This was from our NY considers legalizing pot thread. I typed it out but realized I was hijacking the original idea pretty badly and started it here, instead. Apologies if the quotes don't work well.
Quote from: Yeti on February 23, 2014, 12:24:11 AM
Quote from: jgiffin on February 22, 2014, 11:05:04 PM
That only applies because we've socialized healthcare costs. That was the initial mistake. If we didn't require hospitals to provide emergency care to everyone without consideration of payment, those concerns would take care of themselves without reducing the liberty of the populace as a whole.
You have a right to fuck up yourself. You don't have a right to make me pay for it.
Right! It was preferable when poor people just died on the streets.
(http://www.chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ALLFAMILY0.jpg)
Those were the days!
+42 points to Griffindor for the classic TV reference (and pic), Yeti. I appreciate the point, too.
However, "poor people" are still dying in the streets (and elsewhere, you'll notice) today. So the argument isn't, "hmmm that didn't quite work the way we intended" it's "hey let's give everyone preventative healthcare, too!" It's simply unsustainable. We water down the medical care that contributing citizens can obtain by giving free care to the poor, free care to illegal immigrants, and - Dios Mio, Man - sex change operations to gender-confused prisoners!
Altruistic, and proud we are of all of that, but in the end it's immoral. We're undermining the same medical system that made such great advances possible. This won't lead to great care for all. It leads directly to great care for the insanely rich and the party members (look at cold war era soviet analogues) and bread lines for the rest of us. Sorry, I don't feel beholden to entitle everyone to shit they can't pay for when it means eventually only fewer of us will get the benefits.
Though shrouded in benevolent robes, government involvement in healthcare is just another freedom-sapping mechanism. Look at how
federalism has devolved into modern day
feudalism. The states (through their citizenry) pay money upwards to the federal government. The Feds, in turn, compile the money and decide how it should be allocated, embezzled, and wasted. Then, this is the kicker, before the Feds return the money to the States (from whence it came) they attach all kinds of putrid conditions.
"Want your DOT money to repair roads? Well, you gotta lower your DUI limit to 0.10, 0.08, 0.60 or whatever we say it should be. Also, you'll need to select vendors from our approved minority and female business list over here. There are three in your state for what you need and they generally perform well, once they eventually show up, for about twice the market rate."
"Want your Medicaid money? Ok, but first your program must comply with Obamacare's 12k pages of mandates. Oh, that's gonna cost you $6 Billion? Fine, we'll cover that for the first 5 years and split it for the next 10. Then you're on your own. Yeah, it pretty much means you'll be bankrupt - you want the money or not, bitch?"
"Want your Dept. of Education grants? Sure thing, buddy. Just show us you've enacted Common Core, bought iPads from our approved vendors, and kicked back money to the teachers' unions. Oh, also, make sure those kids selling drugs on the corner make it to class and pass their achievement tests - you don't want your performance index to go down."
Quite the excellent system we have here. I get sick when our media looks down on government in second and third world countries. At least their corruption is transparent and egalitarian. Ours is masked by the twin illusions of democracy and altruism.
Do you really think you cover the cost of a military, Coast Guard, FAA, courts, prisons, police, fire, FBI, EPA, OSHA and and FEC to protect you? There is no way you covered your portion of the costs it took to send me to a desert to dodge Scud missiles and camel spiders. Your logic negates my service, I didn't sign up to protect only those that could pay for it, I signed up to protect my fellow American, and more abstractly humanity in general.
Fact is, things have never been so good for humanity, this is the best we have ever had it. Is it perfect, nope, never will be, but to make the case that it sucks so bad is disingenuous.
Also this doesn't give us any of the tools we will need to deal with post scarcity, AI, and augmented humans. Imagine if AI ends up thinking like you, we'd all be eliminated. i hope we can learn to love and care for each other, before we have to teach a superior being to love us. Because we can not teach each other to love, how are we going to teach AI?
I just wish that the debate could be an honest one without the noise and misinformation.
I've lived in Canada and found zero difference from a user standpoint between the system there and the one here.
I had a line on my paycheck that withheld some money that was labeled "health insurance"; There I had a line withholding the same amount of money and it was labeled "health tax" or something like that.
Again the reality is that it works. In any industrialized or semi industrialized society paying into the same pool results in enough money to take care do the sick. It's a matter of percentages.
The "problem" with the entire health insurance proposition is that you set up a situation where you have companies that make more money by providing less service. That will never ever work. It is the opposite of any economic principle. Higher premiums and lower quality are absolutely inevitable as long as it does result in the people making the decisions getting richer. It's human nature.
Single payer, why we treat the threat of dying from a terrorist differently than dying from heart disease is beyond me. If it is a terrorist threat everyone is eager to spend money and bomb somewhere, but next to none of us will die from terrorism, but most of us will die from heart disease.
Quote from: revgms on February 23, 2014, 10:46:15 AM
Single payer, why we treat the threat of dying from a terrorist differently than dying from heart disease is beyond me. If it is a terrorist threat everyone is eager to spend money and bomb somewhere, but next to none of us will die from terrorism, but most of us will die from heart disease.
Because they have been told that the world will end.
That there taxes will quadruple and that Canada has no doctors or services and you just die alone in a shack in the snow.
This is my point. There is no REAL conversation. The bought off political whores and the bought off networks just repeat the same bullshit over and over until people just buy it.
You can always tell what they really really don't want you to know or think about.
The only ones that are worse are the ones that blow smoke up your ass about how it's not wrong it's actually evil.
You know the implausible nonsense about how "God wants us to be consumers". That it's actually unholy to have single payer health care or bla bla bla. Fill in the blanks. Clearly God has a platform very similar to the person speaking.
I'm not saying single payer health care is the way to go or whatever the issue is. But as soon as they start to bang the drum and cloud the entire debate with lies and bullshit clearly they are hiding something. They don't want to actually discuss it. So they make the entire thing come down to irrational nonsense. That's how you can pull the wool over people's eyes over and over and over.
Ha laughable!
Some very good points. I gots a couple thinkerings in response.
1. Rev, I pay my share now (50% total effective tax rates do that pretty quickly) but dispute all of these acronym-agencies are necessary and/or not bloated. Sure, we need a military - but a domestic one, not one with 900+ bases in 60+ countries with 250,000+ troops deployed worldwide. Yes, we need civil and criminal courts and law enforcement but - again - not on the scale we have. As for the regulatory agencies, we can do away with half entirely and reduce staffing of the remainder by half again. These areas emphasize the extent to which government has become a pawn of industry, corporations, and do-gooder organizations. I'm against that shit and it's always worse the bigger the government gets.
2. I hope I'm not spouting noise or misinformation. As to comparative tax rates, I've always heard that Canada's is higher - maybe, maybe not. But the point isn't a relative one, it's a static one - unless the problem requires government action, is Constitutional, and it can be done efficiently, I shouldn't be taxed to support it. They've not made that showing on healthcare; in fact, so far it seems quite the contrary. If anyone has demonstrable proof "it works" part, I'd like to see it.
3.Unless I bury my head in the snow, I really can't avoid thinking the government will use healthcare to help its cronies and further fuck everyone else in the ass. It's what they do. And they get to use our own tax money to do it. Every week, we find out Obamacare will add more to the debt, be more expensive, provide fewer benefits, reduce employment levels, and that the pols knowingly lied to us in selling it. I'm not saying it's causing the world to end - but it ain't making the lives of hard working Americans any easier.
Quote from: jgiffin on February 23, 2014, 08:04:35 AM
This was from our NY considers legalizing pot thread. I typed it out but realized I was hijacking the original idea pretty badly and started it here, instead. Apologies if the quotes don't work well.
Quote from: Yeti on February 23, 2014, 12:24:11 AM
Quote from: jgiffin on February 22, 2014, 11:05:04 PM
That only applies because we've socialized healthcare costs. That was the initial mistake. If we didn't require hospitals to provide emergency care to everyone without consideration of payment, those concerns would take care of themselves without reducing the liberty of the populace as a whole.
You have a right to fuck up yourself. You don't have a right to make me pay for it.
Right! It was preferable when poor people just died on the streets.
Those were the days!
[wall of text]
I don't know if this post is masturbatory on my part and I should just walk away, and I probably shouldn't have gotten involved in this thread in the first place, but you've been polite so far so I felt I should tell you that I'm going to have to drop out of these political discussions because I didn't come here to actively debate with a conservative or libertarian or whatever label you apply to your politics. It's not that I don't think I can back up my progressivism or that I'm looking for an echo chamber, it's just that I've gotten into these arguments online many times before and it got old and stale years ago, back when Dubya was still president and the lord was needlessly and pointlessly taking so many bright, flowering young men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many hours were wasted and not a single mind was changed on either side. I realize I crapped on your thread with the Archie Bunker pic and I apologize for that.
Hopefully we can discuss other topics that aren't related to politics.
This is actually a big debate in the UK at the moment, with more over sixties than there are teenagers causing problems. The system was designed to cater for fewer old people and lots of young people paying in.
The German system is one of the better versions where everyone buys insurance and the insurance company "buys" services from the health care provider. As always there is a safety net for those that can't afford.
I think it is that safety net that is the issue here. Do humans deserve to be cared for, even if they are unable or unwilling to contribute to their own care. I say yes. I say the idea that a human beings value is not deduced through how much material wealth they can contribute.
I don't buy the moral hazard argument that if we take care of people they will just sit back and do nothing. Sure some will, but most of us will do what needs doing, and most of us would take that security as a way of empowering us to do more, without the fear of failure breathing down our neck. If I did not have to risk my access to healthcare I could be more enterprising and take bigger risks in business and creativity.
That and a wondering sage can not exist if he has to get a job at Ralph's to get the healthcare he needs. With a universal healthcare system our society can be populated with Dudes, with out it, not so much.
It is also wrong to think we need everyone working, and it becomes more wrong to think that way by the day. Right now, 60-80% of us can do all the work we need done, the rest are just wasting time and resources. A byproduct of the obsolescence economy and the idea that if I gotta work so do they. In the years to come the amount of human labor needed to achieve the needs and wants of the whole human species could easily be provided by 10-20% of us, and quite literally the rest would be totally superfluous, and to force them to work would be a tragic waste of time and potential.
I've laid this all out in my other thread on economics.
Ultimately also, this is about the big dichotomy of our existence, ego vs non-ego. As a former big L libertarian and a current Buddhist, I can tell you that they are polar opposites. Buddhism is about the annihilation of the self, libertarianism is about the exultation of the self. Libertarianism is about ownership and possession, Buddhism is about non-attachment. Buddhism is about interconnection, the dissolution of divisions, libertarianism is about separation and borders. In libertarianism the only thing that matters is the self, in Buddhism the only thing that doesn't matter is the self.
Jus say'n
Interesting thoughts, Dude. Added to this are beliefs about our responsibility to one another: The libertarian view that I hear most commonly voiced is a kind of "live and let live so long as it doesn't impinge upon my freedom." Contrast that with the Buddhist view that we are conjointly responsible for the happiness of one another.
Quote from: revgms on February 24, 2014, 08:40:50 AM
Ultimately also, this is about the big dichotomy of our existence, ego vs non-ego. As a former big L libertarian and a current Buddhist, I can tell you that they are polar opposites. Buddhism is about the annihilation of the self, libertarianism is about the exultation of the self. Libertarianism is about ownership and possession, Buddhism is about non-attachment. Buddhism is about interconnection, the dissolution of divisions, libertarianism is about separation and borders. In libertarianism the only thing that matters is the self, in Buddhism the only thing that doesn't matter is the self.
Jus say'n
Quote from: jgiffin on February 23, 2014, 03:43:02 PM
Some very good points. I gots a couple thinkerings in response.
1. Rev, I pay my share now (50% total effective tax rates do that pretty quickly) but dispute all of these acronym-agencies are necessary and/or not bloated. Sure, we need a military - but a domestic one, not one with 900+ bases in 60+ countries with 250,000+ troops deployed worldwide. Yes, we need civil and criminal courts and law enforcement but - again - not on the scale we have. As for the regulatory agencies, we can do away with half entirely and reduce staffing of the remainder by half again. These areas emphasize the extent to which government has become a pawn of industry, corporations, and do-gooder organizations. I'm against that shit and it's always worse the bigger the government gets.
2. I hope I'm not spouting noise or misinformation. As to comparative tax rates, I've always heard that Canada's is higher - maybe, maybe not. But the point isn't a relative one, it's a static one - unless the problem requires government action, is Constitutional, and it can be done efficiently, I shouldn't be taxed to support it. They've not made that showing on healthcare; in fact, so far it seems quite the contrary. If anyone has demonstrable proof "it works" part, I'd like to see it.
3.Unless I bury my head in the snow, I really can't avoid thinking the government will use healthcare to help its cronies and further fuck everyone else in the ass. It's what they do. And they get to use our own tax money to do it. Every week, we find out Obamacare will add more to the debt, be more expensive, provide fewer benefits, reduce employment levels, and that the pols knowingly lied to us in selling it. I'm not saying it's causing the world to end - but it ain't making the lives of hard working Americans any easier.
The tax rate comes down to a label.
They have a health tax. We have health insurance cost.
We pay for things like trash removal up there it's "free" or more correctly paid for through taxes 'ie' civic.
It basically comes down to cost of living. Seat of your pants user experience.
Having lived both places I'd say it's a tie when looked at that way.
At the time I lived there I had no preference for either system of health care. They were equal.
But now the proliferation of health networks and participating vs non participating physicians has made our health insurance a royal pain in the ass. There is none of that in Canada. It's all under the same umbrella. You see whatever Doc you want and it's covered. I'm sure there are pluses and minus' but the point is that most of what people think about it has been spoon fed to them. The tax "myth" being an example. Most people don't really get it that the increase in tax just replaces the amount they pay each paycheck for health insurance. So they say "your taxes go through the roof!" . Scarey scarey. It's just tactics.
Obama care is a gift to the insurance companies.
It is not a good thing.
The fact is that as measured by the UN and other groups the US spends a higher percentage of GDP on health care than nearly every other industrialized countries and has far worse outcomes.
Single payer health insurance works in the UK, Canada, France most of Europe etc etc.
All spend a lower percentage of GDP on health care and have a better outcome.
The debate should not be about Ideology. It should be about efficiency. Clearly this is one of those issues where it is about ideology and sensible discussion generally gets obfuscated by lies and bullshit. Ideology as always just muddys the waters.
Quote from: Yeti on February 24, 2014, 04:50:01 AM
Hopefully we can discuss other topics that aren't related to politics.
Absolutely, man. I appreciate your points and agree that, in the entire history of the interwebs, approximately zero minds have been changed by lit-up pixels.
I really did like the All in the Family pic, though.
Quote from: revgms on February 24, 2014, 08:40:50 AM
I don't buy the moral hazard argument that if we take care of people they will just sit back and do nothing. Sure some will, but most of us will do what needs doing, and most of us would take that security as a way of empowering us to do more, without the fear of failure breathing down our neck...
It is also wrong to think we need everyone working, and it becomes more wrong to think that way by the day. Right now, 60-80% of us can do all the work we need done, the rest are just wasting time and resources. A byproduct of the obsolescence economy and the idea that if I gotta work so do they. In the years to come the amount of human labor needed to achieve the needs and wants of the whole human species could easily be provided by 10-20% of us, and quite literally the rest would be totally superfluous, and to force them to work would be a tragic waste of time and potential.
Wow, I couldn't disagree with this statement more if it was 8 feet tall, weighed 600 pounds, sprouted red flames, and chased my mom through a petroleum refinery at 2am in the morning. That said, it's well-reasoned and honest. I just see the endgame turning more dystopia than utopia.
Still, I wish that portion of our political elite who thought this way would admit it. Maybe they're starting to by characterizing work as just another "choice". A debate where both sides lie to each other about their true visions is kinda not so productive.
Well, I would say that progressives are rather clear on this, we want single payer, minimum incomes, free education, more science and infrastructure, basically we want Star Trek. That's the end game isn't it? To live free, and travel to the stars.
Thing is, you are not supposed to agree, that would collapse the dichotomy, and it is the dichotomy that makes life dynamic. Like the strong and weak forces, it is the tension that gives reality form. Where I think people get confused is thinking progressives are the Yin of this relationship, not so, we are the Yang, the aggressive and expansive side, our function is to push, pull and coerce civilization into the future. Conservatism is the Yin, their function is to put on the brakes, slow us down, so we don't step on our dick getting to the future. At least that's how it is supposed to work when we play our parts honestly and with reason.
People who can have this debate with each other, jgiffen and the rest of us ITT, are not enemies, we are partners, partners in building the future of civilization.
One more thing, minds do change, mine did. up to 7-8 years ago I was arguing from the Libertarian side, and it was through these arguments that my mind was changed. So the discussion can bare fruit.
Quote from: revgms on February 25, 2014, 08:19:53 AM
One more thing, minds do change, mine did. up to 7-8 years ago I was arguing from the Libertarian side, and it was through these arguments that my mind was changed. So the discussion can bare fruit.
Whoa, dude, are you, like, me from the future? If so, tell me this rash is gonna eventually clear up...
Liberalism can certainly make everything sound appealing and all kumbaya in theory. It's only when I see that actual humans are put in charge of enacting such high-minded aspirations that I go all Debby-Downer. Call me cynical but when I look into the crazy-bobblehead eyes of Nancy Pelosi or Kathleen Sebilius, I just don't get all warm and tingly. I start reaching for my mace and my wallet. (Full Disclosure - I distrust all politicians equally, so Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz would scare the shit outta me, too).
Still, I dig your style, man. More power to ya. Keep the folks on your side of the line honest.
IMHO...
(http://flyoverculturedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/monica-crowley-socialized-medicine.jpg)
They said the same thing about pooling grain resources and then using those resources to feed citizens when the crops failed. In Mesopotamia, 7,000 years ago, and look how that turned out. Today we just call civilization. ;)
Besides, we've had socialized healthcare since Ronny Ray Gun, with the Emergency Care and Labor ...er...something act. We just now have a way to pay for it, instead of paying $300 for a bag of salt water (IV) to cover those hidden costs.
Quote from: revgms on February 28, 2014, 06:53:55 AM
They said the same thing about pooling grain resources and then using those resources to feed citizens when the crops failed. In Mesopotamia, 7,000 years ago, and look how that turned out. Today we just call civilization. ;)
Besides, we've had socialized healthcare since Ronny Ray Gun, with the Emergency Care and Labor ...er...something act. We just now have a way to pay for it, instead of paying $300 for a bag of salt water (IV) to cover those hidden costs.
Public co-ops of commodities such as "grain resources and then using those resources to feed citizens when the crops failed" is in no way comparable to socialized or socialist medicine such as ObamaCare. For one thing, we don't have ANY lack of resources for health care and we are in no way facing a "crop failure" of health care in America.
Healthcare in the United States is the envy of the world; it's level of sophistication is unparallelled, it's available to anyone (no county in America is without a county hospital system, emergency health care responders, free clinics, healthcare education, strict public health laws, and other health related resources such as Paramedics/Firemen, and even Police who often aid in emergency health situations).
The United States maintains a vast reservoir of oil reserves in case of an emergency, but this is not a form of "socialized oil resources." That would be like saying public libraries in a community are "socialized reading" or public parks are "socialized baseball fields" or freeways are "socialized transportation."
ObamaCare is one GIANT MASSIVE leap backwards into a far lower level of public healthcare, and nothing more than an attempt to control society and force it towards a failed system of socialism/globalism. There was NO healthcare crisis in America; that nonsense and LIE was used by extreme liberals to con America into another step toward communism, nothing more.
(http://www.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Obamacare-Meme.jpg)
What's your real feelings DB? ;-)
As an outsider, all I remember hearing about health care in America is that if you didn't *quite* have the right health insurance, you end up losing everything when you get cancer, or whatever. Someone I know (a fairly successful songwriter who delivered many top 40 hits) had to pay over 10 grand for every child his wife gave birth to. As opposed to the (not perfect) health care here in Canada. Pay your $70 bucks a month, and you get to birth as many kids as you want, no charge. There are indeed costs not covered, particularly for specialty pharmaceuticals. But on the whole, I thought Canada's health care was what all other countries aspired to.
Am I wrong?
Quote from: Hominid on February 28, 2014, 08:17:20 PM
What's your real feelings DB? ;-)
As an outsider, all I remember hearing about health care in America is that if you didn't *quite* have the right health insurance, you end up losing everything when you get cancer, or whatever. Someone I know (a fairly successful songwriter who delivered many top 40 hits) had to pay over 10 grand for every child his wife gave birth to. As opposed to the (not perfect) health care here in Canada. Pay your $70 bucks a month, and you get to birth as many kids as you want, no charge. There are indeed costs not covered, particularly for specialty pharmaceuticals. But on the whole, I thought Canada's health care was what all other countries aspired to.
Am I wrong?
A quick answer would be that the $70 fee is inaccurate because you pay for healthcare through your taxes, so if you add your tax burden to the $70, that fee goes way up. AKA; there is no free lunch, someone is paying for it. And no $70 babies in reality.
...IMHO. 8)
...the point being, that we don't ever get hit with a ten grand bill for birthing a child. Or having a pancreas removed. Taxes aren't that high, so I don't get your point.
Quote from: Hominid on February 28, 2014, 09:06:36 PM
...the point being, that we don't ever get hit with a ten grand bill for birthing a child. Or having a pancreas removed. Taxes aren't that high, so I don't get your point.
I'm not that familure with Canada's tax or healthcare system, so I was only pointing out that perhaps the $70 was just the tip of the iceberg. Beyond that, it's just like my opinion, man. 8)
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on February 28, 2014, 03:09:37 AM
IMHO...
(http://flyoverculturedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/monica-crowley-socialized-medicine.jpg)
I'd hit it.
Quote from: jgiffin on March 01, 2014, 01:16:15 AM
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on February 28, 2014, 03:09:37 AM
IMHO...
(http://flyoverculturedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/monica-crowley-socialized-medicine.jpg)
I'd hit it.
Zesty coitus? 8)
We pay more money for worse outcomes, we do not, and have not had, the best healthcare in a long time. http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1)
THe ACA is tyhe conservative personal responsibility plan out of the Heritage Foundation, the by your own bootstraps plan did not come from us progressives, it came from the right. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/ (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/)
There is nothing unconstitutional about the ACA, individual mandates go back to the beginning of this nation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/26/george-washingtons-individual-mandates/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/26/george-washingtons-individual-mandates/)
When I lived in Scotland my medical costs were all covered by the national insurance payments that came out of my wage along with the state pension. I've had a few operations and require continual medication which were covered by the ni payments including dental. Now I'm in holland I pay medical insurance but have to pay for any drugs and dental treatment and private pension so for me I am worse off under a system like Americas. My point is that both systems work to a given norm but both systems can fail when considered per individual.
What is worse is the system we used to have, the ACA is far from perfect, from anyone's perspective, but no one claims what we had was better or even workable.
Yin and Yang mang, every good choice comes with bad mistakes. The fundamental choice of mistakes represented here are, one side is willing to make the mistake of paying too much to have a healthy populace, the other side is will to make the mistake of letting 40 million go uninsured thinking that will save tax dollars. The choice we all have to make is which mistake is unacceptable to us, paying too much, or not healing enough.
Bhudda, I once too dabbled in right wing neo-conservatism (especially in regards to nationalized healthcare), not in 'Nam of course. When I was in medical school, I thought socialized medicine was an abomination. Of course, I was a Christian then and not a Dudeist.
By any purely statistical measurement, countries with socialized medicine like Canada or Great Britain provide medical care with as good as or better outcomes than we do in the United States at much less cost. The costs are lower for the country as a whole (as percentage of GNP) as well as to the individual patient.
A lot of us docs on the frontline didn't watch our buddies die face down in the muck for CEO's of pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies to get paid $20 million dollar bonuses a year. Those rich fucks.... this whole fucking thing. The truth is that there is so much rigging the system and medicine has become dominated by players who want to make a profit instead of actually caring for sick folk. I admit patients every day that simply can't afford to see a doctor or pay for their medications.
The league by-laws for Medicare and other insurers make it impossible to give patients the care they need. They make that kraut Burkholtz look like the model of efficiency. Some days I think it would be much simpler if we had a one payer system that everyone was covered under. At least then I wouldn't have little old ladies who have to decide to pay for their medicine or keep their power on...
Having said that, the great fear that I have is that if we take away the obscene profit motive, will we continue to have the innovations in medicine that we do today? America is the primary driving force in medical innovation (although to be fair the European countries which are mostly socialized also are innovators) and it is fueled by the american dream of striking gold in them thar' hills and getting rich.
At some point somebodies got a strike a balance and tell the insurance companies, drug companies, for profit hospital chains, etc to just take it easy, man, and be happy with a good profit and not fuck a stranger in the ass.
Quote from: Karl_Hungus on March 01, 2014, 03:50:15 PM
At some point somebodies got a strike a balance and tell the insurance companies, drug companies, for profit hospital chains, etc to just take it easy, man, and be happy with a good profit and not fuck a stranger in the ass.
They've got a pill for that, and treatment is not covered by your insurance. :) :(
In the old days universities were the power houses of innovation, they did it for the grant and prize money.
The problem Karl points out is really a patent issue, sure you were the first, you get insane profits for 7 years, then into public domain. That one policy change would have huge repercussions, it would balance incentive with collective good.
Quote from: revgms on March 01, 2014, 10:39:28 AM
There is nothing unconstitutional about the ACA, individual mandates go back to the beginning of this nation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/26/george-washingtons-individual-mandates/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/26/george-washingtons-individual-mandates/)
The Ph level in my stomach remained relatively balanced until that last statement. It's flat out wrong and the fact the media sells it this way doesn't change anything. Let's revisit how ObamaCare became the "law of the land". I read the 270-odd page opinion and still can't get the odor of hellfire and brimstone out of my nostrils...
The bill that became ObamaCare (let's drop this ACA bullshit, shall we - liberals have been trying to own the language by changing it since long before Chomsky) did not pass the House of Representatives and the Senate proper. The two chambers could not get on the same page, even after exchanging numerous bills. After Kennedy died, Massachusetts held a special election to seat his successor. The most liberal state in the nation elected Scott Brown, a Republican, knowing he would be the 41st Senator opposed to ObamaCare, which would allow a successful filibuster.
That meant the Senate couldn't get a bill out, so the House passed a previous bill from the Senate with the understanding that (extensive and improper) changes would be made to it in a House/Senate conference. Reid then moved that bill through the Senate under the "reconciliation" process, which is not subject to filibuster for some arcane and doubtless convenient reason. However, reconciliation has historically only been utilized for budget-neutral matters (the Byrd Rule). Ironically, reconciliation was initiated in 1974 as a method to reduce spending and bring expenditures into line with the budget. We now know, and really knew at the time, the bill was the antithesis of "budget-neutral".
At that point, the White House was characterizing the individual mandate as a "penalty" not a "tax" and its proponents were claiming it would actually reduce spending. When the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare, however, it was only by characterizing the individual mandate as a "tax" and not as a "penalty". Fuck the contortionist semantics and backroom politics clearly evidenced by Roberts' shitstain of an opinion - We have a bill the public was told WAS NOT A TAX, passed through a process only appropriate for BUDGET NEUTRAL MATTERS, which the Supreme Court said was ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL AS A TAX, and is going to cost us more than $1.8 trillion (at last count) over the next ten years. Really? Seriously? And we're the ones promoting constitutional democracy around the world?
It also seems the law is just so fucking good no one wants shit to do with it. The White House has unilaterally granted over 1,400 Waivers from ObamaCare; primarily to Obama supporters and democratic groups. Congressional Staff - after months of bitching - eventually got stuck with ObamaCare but received a $7,000 subsidy. Of course, the rational question is why would anyone need a subsidy for the "Affordable" Care Act. I'm not even getting into the unilateral (i.e., unconstitutional) delays that Obama has implemented for purely political reasons.
The plane has flown into the fucking mountain, people. At this point, we should be altering flightpaths not debating whether it was properly a "mountain" or just a "steep hill".
Being from Massachusetts, we call it Romneycare, but that is beside the point. It comes down to your opinion against the supreme court's opinion.
That and constitutional law professor's opinions on the matter. http://www.fcan.org/Health_care/law_professors_ACA.pdf (http://www.fcan.org/Health_care/law_professors_ACA.pdf)
What I do not get is what is the other plan? Or are we to just accept that tens of millions of our fellow citizens are to suffer illness and poverty, because civilization has left them behind? What plan do you have to address this massive suffering?
And again, I want Star Trek, and there is absolutely universal healthcare in Star Trek, isn't that the goal, the end game for humanity? Our future is built from the mythologies we create today, we must choose wisely.
Then there is the AI problem, in a matter of a few decades we will be introduced to a superior being, that superior being will learn to love humanity from us, but if we can not even do that our selves, how then can we teach another being to love us? And would you really want the most power being in the known universe to think like a libertarian? Wouldn't it then just eliminate us as unnecessary competition for resources?
Personally, I don't see anything in the US Constitution permitting the Federal Government to establish and mandate a national health care system. Also, IMHO, the Tenth Amendment prohibits such a system at the federal level...
- Tenth Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Where does the US Constitution delegate power to the United States to establish a national mandatory health care law and system?
About the Tenth Amendment
The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified. - United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).
The founding fathers had good reason to pen the Tenth Amendment.
The issue of power, and especially the great potential for a power struggle between the federal and the state governments, was extremely important to the America's founders. They deeply distrusted government power, and their goal was to prevent the growth of the type of government that the British has exercised over the colonies.
Adoption of the Constitution of 1787 was opposed by a number of well-known patriots including Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others. They passionately argued that the Constitution would eventually lead to a strong, centralized state power which would destroy the individual liberty of the People. Many in this movement were given the poorly-named tag ?Anti-Federalists.
The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of 1787 largely because of the intellectual influence and personal persistence of the Anti-Federalists and their allies.
It's quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.
When states and local communities take the lead on policy, the people are that much closer to the policymakers, and policymakers are that much more accountable to the people. Few Americans have spoken with their president; many have spoken with their mayor.
Adherence to the Tenth Amendment is the first step towards ensuring liberty in the United States. Liberty through decentralization.
But are you a constitutional lawyer? Or Supreme Court justice? We voted, the lawyers spoke, and the Supreme Court tradified it, it is constitutional, those are the tests, it passed.
Speaking of democracy, 65 million of us voted for this vicariously through Obama, so what, our opinion and votes are shit? Because there is more than one philosophy out there?
I am absolutely of the not unpopular opinion that healthcare is 100% the responsibility of the state, same as security from terrorism and crime, it makes no sense to save citizens from bombs and not cancer. From that purchase, to veiw handing that power to private corporations, essentially handing them a captive consumer class smacks deeply of fascism. Giving control of people's lives and health over to corporate interests.
You may not trust government, but why would you put that trust in private individuals is beyond me. It would stand to reason that if you can not trust the elected state, how could you trust individuals with no accountability?
Quote from: revgms on March 02, 2014, 03:12:58 PM
But are you a constitutional lawyer? Or Supreme Court justice? We voted, the lawyers spoke, and the Supreme Court tradified it, it is constitutional, those are the tests, it passed.
8) No, I'm the Government.
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth." - Abraham Lincoln
Quote from: revgms on March 02, 2014, 03:12:58 PM
But are you a constitutional lawyer?
Actually, yes. But you needn't be. Anyone with a high school reading comprehension and some time on their hands can read the various opinions and see the mental gymnastics the justices employed to hobble together a majority opinion.
Remember, Dred Scott was once the law of the land, too. Who is defending that one now?
Quote from: jgiffin on March 02, 2014, 10:31:12 PM
Quote from: revgms on March 02, 2014, 03:12:58 PM
But are you a constitutional lawyer?
Actually, yes. But you needn't be. Anyone with a high school reading comprehension and some time on their hands can read the various opinions and see the mental gymnastics the justices employed to hobble together a majority opinion.
Remember, Dred Scott was once the law of the land, too. Who is defending that one now?
(http://www.jonathandoctor.net/images/facebook_like_button_big-small.jpg)
As far as I can tell, ObamaCare is illegal and wholly Unconstitutional, the Constitution in America being the supreme law of the land. Hence the reason several states have begun the process to ban it within their respective borders........
See -
http://medcitynews.com/2014/01/south-carolina-lawmakers-say-know-ban-obamacare/ (http://medcitynews.com/2014/01/south-carolina-lawmakers-say-know-ban-obamacare/)
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2013/12/29/obamacare-showdown-missouri-bill-to-gut-obamacare-ban-penalties-ban-healthcare-exchange-n1769439/page/full (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2013/12/29/obamacare-showdown-missouri-bill-to-gut-obamacare-ban-penalties-ban-healthcare-exchange-n1769439/page/full)
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on March 03, 2014, 04:39:36 AM
Quote from: jgiffin on March 02, 2014, 10:31:12 PM
Quote from: revgms on March 02, 2014, 03:12:58 PM
But are you a constitutional lawyer?
Actually, yes. But you needn't be. Anyone with a high school reading comprehension and some time on their hands can read the various opinions and see the mental gymnastics the justices employed to hobble together a majority opinion.
Remember, Dred Scott was once the law of the land, too. Who is defending that one now?
(http://www.jonathandoctor.net/images/facebook_like_button_big-small.jpg)
As far as I can tell, ObamaCare is illegal and wholly Unconstitutional, the Constitution in America being the supreme law of the land. Hence the reason several states have begun the process to ban it within their respective borders........
See -
http://medcitynews.com/2014/01/south-carolina-lawmakers-say-know-ban-obamacare/ (http://medcitynews.com/2014/01/south-carolina-lawmakers-say-know-ban-obamacare/)
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2013/12/29/obamacare-showdown-missouri-bill-to-gut-obamacare-ban-penalties-ban-healthcare-exchange-n1769439/page/full (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2013/12/29/obamacare-showdown-missouri-bill-to-gut-obamacare-ban-penalties-ban-healthcare-exchange-n1769439/page/full)
I thought that lost in the Supreme Court?
Quote from: BikerDude on March 03, 2014, 05:51:05 PM
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on March 03, 2014, 04:39:36 AM
Quote from: jgiffin on March 02, 2014, 10:31:12 PM
Quote from: revgms on March 02, 2014, 03:12:58 PM
But are you a constitutional lawyer?
Actually, yes. But you needn't be. Anyone with a high school reading comprehension and some time on their hands can read the various opinions and see the mental gymnastics the justices employed to hobble together a majority opinion.
Remember, Dred Scott was once the law of the land, too. Who is defending that one now?
(http://www.jonathandoctor.net/images/facebook_like_button_big-small.jpg)
As far as I can tell, ObamaCare is illegal and wholly Unconstitutional, the Constitution in America being the supreme law of the land. Hence the reason several states have begun the process to ban it within their respective borders........
See -
http://medcitynews.com/2014/01/south-carolina-lawmakers-say-know-ban-obamacare/ (http://medcitynews.com/2014/01/south-carolina-lawmakers-say-know-ban-obamacare/)
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2013/12/29/obamacare-showdown-missouri-bill-to-gut-obamacare-ban-penalties-ban-healthcare-exchange-n1769439/page/full (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2013/12/29/obamacare-showdown-missouri-bill-to-gut-obamacare-ban-penalties-ban-healthcare-exchange-n1769439/page/full)
I thought that lost in the Supreme Court?
Neither measure is ready for that level of judicial review yet. And while I dig their style, they're fighting a losing battle with the Feds. States rights have been essentially abrogated and neither national political party has an interest in seeing it revived. The only real possibility to pry power away from the national parties is a constitutional convention called by the states to propose amendments. Of course, the Feds either wouldn't recognize the amendment process or (more likely) would infiltrate and sabotage it from within. At least it would make their actions transparent, though.
Challenging a corrupt system by using the broken tools it provides is not likely to change anything. It's like Stalin said, follow the money...and, uh...well, you see what I mean. Until the government is required to use force to implement its statist and proto-fascistic mandates, nothing changes. Which basically means we have to take it until we don't.
Oh, hell, dudes, I'm way too stressed. Fucking employment. Time for some intoxicating beverages. Later.