wrote:

Not to sound contentious, but does that mean we should have universal health care and drop social security?

I think we should privatize social security as well as have health savings accounts.  If you could put away say $50/paycheck (pretax) to an HSA and use it to spend on dental/optical/health care and KEEP whatever you don't spend then bonus.
I'm definitely in favor of ending SS.

Harmor wrote:

It would make more sense for the government to give vouchers to the very poor to buy private insurance instead of trying to take over the whole system (and alot cheaper too).
That would be better than doing nothing at least.

Harmor wrote:

Anyone realize that the new healthcare system would cost ~$60,000 per uninsured person?  We could buy private heath carefor them ALL (47 million, 20 million of them illegals btw, ~9 million who are young and don't want insurance, ~13 million who just don't want it, and the rest, about 9 million who actually can't afford it) - that's my understanding of the 47 million uninsured.
I'm not so sure about that, but I'll look into it.

Harmor wrote:

BTW, tort reform would go a long way reducing costs for health care for everyone, but the Democrat's won't go for that because they get ALOT of money from trial lawyer (like Edwards who made his millions on malpractice lawsuits bankrupting hospitals).
Even if that ends up being true, I'm pretty sure they'd support tort reform if problems starting arising with a new socialized system.  The Democrats aren't going to just let the country go bankrupt.  Neither would the Republicans.
2009-08-29 19:33:38
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6837|San Diego, CA, USA
Obama already said no to tort reform.
2009-08-29 19:34:33
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6693|North Carolina

Harmor wrote:

Obama already said no to tort reform.
Well, he also said he'd ban renditions.  He has a habit of changing his mind about certain things.  I don't see why he couldn't change his mind about this.
2009-08-29 22:03:48
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6699|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That is just a basic philosophical difference. I'm surprised you see it that way, considering your views on Social Security.

The two positions seem to contradict one another.
I believe healthcare is a public responsibility but that retirement is a private one.
Why?

If anything, health is a more private issue than retirement.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-08-29 22:13:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6693|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That is just a basic philosophical difference. I'm surprised you see it that way, considering your views on Social Security.

The two positions seem to contradict one another.
I believe healthcare is a public responsibility but that retirement is a private one.
Why?

If anything, health is a more private issue than retirement.
When you look at how much the economy depends on having a healthy workforce, I believe it is in our collective best interests to maintain a certain level of health among the general public.  This is easiest to do via socialized healthcare.
2009-08-29 22:26:50
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6837|San Diego, CA, USA
I have yet to see a 'socialized heathcare' system anywhere in the world that would work in the United States.

Not Canada, not Japan, not France, and especially not Britain's.
2009-08-29 22:35:23
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6693|North Carolina

Harmor wrote:

I have yet to see a 'socialized heathcare' system anywhere in the world that would work in the United States.

Not Canada, not Japan, not France, and especially not Britain's.
Not Japan?...
2009-08-29 22:38:49
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6837|San Diego, CA, USA
Of all the systems thats the closest I have to say.  But Japan is an island where a majority of the population take care of themselves much better than us Americans.  Also they don't have the same immigration issues we have.

To be honest I haven't fully researched the Japan system.  Also I haven't heard negative reports like Britain's, France's, or Canada's health care systems.
2009-08-29 22:42:48
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6889|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Harmor wrote:

I have yet to see a 'socialized heathcare' system anywhere in the world that would work in the United States.

Not Canada, not Japan, not France, and especially not Britain's.
Not Japan?...
The Japanese are waaayy more healthier than Americans. It's their lifestyle that sets them apart. Americans are by and large (pun intended) a sedentary population. This causes all kinds of health problems, and is why the system would be bankrupt in a year. You've seen the outrage at just the thought of excluding people who don't give a shit about their bodies.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-08-29 22:45:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6693|North Carolina

Harmor wrote:

Of all the systems thats the closest I have to say.  But Japan is an island where a majority of the population take care of themselves much better than us Americans.  Also they don't have the same immigration issues we have.

To be honest I haven't fully researched the Japan system.  Also I haven't heard negative reports like Britain's, France's, or Canada's health care systems.
There's no doubt that America faces certain challenges that a lot of other socialized nations don't.  However, France's system is still applicable to our situation because they have to deal with their own illegal immigration problem due to North Africans.

It is true that the French take care of themselves better than we do, but habits gradually change with socialized healthcare systems, and for better or worse, some of those changes are the result of legislation that forces them.

I'm always reluctant to give the government power over personal choices, but this is one of the few areas where I believe the net result is positive.
2009-08-29 22:46:39
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6693|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Harmor wrote:

I have yet to see a 'socialized heathcare' system anywhere in the world that would work in the United States.

Not Canada, not Japan, not France, and especially not Britain's.
Not Japan?...
The Japanese are waaayy more healthier than Americans. It's their lifestyle that sets them apart. Americans are by and large (pun intended) a sedentary population. This causes all kinds of health problems, and is why the system would be bankrupt in a year. You've seen the outrage at just the thought of excluding people who don't give a shit about their bodies.
This is one of the arguments against socialized healthcare that holds some weight (no pun intended) for me.  I would agree that this is a possibility, but as I mentioned in the post above, habits change with time via these systems.
2009-08-29 22:47:52
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6699|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I believe healthcare is a public responsibility but that retirement is a private one.
Why?

If anything, health is a more private issue than retirement.
When you look at how much the economy depends on having a healthy workforce, I believe it is in our collective best interests to maintain a certain level of health among the general public.  This is easiest to do via socialized healthcare.
Well you could be completely objective and analyze whether the amount you lose in paying for healthcare is worth the cost of just replacing that worker...and keeping the unemployment rate low.

So you're saying we should pay to keep them alive, but not ensure they have means to live to the older age they achieve due to increased healthcare.

Still doesn't make logical sense.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-08-29 22:49:41
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6693|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Well you could be completely objective and analyze whether the amount you lose in paying for healthcare is worth the cost of just replacing that worker...and keeping the unemployment rate low.

So you're saying we should pay to keep them alive, but not ensure they have means to live to the older age they achieve due to increased healthcare.

Still doesn't make logical sense.
You're assuming our habits are unlikely to change.  They can with these systems, but as I said, it takes time and unfortunately...  legislation sometimes.
2009-08-29 22:50:00
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6837|San Diego, CA, USA
Besides the whole 10th Amendment thing, I don't think its the Federal government's responsibilty to do this. 

Granted the Federal Government role is for "Life, Liberity and the pursuit of happiness"...in 'life' I don't think they were talking about universal heath care.

The amount of taxes that would have to be raised to pay for a socialize heath care system would make alot of American upset. 

And also the wholle "socialized" part of "socialized health care" by its very name is un-American to many.
2009-08-29 22:50:21
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6889|132 and Bush

Socialized medicine will not make people diet and exercise.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-08-29 22:51:45
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6837|San Diego, CA, USA

Turquoise wrote:

You're assuming our habits are unlikely to change.  They can with these systems, but as I said, it takes time and unfortunately...  legislation sometimes.
So does that mean the "Fat tax" would be in effect?  Are we going to sick the trial lawyers against McDonalds, Pepsi, and Coke?

I'm sure the trial lawyers would just love milking a few more billion from an American company like they did with the tobacco industry.
2009-08-29 22:52:33
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6889|132 and Bush

Harmor wrote:

Besides the whole 10th Amendment thing, I don't think its the Federal government's responsibilty to do this. 

Granted the Federal Government role is for "Life, Liberity and the pursuit of happiness"...in 'life' I don't think they were talking about universal heath care.

The amount of taxes that would have to be raised to pay for a socialize heath care system would make alot of American upset. 

And also the wholle "socialized" part of "socialized health care" by its very name is un-American to many.
A state has every right to try it. If it's shit and there is hell to pay in taxes then move or toss out your local representatives.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

 

Pages: 1 … 8 9 10 11 12

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard