Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20365836 en Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:45:29 EDT Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:45:29 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20391421 amigo_boy :
said by Sarugaku :

The 10th amendment made it very clear that the Fed Constitution and, thus, the Fed Government had no power to force a State to stay in the "Union" because the Constitution didn't prohibit the secesion of any State.
Sorry. I thought you were defending the absolute use of "states' rights" even though states didn't have the right to withdraw from the union.

I'm glad to get it out in the open that you believe "states' rights" mean states have the right to withdraw from the union. It places you within within the irrelevant fringe. It proves my point about how high-sounding rhetoric wouldn't have the desired effect on people if some definition were put behind it. Either it literally means what the utterer means (which few would agree with). Or, it means something less, and then it's just a legitimate difference of opinion concerning the role of government (not high-sounding rhetoric).

said by Sarugaku :

The Civil war was ruled by the Superem Court to be unconstitutional twice. Must have been a reason.
Reference please.

said by Sarugaku :

Just as the Superem Court has ruled 92 times that the Second Amendment is an individual right
You have a real tendency to overstate the facts. The Supreme Court has frequently indicated in dicta that the right to arms is an individual right (with a collective purpose). It did that in the process of ruling on other (related) issues, such as whether the Bill of Rights applied to State infringement. And *not* 92 times.

It has never "ruled" it's an individual right. Which is why district courts created near-unanimous precedent during the '70s and '80s that it's not an individual right.

said by Sarugaku :

There are exceptions. Such as .. common bank regulation.
Where does the Constitution grant a power over banking?

said by Sarugaku :

the USSR would bury us, but that socialism would.
We're so far beyond using the "socialism" word to get a knee-jerk reaction. Our system has always been "socialist capitalism" as evidenced by society moderating otherwise free markets (such as creating corporate entities by state legislatures, banking regulations, the SEC, building and zoning laws, food and drug quality standards, etc.).

At the time this country was founded it was customary for towns to vote whether to allow a newcomer to buy property. Talk about "socialist!" Imagine it. The needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. It's an outrage! :) Or, maybe it's just a rational explanation for how everything that's happened since the Founding has followed the same communitarian principle of the Founders.

It was also customary for towns to "warn out" newcomers lest the town be responsible for them if they became indigent (which means towns had coercive "welfare").

Balanced people just don't get all tingly about these buzz words (which lack definition).

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20391421 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:54:54 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20391342 amigo_boy :
said by Sarugaku :

IBM produces profit. The government produces debt.
Sorry, I misunderstood the point you made in the post I replied to. However, I think it's a non sequitur to compare government to business. US securities have traditionally been considered the safest investment due to the low chance that the government won't honor its debt.

"Safest" is obviously in the eye of the beholder. It's obviously relative to perceived benefits (such as not having to transport and store gold bullion, or the way precious metals can be manipulated.).

I agree that "safety" changes with circumstances. With the current government debt levels, government-backed securities are perceived as less safe (resulting in money flowing out of the country, less demand for dollars, and contributing to the fall of the dollar's value). On the other hand, at the same time that was happening, investors in stocks and corporate/municipal bonds fled to government-backed securities because they were viewed as safer.

Therefore, I don't believe it's correct to paint government-backed securities with the wide brush that you apparently did when you referred to them as an illegitimate investment.

said by Sarugaku :

Still the funding will not be sufficient to fund Social Security past a future date which changes from year to year due to economic fluctuations.
I agree. Earlier I said that I believe a better job can (and should) be done. But, you're just plain wrong to call Social Security a "pyramid or Ponzi scheme." By definition that's an *investment,* not insurance. By your definition all insurance companies would be "Ponzi schemes" because they rely upon continued premiums to pay claims. If all but five members of Allstate dropped out, would it be a "Ponzi scheme?"

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20391342 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:26:40 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20390260 anon : What do you mean "we"? I can't and won't argue with the dogma taught in today's schools. The 10th amendment made it very clear that the Fed Constitution and, thus, the Fed Government had no power to force a State to stay in the "Union" because the Constitution didn't prohibit the secesion of any State. "Common good" had nothing to do with any state leaving the "Union". The Constitution was written to protect the common rights of first the Citizen and then the States. You suggest that the Fed was set-up to rule the nation. The fed has become quite despotic. I agree. ;)

The Civil war was ruled by the Superem Court to be unconstitutional twice. Must have been a reason. It's order was ignored by Lincoln and not enforced. Just as the Superem Court has ruled 92 times that the Second Amendment is an individual right I'm not going to give you the case numbers. Educate yourself like I did. Look it up.

When I said "a modern example" in regards to Switzerland, I meant it's the only country in the world that follows US Constitutional law. The government wants to do something. Anything. The people vote on it. If they vote it down guess what? It doesn't happen. Same thing with the states in Switzerland. In other words the citizens are the power in Switzerland. The citizens tell their states what to do. The states tell their federal government what to do. Works out the way it should. You obviously didn't learn anything about the Swiss government. There are exceptions. Such as declaring war or defending against war. Keeping a military for common policing and defense. Creating a common currency. International commerce (tariffs) and common bank regulation. Not to be construed as creating a national bank to control the economy. Just to set limits on how a bank deals with its customers. There are more exceptions but they very limited in their scope and subject to exclusion by the citizenry.

There was a guy named Himmler (I think). He was the Propaganda Minister under Hitler. He said, "If you tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth.". Of course the best lies have a certain amount of truth in them.

There was another guy named Kruschev. He was the Premier of the USSR. He said, "We will bury you.". I watched him say it. What he meant was, not that the USSR would bury us, but that socialism would.

Draw your own conclusions.

I could respond to more of this but I want to talk about the Federal Naval Oil Reserve in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. It's estimated at 1.5 to 3.0 TRILLION barrels of oil. That's a lot of oil. This is not an appropriate site. It's about free DSL (why not). Not about social medicine or the sad state of our government and the society it is in contol of.

Have a nice day. :)

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20390260 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:39:16 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20390128 anon : IBM produces profit. The government produces debt. Without profit interest cannot payed to "investors". The interest has to come from somewhere. The government is funded by taxes, most from the income tax. You pay taxes. Your money pays the interest on these bonds. What's so hard to understand that?

When Social Security came into law, the average citizen lived to 56 years of age and died before he or she could collect. The government banked on an ever larger population and tax base to support Social Security outlays.

US citizens now live to 76 years and Social Security outlays have increased proportionately to cover the longer lives and of course, inflation. The population and the tax payer base has not kept up with Social Security outlays. The FICA tax was increased to account for this. Still the funding will not be sufficient to fund Social Security past a future date which changes from year to year due to economic fluctuations. The current recession and shrinking tax base has curtailed Social Security funding. In other words the system is not only imperfect but by it's very nature collapsing due to the higher outlays and loss of funding by taxpayers. That's a Pyramid or Ponzi scheme. What's so hard to understand about that?

Sarugaku

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20390128 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 06:56:55 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20388703 crapmac :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by knightmb See Profile :

often throwing in the word socialist or likening it to Russia or China?
IMO, this is just a ploy to stop all discussion. There are certain things we've been raised to reflexively oppose. Invoking those words is just a way to get people back into (unthinking) conformity.

"Socialist? I don't want to be that!"

And then we proceed with the status quo.... as our medical choices are limited by social regulation (creating non-free market standards). Or, the Federal Reserve bails out Wall St. banks (just 2-3 years after employees of those banks were receiving bonuses equal to their annual salaries). Or, home builders are allowed to write off current losses using taxes paid up to 5 years ago.

We have socialized capitalism. Those who invoke the reflex words the most ("socialist," "communist") don't want to delve into that topic.

Mark
we've been scared of doing anything, for fear that we will have further problems then have been created already (the war, the recession, the housing crisis, the poverty crisis, the ignore-the-homeless-and-they-will-go-away crisis... if we don't pay attention to the homeless... eventually, they WILL go away... :uhh:).

We need to do something different; not reject everything that is trying to be done. Mr. Bush has done things, even though we didn't necessarily want him to... we just have to elect leaders that will do things that will push the country in the direction that will help the people of the U.S.A., instead of harming them. I think that national healthcare would be a grand idea; sure, it might be rocky for the first 5 years, but then we just follow Canada - allow private healthcare - at least until everything is straightened out, and the health care approval rating (they should create one) is above, say, 85%.

Anything can be done successfully; you just have to take precautions first to make sure you don't mess the thing up before all of the bugs are worked out. I'd love national healthcare, free nationwide wireless internet, inexpensive broadband internet, that is fast too... I'd love all of these things. We just have to set it up right, and work out the bugs QUICKLY, before everyone gives up and the system caves-in.

i'm making sense to some, aren't I?
--
Out with the old, in with the Antique! :)
***********
"Hey, have you heard the song... 'Bomb Iran?' *bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Ir...* n - never mind..." - John McCain]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20388703 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:33:12 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20386155 amigo_boy :
said by Sarugaku :

I already said Treasuries are a good investment for foreign governments. They are not for you though. Unless you like to pay interest on loans you make to others. An example: You loan someone $20.00 at 10% interest. That's $2.00 in interest when the loan is paid back. Over the time of the loan, say a couple of days, you GIVE that person $2.00. He then pays you back $22.00 on payday. Did you make anything on the loan?
I don't understand what you're saying. Treasury securities are good investments for Americans. Many American investors purchase bonds, notes and bills. (More wish they had after being burned recently by auction rate securities.). They are a large part of money market funds, which even more Americans benefit from.

If you're saying they aren't good investments because an American buys one, and also pays taxes to the government they've essentially loaned money to, that's ridiculous. This would be like saying that employees of IBM didn't invest in IBM bonds simply because they expend energy at IBM.

said by Sarugaku :

I'm not demeaning Social Security. It's supposed to be self-funding though.
I agree. But, that doesn't make it a "Ponzi scheme." And, calling things that aren't is demeaning.

Social Security is insurance. What makes it challenging compared to typical insurance is that claims are expected to be paid at a vastly different time, when the number of people paying premiums may be less. For home and auto, an insurance industry can maintain almost real-time actuarial tables (members and claims). It's not that easy with retirement insurance. When the folks retiring today were halfway through their premium-payments (their adult working life) the data was not yet available that there would be fewer premium payers when current retirees begin filing claims (because the birthrate has falling off).

I think SSA can (and should) do better. But, it will never be perfect due its nature.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20386155 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:55:50 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20386019 amigo_boy :
said by Sarugaku :

Mark! You are twisting. Most of the Signers wouldn't have signed if the Federal Constitution had it prohibited withdrawal from the Federation.
I doubt you have a reference for that claim. But, for the purpose of proving my point: so-called States' Rights aren't absolute. We know they didn't have the right to withdraw from the union at the time of the Civil War. According to your assertion, they didn't have it at the time the constitution was ratified.

They had that right (and many more) under the much looser Articles of Confederation. The most important guarantee of their rights was the absence of any ability to enforce an individual state's compliance to the Articles. Society willingly exchanged that utopia (from a states' rights perspective) for greater security, stability and efficiency.

Therefore it's absurd to dismiss more-balanced socialized medicine (than we have today) with slogans about "states' rights." This country's entire history has been away from state's rights (in the absolute sense).

said by Sarugaku :

The Federal Government was supposed to have limited power over the "State's Powers" of self governance. It's basic power over the states was to mediate between states when they disagreed.
Which means the states subjugated their rights to the Federal Government. Their rights weren't absolute. Since then we've simply followed the trend which was set by the willful abandonment of the Articles of Confederation for federalism.

I'm not saying states have no rights. Just that their rights aren't absolute, and this has been a long-running trend because the people like it. They liked it when they abandoned soveriegnty under the Articles of Confederation. They liked it when the Feds regulated banking and stock markets. They liked it when Senators were elected by the people (instead of appointed by state legislators in the early 1900s).

Just saying "that would be opposed to states' rights" doesn't mean a lot without describing how it would, and how it's different from everything else for the past 230 years.

said by Sarugaku :

The Federal Constitution may seem incomplete and vague but it was written with a short time table. The ten original amendments were added and Federalist Papers were written in an attempt to clarify the vagueness of the quickly written document.
That's interesting. You're saying the BoR made things clearer. But, those who supported the proposed federal government opposed the addition of a Bill of Rights because they felt it would add vagueness. Their reasoning: the Constitution was a grant of power. If something isn't enumerated, there's no power over it. Opponents saw broad enumerations in many clauses like interstate commerce and "general welfare" (and militia and standing army).

It's difficult to ascribe a motive to everyone because both sides made heavy use of hyperbole. They ascribed positions to their opponents that they didn't have. Causing each side to argue against positions they didn't hold, and responding in ways to win public opinion was was built upon hyperbole. A very strong argument exists that the Bill of Rights was nothing more than a sop offered to opponents in order to win ratification.

In such an environment (hyperbole and sops), it's impossible to make sweepingly absolute pronouncements like "The founders believed..." or "states' rights are...".

said by Sarugaku :

To say a Republican form of government is vague is silly. The model ran the Roman Empire quite well for the first 500 years.
Like everything else you've said, it depends greatly upon the definition of "republican form of government." Civic Republicanism is much more than three branches of government. It's a system of empowered citizen/farmers, self-sufficient, capable of withdrawing to their own lands, and therefore not dependent upon the government.

A virtuous citizenry, and virtuous government, each created by the other. In theory it is closely related to communism due to the emphasis on the virtue of forsaking individual interests for public interests (even when an individual believes the public is wrong). A contradiction that by sacrificing private interests for public good it fostered virtue and the continuation of the system that recognized and preserved private interests.

Such a system rarely existed. And, it depended heavily upon upon never-ending frontiers. For individuals to not be dependent upon government, there had to be the ability to withdraw to new territories. For citizen/farmers to exist with enough resources to be self-sufficient, there was a constant requirement for more property.

But, like everything else within your slogan-based arguments, I suspect you don't mean *that* republican government.

That was my point. "Ensure a republican form of government" could mean many things. We know they intended the civic virtue of republicanism because they expected militia service to be universal and compulsive (having its origins in civic republicanism). We also know that they immediately abandoned that goal. A universal, compulsory militia never existed except on paper.

So, from day-one which "republican form of government" did they mean? Or, more likely, was the founding rhetoric mostly hyperbolic and sop-laden?

I'm not saying "republican form of government" has no meaning. Just not the absolute meaning that slogan-tossers like yourself want everyone to believe.

said by Sarugaku :

To see a modern example of how our Constitutionally Limited Republic is supposed to work,
Again, to my point. A "modern example" implies evolution and adaption to changing times. It's just your opinion that the Swiss have the better modern adaption. Using "states' rights" or "civic republicanism" as absolute terms doesn't prove anything because the Swiss model hasn't adhered to an absolute standard. Just more than ours.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20386019 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:34:06 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20384856 anon : Let me ask you this... Why does the Congress have to borrow money every month to pay out Social Security checks?

Mark. Don't be silly. I don't hate the government. I think it's just like you. Wrong. I already said Treasuries are a good investment for foreign governments. They are not for you though. Unless you like to pay interest on loans you make to others. An example: You loan someone $20.00 at 10% interest. That's $2.00 in interest when the loan is paid back. Over the time of the loan, say a couple of days, you GIVE that person $2.00. He then pays you back $22.00 on payday. Did you make anything on the loan?

I'm not demeaning Social Security. It's supposed to be self-funding though.

Before 1971, the year Nixon collected the Silver Treasury Notes and put the country on Federal Script, Treasury Bonds could have been considered a safe way to speculate money. I used to buy them and then sell when the interest went up to a decent amount. Bond interest was low most of the time but two or three time a year would spike up. I have collected as high as 6.8% on bonds I bought. That was great in the 60s and 70s. But now with massive inflation at home and deflation of the script dollar you'd have to make 40% or 50% on a short term bond buy. Never happen Sonny.

By the way. A government typically issues script when it no longer has money. In other words it is bankrupt. Many cities and and some states issued script during The Great Depression because of lack of real money. When the depression ended and the cities and states were funded again, the script was bought back at face value. Merchants typically trade for 75% to 50% of the face value of the script and made allot of tax free money when The Great Depression ended. The value of script is set by Government Fiat. What ever the issuing government says it's worth is it's value. This works alright for a temporary period. And it does as long as the issuing government returns to solvency. Ours never did and the international money markets took over valuation of the script dollar because instead of limiting importation of the script dollar and trading in gold, silver and/or trade goods, the United States debt was paid in script dollars and/or Treasuries. Soon the script dollar was everywhere. That was OK though because the GDP was of high value and the script dollar maintained a high value. Now the script dollar (the Green Back) is everywhere in the world in massive quantities and since the US runs a one million dollar per minute trade deficit, it value is dropping like a anvil.

Oh yeah. John Adams, a lawyer and our second president invented the Green Back. But that's a whole 'nother story.

Mark. You education is too narrow.

Sarugaku ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20384856 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:35:17 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20384557 anon : Mark! You are twisting. Most of the Signers wouldn't have signed if the Federal Constitution had it prohibited withdrawal from the Federation.

Are you listening to yourself? The Federal Constitution was written and signed in order to abandon the Artcles of Confederation (and perpetual union). Perpetual union would have prohibited withdrawal. The Federal Government was supposed to have limited power over the "State's Powers" of self governance. It's basic power over the states was to mediate between states when they disagreed. An example is how Michigan acquired it's upper peninsula. Through a border dispute with Ohio, a subsequent invasion of Ohio and occupation of Toledo. The State of Michigan did not have to accept this and could have kept bargaining or even left the table. This was part of "Intersate Commerce". The other part being the power the collect tariffs on trade between the States in order to support a central military, international affairs other things that were considered by the States to be of common interest to them as a majority.

I have talked to people like you for decades who have been taught in modern colleges. You people remind me of the televangalists who take a few sentences from different parts of the Bible and make up a whole new story to fit an agenda. You are ernest in your belief but wrong.

The Federal Constitution may seem incomplete and vague but it was written with a short time table. The ten original amendments were added and Federalist Papers were written in an attempt to clarify the vagueness of the quickly written document.

To say a Republican form of government is vague is silly. The model ran the Roman Empire quite well for the first 500 years.

To see a modern example of how our Constitutionally Limited Republic is supposed to work, I suggest you take a look at how the Swiss govern their country. Their Constitution is our Constitution and it works quite well there.

Sarugaku]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20384557 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:34:35 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20379419 amigo_boy :
said by Sarugaku :

The 10th amendment did give States the right to withdraw from the Union because the Constitution did not prohibit it.
That's the problem with those claiming to know what the Constitution means. It's so vague (and in cases like the 10th amendment, defined by omission) that it's just not as simple as they would like others to believe.

For example, a case could be made that Art. IV, Sect. 4 is an irrevocable commitment to remain in the union. By withdrawing, a state would deny the Federal government of its constitutional responsibility. It would guarantee that the state *didn't* have a republican form of government. (But, the definition of "republican form of government" is left to tremendous interpretation.).

Finally, if states' rights were as paramount as some want us to believe, the Founders wouldn't have abandoned the Articles of Confederation (and Perpetual Union) after just 10 years, replacing it with the Federal Constitution in 1787 creating federal powers over states that didn't exist.

From a "states' rights" perspective, the states had a perfect environment between 1777 and 1787. No President. No [enforceable] obligation to other states. They exchanged this for a constitution filled with gigantic loopholes like "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" (and "provide for a republican form of government").

You'll defend that by saying "they had to get rid of the Articles because it was proving ineffective." But, that's the entire point. States' rights were ineffective. States traded their rights for security. The security they received was left extremely open-ended by a vague constitution. For the past 230 years we've continued along the path which the states began: moving away from states' rights toward increased (and more effective) federal power.

There's little reason for those on the losing side of our current form of socialized medicine (where society artificially limits the market to higher-quality products and services than a truly "free" market would produce, thus eliminating products and services from low-income citizens) should forsake their interests to pursue "states' rights" which even the states proved were subject to sacrifice in the interest of pragmatism.

said by Sarugaku :

The real problem is the "interpretation" of the Federal Constitution. It was meant to be taken literally, not twisted to fit a governmental agenda.
It seems to me that the ones doing the twisting are the ones who claim it can be taken literally, or out of context.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20379419 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:14:21 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20379258 amigo_boy :
said by Sarugaku :

Social Security is not insurance or an investment. It is a pension
Social Security contributions are collected through FICA (Federal Insurance Contribution Act).

Pensions are often funded by annuities, traditionally offered by insurance companies. Both insurance and annuities have one thing in common: minimize maximum drawdown at the expense (elimination) of gain.

Therefore it's self-serving to compare Social Security to investments like a mutual fund, and announce the breath-taking non sequitur that Social Security didn't return as much as the mutual fund. That would be like complaining that your auto or homeowner's insurance didn't return a profit. Or, that an annuity (pension) didn't.

There may be reasons to reform how we handle retirement security. But, overstating the case doesn't help.

said by Sarugaku :

It is a failing Ponzy Scheme (a six year Federal offense)
You're mixing metaphors again. Ponzi schemes apply to investments, not insurance. They promise returns which can only occur if more investors invest. By your definition all insurance companies would be considered Ponzi schemes because they rely upon the premiums of all participants to pay claims which arise.

Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme because it isn't an investment and doesn't promise a return/gain on investment. Like an insurance company, it can actuarially predict the claims it will be required to pay. And, like an insurance company it may set its premiums too low to pay expected claims. But, that doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme.

said by Sarugaku :

A dollar goes into the SS fund and is immediately replaced by a Fed bond (investment) by Congress.
I think we need to make clear that you just don't like the American government. Nothing the government does would be good enough for you. This understanding will help others who may be reading.

If the SSA didn't invest excess capital you'd complain that they are acting fiducially irresponsible. If they invested in riskier vehicles (for higher return) you'd complain. I mean, you're just going to complain.

So, it's good to get that out in the open so readers aren't confused.

For the average person (who isn't filled with hate for their government), Treasuries (bonds, notes, bills) have been traditionally considered the safest investments in the world. American investors purchase them all the time. Especially in times of uncertainty like these ("flight to safety").

It's extremely responsible for the Social Security Administration to place excess revenue in these investments. But, people who listen to talk radio too much denigrate it as "the government wrote an IOU to social security." What they don't mention is that government writes IOUs to *everyone* who invests in Treasuries. That's what an investment is.

If those people (and countries) who seek the greatest safety invest in Treasuries, why is it necessary to demean the Social Security Administration for doing the same thing?

The irony is that opponents to Social Security use the prospect of higher returns to promote private retirement savings accounts (self-directed investing in riskier vehicles). And, in the same breath they bash Social Security for investing in Treasuries (as if it's too risky as just "an IOU".).

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20379258 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:37:49 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20378674 anon : I agree, many of the Founders were slave owners. Most were. After the Revolution most all were in great debt. Many wanted to free their slaves but preceding laws would have made it illegal to release what was by preceding law considered an asset without first paying paying off their debt. The preceding law had not been judged by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional so was still in force. It was quite frustrating to them. I'm sure.

The 10th amendment did give States the right to withdraw from the Union because the Constitution did not prohibit it. That was what the Civil War was about and why the Supreme Court twice ordered Lincoln to cease and desist from the war. The orders was not enforced and history is now the judge.

The Southern Slaveholders were in the prosess of "freeing" their slaves and turning them into "share croppers". It was a trend, a monetary move, which allowed greater profits to the former slave owners. The former slaves had no education and tended to stay on the land "given" to them. The slave's situation worsened because they were still treated as slaves but the owners no longer has to care for them. The Civil War and later during the war, the passing of the 13th amendment just speeded up the process in the South. Nothing really changed except the time table of the increase in the gross maltreatment of the black man in the conversion from slave to share cropper.

The real problem is the "interpretation" of the Federal Constitution. It was meant to be taken literally, not twisted to fit a governmental agenda.

The Democrats and Republicans have been in power for 148 years. Over that time the true meaning of the Federal Constitution has been sorely perverted.

People are tricked into voting for "change". They vote for the "lesser of two evils". Democrats or Republicans changing from one "evil" to another. Nobody seems to remember that over the years the lesser adds up to a whole lot.

It's the nature of the beast to increase it's lot. That's what the Federal Constitution was meant to stop. Voting is not easy. A lot of research is needed to perform that duty. Unforutately people are inherently lazy and let it slip away. Like water through their fingers. It's a shame. None can complain about what's happened or what's going to happen. It's their fault ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20378674 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:36:55 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20378415 anon : Social Security is not insurance or an investment. It is a pension from your US Fed Gov, INC. It is a TAX that is used by the Fed as a source of funding for it's bad governing of the people of the US. It is a failing Ponzy Scheme (a six year Federal offense) started when the average citizen died at the age of 56 and never saw a penny from the "insurance".

A dollar goes into the SS fund and is immediately replaced by a Fed bond (investment) by Congress. Congress then "Kites" (borrowing to pay a debt, a six year Federal offense) the debt to pay Social Security every month. It's not called CON-gress for nothing.

My question: What does the Fed produce beside debt? Close your eyes.

So who pays the interest on these government (investment) bonds? For countries like China they are great deals. US taxpayers pay the interest. Bad deal for you though. You give your money to the Fed to use as it sees fit and pay the interest yourself on the money you "loaned" to it. Bad investment? Think about it. :huh:?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20378415 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:22:00 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20378308 anon : Oh yeh, I like Ron Paul too. He's talked about the bad currecy forced on us almost as long as I have.

I went green yesterday. I ordered a LaserMax Uni-Green laser for my favorite hand gun.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20378308 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:45:32 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20378294 anon : Tzale, your talking reform means the Fed reforming the system? Here's how that always works: The Fed takes it's current piece of dog poop system and reforms it into a donkey or elephant. The Fed then paints it red, white and blue and says it's the new, improved and "latest and greatest" cure all for what's ailing you. But what is it really? Just the same old piece of dog poop. Only worse.

The only way to fix the med system in the US is to go back to the free market system of the 1950s. In other words change it. Dump the current system and install the older system. Competition would then bring the costs down and improve services. Maybe then doctors would quit treating symptoms and start curing our ills and conditions.

By the way, I've been a Libertarian since 1971 when Nixon stole our money and conned the people into using the Fed Script we now have to use. I like Bob Barr and will vote for him (I have never voted for a Democrat or Republican) if he's nominated by the party. :)

Hey!... What ever happened to the Bird (chicken) Flu? Ha! Ha! :p]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20378294 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:33:01 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20377726 amigo_boy :
said by Tzale See Profile :

No, not due to the 14th amendment.. That just "clarified" it for some knuckleheads who didn't think the rest of the Constitution applied to blacks..
A few points:

1. Many of the framers of the Constitution had slaves.

2. There would have been no reason to amend the Constitution (with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments) if everyone knew it prohibited slavery for the prior 75 years.

3. The Constitution itself contained:

Art. I, Sect. 2 expressly denied full representation to non-free persons (bound to service).

Art. I, Sect. 9 expressly permitted the migration and importation of slaves.

Art. IV, Sect. 2 required the return of runaway slaves.

Art. V, Reinforced the slavery clause of Art. I, Sect. 9.


The only way you can say the Constitution prohibited slavery is that its founders and ratifiers didn't understand what the Constitution really meant (that it conflicted other topics concerning equality of men). But, anyone could justify anything with that reasoning.

Which gets back to my point. Placed in context (such as states not having the right to withdraw from the union), when you invoke these emotion-evoking terms as if it proves purity or dedication to absolute principles, you're not being very honest. By your own argument you admit states' rights are not absolute, and changes according to circumstance.

The same thing with your use of the term "socliaism." You use it like it's definitive -- and then say you're ok with some socialism (like society setting standards for medical products and services which take away options from some, for the benefit of the majority).

There may be reasons to keep some governing functions local, or to set medical standards. But, tossing around terms as if there mere utterance should be reason enough does not honestly address the issues.

said by Tzale See Profile :

It isn't exactly "oppressive" Government in the traditional sense, but it is BURDENING ME and other taxpayers who don't want to pay for a welfare state.
Now for the rest of the question twice asked: If it's a "burden" to pay for the health care of other Americans, what is it when other Americans prohibit lessor products and services, causing their fellows to go without because they can't afford the resulting price of high-quality products and services which wouldn't exist (exclusively) in an unsocialized market?

Why is it ok for society to engage in one burden, but not the other? Do you think you might be engaging in the very human nature of "don't gore my ox?"

said by Tzale See Profile :

I personally don't care if socialized medicine occurs at the state level...
We already have socialized medicine. What do you think is creating a market of artificially high standards, eliminating willing buyers and sellers for lower-quality (affordable) products and services?

Also, historically, such wrongs (inequities) have been corrected at the federal level. Remember how slavery was brought to an end? (One of many examples of states' rights not always working as intended.).

said by Tzale See Profile :

I believe the Federal Government should stick to providing the very basics and follow the Constitution to the best of its ability..
A lot of people think Federal government does, and that universal health care would fit into the Federal charter of "basics." That's certainly hard to argue against when we consider everything else the central government is involved in, and a vast majority *like*.

You'll say universal health care will be one more wrong. But, as I said before, I'm sure you're not so agitated over the SEC, banking regulations, social creation of corporate entities (fiat "persons," without which there would be no stock market), or food and drug quality laws.

I really think most people who invoke terms like "less government," "welfare," "socialist" and "states rights" are really just opposed to a few topics that may gore their ox. For those things they benefit from, they become strangely silent.

So, why should someone deprived access to health care (due to social moderation of the medical marketplace, creating artificially high standards, and consequently high prices) take your position seriously when you're suckling at the teet (while tossing high-minded terms to make others feel guilty)?

To be consistent you could say you oppose all those other federal goodies. But, then you'd be within the realm of the irrelevant fringe. Everyone knows all those things aren't going away *because they're popular*. Which leads back to the question of why those on the losing end of the present state of socialized medicine should continue to be on the losing end (apparently just to pursue your one-sided principle)?

Earlier you made a point that you're not a libertarian, but a libertarian-leaning Conservative. Not to offend you, but I have respect for libertarians because they're at least consistent. I don't agree with them. But, at least they follow their principles to their natural conclusions (or, stop being libertarian).

Ron Paul followers seem to be the worst of both worlds. They use the principled rhetoric to make it sound like they're "pure." And then proceed to explain how they're ok with [fill in the impurity]. It's always struck me as self-serving.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20377726 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:55:11 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20377411 Tzale :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by Tzale See Profile :

your argument about states not having the right to enslave their populations is completely bogus... Slavery is AGAINST the Constitution,
Only due to the 14th Amendment, which occurred after slave states were denied the right to withdraw from the union. My point being: so-called "states's rights" aren't absolute. I'm sure you derive tremendous benefit from federalism. Food and drug quality laws, the SEC, banking regulation. You'll probably work for a corporation which wouldn't exist without society's creation of corporate entities (not to mention maintaining stock markets by federal oversight). I'm sure you buy things from those same corporations.

It's simply self-serving to toss around terms like "states' rights" (or "socialism") as if they are absolute, or define absolute principles against others. There are so many qualifications to those terms as to make them entirely redefined by those who use them the most.

said by Tzale See Profile :

States should have the right to make pretty much 95% of the laws that govern their people. There should only be a handful of Federal laws.
If that's your belief system, that's fine. But, you should frame your positions against [increased socialized healthcare, or whatever] within that context. It's beneficial for people (who might get all tingly by your use of absolutist terms) to know what your belief system entails: getting rid of a huge number of things a vast majority of people like. I.e., your argument against healthcare may be as irrelevant as the larger belief system driving it. The use of emotionally appealing, absolute terms may just be a way to avoid that reality.

BTW: I missed your response to this:

said by amigo_boy See Profile :

IMO, using social legislation to deny the existence of lower-quality (and -priced) products and services to millions of Americans is no different than using social legislation to limit availability of higher-quality products and services (causing some Americans who can afford it to go without).

It seems you believe the latter would be "oppressive government." Not the former. Can you explain why?
Did you have a response? Or, is it just ok as long as a State does it?

Mark
No, not due to the 14th amendment.. That just "clarified" it for some knuckleheads who didn't think the rest of the Constitution applied to blacks.. The Constitution protects ALL Americans, even without the 14th amendment. The Constitution requires some interpretation, and I think it is clear that slavery is AGAINST the Constitution even without the 14th amendment to clearly lay that out.

It isn't exactly "oppressive" Government in the traditional sense, but it is BURDENING ME and other taxpayers who don't want to pay for a welfare state. That is what I mean by "oppressive." I personally don't care if socialized medicine occurs at the state level... I'm sure that NJ would probably be one of the first to have such a program put into place considering our liberal population here. Does that mean I agree with it? NO... But I'd much rather see it be put into place at the state level so then I have the opportunity to move to another state that doesn't burden me to pay for a welfare system that I don't support.

Let me clarify my views one more time. I believe the Federal Government should stick to providing the very basics and follow the Constitution to the best of its ability.. The individual states should be able to decide what they want so that their individual populations can "enjoy" the freedoms given to them by this great nation. In many countries, what occurs at the national level is the rule for ALL states.. That is the beauty of this country (in theory).... We have 50 different states all agreeing to be in union with each other. Our founding father's didn't want there to be 1 nation full of people under the rule of one king... So they allowed states to have rights, and created a very elegant federal system that was designed to be weak but effective. It seems lately that the Feds are now the "stronger" ones...

-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20377411 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:26:50 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20376440 amigo_boy :
said by Tzale See Profile :

your argument about states not having the right to enslave their populations is completely bogus... Slavery is AGAINST the Constitution,
Only due to the 14th Amendment, which occurred after slave states were denied the right to withdraw from the union. My point being: so-called "states's rights" aren't absolute. I'm sure you derive tremendous benefit from federalism. Food and drug quality laws, the SEC, banking regulation. You'll probably work for a corporation which wouldn't exist without society's creation of corporate entities (not to mention maintaining stock markets by federal oversight). I'm sure you buy things from those same corporations.

It's simply self-serving to toss around terms like "states' rights" (or "socialism") as if they are absolute, or define absolute principles against others. There are so many qualifications to those terms as to make them entirely redefined by those who use them the most.

said by Tzale See Profile :

States should have the right to make pretty much 95% of the laws that govern their people. There should only be a handful of Federal laws.
If that's your belief system, that's fine. But, you should frame your positions against [increased socialized healthcare, or whatever] within that context. It's beneficial for people (who might get all tingly by your use of absolutist terms) to know what your belief system entails: getting rid of a huge number of things a vast majority of people like. I.e., your argument against healthcare may be as irrelevant as the larger belief system driving it. The use of emotionally appealing, absolute terms may just be a way to avoid that reality.

BTW: I missed your response to this:

said by amigo_boy See Profile :

IMO, using social legislation to deny the existence of lower-quality (and -priced) products and services to millions of Americans is no different than using social legislation to limit availability of higher-quality products and services (causing some Americans who can afford it to go without).

It seems you believe the latter would be "oppressive government." Not the former. Can you explain why?
Did you have a response? Or, is it just ok as long as a State does it?

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20376440 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:09:25 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20376209 Tzale :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by Tzale See Profile :

I believe that society NEEDS some government to maintain a standard of living. The hard thing is finding the line where the needs of society are not outweighed by an oppressive government.
I agree. But, I'm not the one tossing chilling buzzwords (like "socialism") at those who think "government can maintain a standard of living" different than my notion of it. If I were someone excluded from health care in the interest of what you deem to be "a necessary standard of living" I would feel oppressed by government.

IMO, using social legislation to deny the existence of lower-quality (and -priced) products and services to millions of Americans is no different than using social legislation to limit availability of higher-quality products and services (causing some Americans who can afford it to go without).

It seems you believe the latter would be "oppressive government." Not the former. Can you explain why?

BTW: I'm not advocating anarchy or "no licensing." I'm just pointing out that the unjustified use of absolutist rhetoric isn't helpful at understanding the issues. It's a convenient way of defining a world that simply doesn't exist.

said by Tzale See Profile :

I believe in state's rights!
Again, you're using absolutist rhetoric to (selectively) impose a standard that doesn't exist. States' rights haven't existed since the Civil War. States don't have the right to maintain slavery. They even don't have the fundamental right to withdraw from the union. You (like billions of others) probably believe *those* shouldn't be states' rights. So, we're talking about a matter of degrees. Not an absolute principle.

Mark
It may not exist in YOUR world, but I live my life everyday in hope that America will be restored to the founding father's dreams (with a few slight modifications). And your argument about states not having the right to enslave their populations is completely bogus... Slavery is AGAINST the Constitution, thus this IS an example of where a NATIONAL rule overrules the LOCAL/STATE rule. An example of the Feds overstepping their power is pretty much the entire Federal War on Drugs... I don't care what individual states do, but when the Feds try to lock up people for years who LEGALLY possess Marijuana (it is legal in Alaska to possess up to a certain amount of Marijuana and plants in your home), it is completely wrong because there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says Marijuana or any other substance should be banned by the Feds. No offense Mark, but it seems you don't really understand MY argument or the argument of other libertarian conservatives / Ron Paul Republicans... We believe in the Constitution and a form of government that puts as little restriction as possible on freedom in this nation. States should have the right to make pretty much 95% of the laws that govern their people. There should only be a handful of Federal laws. Will it happen? Who knows... But I'm not about to give up my beliefs just because some people think my beliefs can't come true in 2008.

We wouldn't have to worry about a federal income tax (and all 66,000 pages of confusing tax code) if we eliminated the IRS and massively downsized the Federal government and moved these programs to the local level so that individual states can decide if they want to pay for welfare programs.

-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20376209 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:18:49 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20375024 amigo_boy :
said by NonIdiot :

our nation is built upon capitalism
America's system is "socialized capitalism." All those goodies like the SEC, banking regulations, food and drug quality regulations, zoning and building codes, creation of corporate entities by state legislatures (a fictional, yet legal "person" to stand as the fall guy, alleviating officers and investors from their personal liability which would exist in an otherwise private business.).

These have one thing in common: eliminating a great deal of true, raw market "darwinism," creating advantages and disadvantages for individuals which would not exist in a truly free market.

Even our socialized health care (as it exists today) sets artificially high standards at the expense of the poor who are denied access to lessor products and services which would exist in a truly free market.

said by NonIdiot :

Imagine a mutual fund who spent your money and then told you they were paying you 1.5% interest on your money when in fact they were simply paying you this 1.5% by stealing from their new clients. This is exactly what we have.
Social Security is a form of insurance, not an investment. It would be more accurate to compare it to your homeowner's or auto insurance and complain that you spent $20k in premiums but only collected $2k through claims.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20375024 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:33:42 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20374713 anon : Hmm... We "shouldn't" do it here because our nation is built upon capitalism, not socialism. Europe is not known for great health care and it never will be. I want FREEDOM, not socialism. I am for competition, not governmental interference. Let's look at the government's track record:

Education...
Approximately 75 cents of each dollar spent in this category goes to bureaucracy. What arrives at the schools is 2-3x what it costs per child to send them to private schools where the students consistently outperform their public school peers. FAILURE.

Retirement...
If you work for someone else, you probably think 7.5% of your income is taken for social security. In fact, your employer is required to pay the other half of it for a total of 15%. Our government takes 15% of your earnings and invests it for your retirement. How are they doing??? Well, they have already spent every penny you sent in. They are relying on new people paying into the program so that they can pay you, but even that isn't working because they are running a deficit. Imagine a mutual fund who spent your money and then told you they were paying you 1.5% interest on your money when in fact they were simply paying you this 1.5% by stealing from their new clients. This is exactly what we have.

Health Care...
I could discuss the "Medi" system, but why go farther? If you have read above and have enough sense to come in out of the rain, you know politicians lack the ability and integrity to handle our health care, education system, and retirement. They already control 2/3. Don't be an idiot and insist on giving them the last 1/3.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20374713 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:23:01 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20374416 amigo_boy :
said by lew_jean See Profile :

That's why people from Canada come to the US for medical treatment they require because of the waiting list.
Now if we goto Universal health care how do we pay for it?
last time I look it was around 80 Billion.
Just look at our tax rate and then look at the tax rate of countries that offer Universal health care .
What's the alternative? At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Right now we (society) set health care standards higher than the free market would set. Millions are denied products or services because society's standards eliminate (by threat of prison) lessor-quality products and services.

The result is that millions go without options just so we (the rest of us) can have higher-quality products and services without the due diligence which would be required if there were greater disparity in the market.

Why is that better than paying more for this artificial health care market? Or, some people having to wait for products and services (who don't have to wait today)?

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20374416 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:43:44 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20374367 lew_jean : That's why people from Canada come to the US for medical treatment they require because of the waiting list.
Now if we goto Universal health care how do we pay for it?
last time I look it was around 80 Billion.
Just look at our tax rate and then look at the tax rate of countries that offer Universal health care .]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20374367 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:36:18 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20373134 amigo_boy :
said by Tzale See Profile :

I believe that society NEEDS some government to maintain a standard of living. The hard thing is finding the line where the needs of society are not outweighed by an oppressive government.
I agree. But, I'm not the one tossing chilling buzzwords (like "socialism") at those who think "government can maintain a standard of living" different than my notion of it. If I were someone excluded from health care in the interest of what you deem to be "a necessary standard of living" I would feel oppressed by government.

IMO, using social legislation to deny the existence of lower-quality (and -priced) products and services to millions of Americans is no different than using social legislation to limit availability of higher-quality products and services (causing some Americans who can afford it to go without).

It seems you believe the latter would be "oppressive government." Not the former. Can you explain why?

BTW: I'm not advocating anarchy or "no licensing." I'm just pointing out that the unjustified use of absolutist rhetoric isn't helpful at understanding the issues. It's a convenient way of defining a world that simply doesn't exist.

said by Tzale See Profile :

I believe in state's rights!
Again, you're using absolutist rhetoric to (selectively) impose a standard that doesn't exist. States' rights haven't existed since the Civil War. States don't have the right to maintain slavery. They even don't have the fundamental right to withdraw from the union. You (like billions of others) probably believe *those* shouldn't be states' rights. So, we're talking about a matter of degrees. Not an absolute principle.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20373134 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:39:21 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20372373 Tzale :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by Tzale See Profile :

Our country is "free"
Clearly it's not "free" for those people who can't afford the products and services of a *highly* socialized health care system that denies them lessor choices.

That's the thing I don't see opponents of greater socialization addressing.

said by Tzale See Profile :

There is supposed to be a weak Federal government that provides the basic security for all states.
IMO that's the problem with people who selectively use "small government" arguments. They *like* most of the things that violate the very same principles they complain "one more thing will violate."

They like how society sets higher standards on health care than a "free market" would produce. (It alleviates them of their responsibility and the "caveat emptor" that goes with it.). We don't hear them calling for a truly free market system. (Even you argued against it on grounds of "public safety," a collective argument based upon the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.).

They like the SEC and banking regulations, and food quality laws. Each a social moderation which impacted someone negatively by eliminating willing buyers and sellers.

So, what's really being said is: Those who feel socialized health care (make no doubt, it already is socialized) should be distributed more equitably (to the entire society that has moderated that market) should instead strive for a minimal government that doesn't exist, and would be hugely disliked if it did.

Mark
You see... It DID exist before our country was ran into the ground over 200+ years... And the different between calling for a completely free market (no license for doctors, etc) is basically comparing ANARCHISM and Libertarianism. I am a libertarian conservative... I believe that society NEEDS some government to maintain a standard of living. The hard thing is finding the line where the needs of society are not outweighed by an oppressive government.

No offense, but you're stating extremist anarchist views and trying to morph that into what I find as an "ideal" form of government or lack thereof. Certain things in life need to be regulated. Universal Healthcare is not something the Feds should be involved with. I don't care what the individual states do (I'm not an extremist, I believe in state's rights!)..

-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20372373 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:49:56 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20372188 amigo_boy :
said by Tzale See Profile :

Our country is "free"
Clearly it's not "free" for those people who can't afford the products and services of a *highly* socialized health care system that denies them lessor choices.

That's the thing I don't see opponents of greater socialization addressing.

said by Tzale See Profile :

There is supposed to be a weak Federal government that provides the basic security for all states.
IMO that's the problem with people who selectively use "small government" arguments. They *like* most of the things that violate the very same principles they complain "one more thing will violate."

They like how society sets higher standards on health care than a "free market" would produce. (It alleviates them of their responsibility and the "caveat emptor" that goes with it.). We don't hear them calling for a truly free market system. (Even you argued against it on grounds of "public safety," a collective argument based upon the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.).

They like the SEC and banking regulations, and food quality laws. Each a social moderation which impacted someone negatively by eliminating willing buyers and sellers.

So, what's really being said is: Those who feel socialized health care (make no doubt, it already is socialized) should be distributed more equitably (to the entire society that has moderated that market) should instead strive for a minimal government that doesn't exist, and would be hugely disliked if it did.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20372188 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:41:48 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20372144 Tzale :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by Tzale See Profile :

I'd rather it be at the state level so that people have the choice whether or not to be taxed for such a program. Plus,I think it would be run better...
Universal health care is like taxation. It only works if everyone participates. If one state offers it, and another doesn't, folks living in neighboring states (who'd benefit the most) will move there, adding to the burden opponents of universal health care want to avoid.

I saw this happen in the 70s when I lived in a state with more-generous disability benefits. Disabled folks in neighboring states (especially those living near the border) moved in.

I'm not saying universal health care is the best thing to do. Just saying, by definition, it's "universal."

It would be nice if we had more healthcare choices. Like seeing an LPN for basic needs. But, without tort reform I don't see that happening. Lower-quality services would obviously lead to lower-quality results. Under our current system this would lead to malpractice suits.

Mark
Well I'm not backing hniversal healthcare... But if it is going to happen, let it happen at the state level since then at least the people have a choice whether or not to support such a welfare state with their tax money by moving in or out. That is how the U.S. is SUPPOSED to be... Our country is "free" and "unique" because we have 50 "mini-nations" to choose from when deciding where to live. There is supposed to be a weak Federal government that provides the basic security for all states. It is wrong to assume that universal healthcare is the job of the Federal Government.

-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20372144 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:28:30 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20371564 amigo_boy :
said by Tzale See Profile :

I'd rather it be at the state level so that people have the choice whether or not to be taxed for such a program. Plus,I think it would be run better...
Universal health care is like taxation. It only works if everyone participates. If one state offers it, and another doesn't, folks living in neighboring states (who'd benefit the most) will move there, adding to the burden opponents of universal health care want to avoid.

I saw this happen in the 70s when I lived in a state with more-generous disability benefits. Disabled folks in neighboring states (especially those living near the border) moved in.

I'm not saying universal health care is the best thing to do. Just saying, by definition, it's "universal."

It would be nice if we had more healthcare choices. Like seeing an LPN for basic needs. But, without tort reform I don't see that happening. Lower-quality services would obviously lead to lower-quality results. Under our current system this would lead to malpractice suits.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20371564 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:31:36 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20371409 amigo_boy :
said by samwise2206 :

Canada's health care system is anything BUT free. they pay 30-40% taxes on everything. and if its so great why do so many canadians come to the usa to receive their health care?
I haven't seen anyone address this:

1. We (society) set high standards on healthcare products and services, standards which wouldn't exist in a truly "free market." The result is that those who can't afford this socially-created "market" go without. They don't just have the option to purchase what they can afford (lower quality professionals and products), they're *denied* them.

2. One argument against single-payer healthcare is the one you made: Folks who can afford what we have now will have to go elsewhere because they may have to wait for services, or they want higher-quality services which are no longer artificially mandated by society (see #1).

Which is better (or worse), and why?

It sounds to me like the popular arguments for/against boil down to nothing more than the base human condition: Don't gore my ox. Those who use the example of Canadians coming to the US for healthcare don't make a peep about Americans who go without due mostly to our socially-inspired medical system which sets high standards (because without them society would suffer, [wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more.]).

I don't see people wanting to deal with this. Even Tzale returned to slinging the "socialist" term -- and in the same breath justifying society's creation of an artificial market because "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." (He didn't use that quoted phrase. But, the meaning was the same when he said our standards are necessary to protect the public. Obviously those who are denied the option of purchasing lower-quality products and services aren't being protected from very much compared to those who've had their "caveat emptor" virtually eliminated by society.).

I'm not saying I know what the answer is, or that universal (single-payer) coverage would be better. Just that "better" is relative to whether you're currently reaping the benefits of our socialized medicine, or denied access due to the artificial market it creates. Just because those who benefit from it now would lose something doesn't mean very much without taking into consideration how people are losing something now (by having lessor products and services denied to them by the not-so-invisible hand of Society).

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20371409 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:07:00 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20371136 anon : Canada's health care system is anything BUT free. they pay 30-40% taxes on everything. and if its so great why do so many canadians come to the usa to receive their health care?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20371136 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:44:33 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20370079 KrK : Explain how population density automatically means better health care. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20370079 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:01:44 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20369202 JamesPC : I want to live in your world...except...i need my baseball.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20369202 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:11:13 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20369186 JamesPC : The fact is....we have the best doctors in the world. If you can pay for it. DO WORK!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20369186 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:08:18 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20369153 JamesPC : It has everything to do with it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20369153 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:03:13 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20369052 Tzale :
said by KrK See Profile :

I can at least understand the broadband argument, However when it comes to quality health care, I can't see how population density figures into it.

I guess you could say they might be CLOSER to a quality facility, thus enabling better emergency care, but I can't figure out how a population density argument could be used as justification for the quality of health care available.
The population density was in response to the broadband argument.. Not about healthcare.

Smaller populations are easier to provide healthcare to in this type of program versus at a national level. If we're going to have a "universal healthcare" type program, I'd rather it be at the state level so that people have the choice whether or not to be taxed for such a program. Plus,I think it would be run better...

-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20369052 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:42:50 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20368716 DoubleK : Because we spent close to 780 billion dollars last year in the name of Defense. Mind you that is more than the rest of the militarized world COMBINED!

www.globalsecurity.org ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20368716 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:44:27 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20368469 anon : "Caring, dedicated" people will burn-out, and we'll only get disgruntled people who have nowhere else to go. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20368469 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:42:40 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20368162 KrK : I can at least understand the broadband argument, However when it comes to quality health care, I can't see how population density figures into it.

I guess you could say they might be CLOSER to a quality facility, thus enabling better emergency care, but I can't figure out how a population density argument could be used as justification for the quality of health care available.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20368162 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:02:40 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20367614 Tzale :
said by Sarugaku :

Universal health care sure would give more people direct Fed. Gov. administrative jobs wouldn't it? That would increase the cost of medical care even more wouldn't it? But it would be "free" to all wouldn't it? No...
...It would increase government control over your life. It would raise your taxes, again. But the tax increases would be on the rich! No...
...it's called "Trickle Down Economics" Liberal style. Starts out on the rich but soon applies to everybody. The rebirth of the income tax in 1913 (it was declared unconstitutional in 1865) started out on the wealthy but in a few years began taxing more and more people with less and less income. Read some of the current tax increase proposals and think about what you've read. You'll see what I mean.

Health care wouldn't improve. The government would be able to stick more needles into your kids though. Maybe even you. More AD HD, Autism, ect. could be diagnosed by more school nurses (not doctors) and your kids could be "juiced up" with even more drugs they probably don't need.

People can go into the emergency rooms at hospitals and by law cannot be turned away as long as the hospital is not a private one. This raises your costs because many don't pay their bill but why would you want all the people to have to do the same thing? That's what Universal Health care is. We all get to go to the emergency room.

You have to do some research and real thinking. You may learn by hearing but you KNOW by finding out for yourself. ;)
Exactly.

People need to stop labeling people against universal healthcare as cruel and start looking at the facts and stop living in the fantasy world of Obama and Hillary. The truth is that it will NOT work and that the current system needs to be REFORMED but not REPLACED with a socialist mega welfare program that will raise all of our taxes and make us more of a socialist country.

-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20367614 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:21:54 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20367586 Tzale :
said by KrK See Profile :

said by Tzale See Profile :

Japan also has a much higher concentrated population and a much smaller population. They also don't have a U.S. Constitution...
And those comments, while completely accurate and factual, when dealing with the topic at hand, which is quality of health care, have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Well why don't they?

"I would point out that Japan, a country often held out here as an example of how broadband *should* be, also is on the universal health care bandwagon."

Japan has a higher population concentration, and much smaller population, thus it is easier for them to roll out broadband. It is also a lot easier to administer programs. The U.S. is gigantic compared to a lot of socialist countries and I am CONVINCED that it will fail HERE. The problem in this country is LACK of a good quality healthcare.. A socialist system isn't going to fix that IMHO. If you think healthcare is bad NOW, how do you think it will be when the Government is involved. Corporate greed isn't much better... But at least it is more inline with the American free market.. And this could is SUPPOSED to be a free market. Just because we have had a couple socialist czars who think they can run over our Constitution like an old newspaper doesn't mean that this country should be restored to its former quality.

-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20367586 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:17:30 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366952 anon : Universal health care sure would give more people direct Fed. Gov. administrative jobs wouldn't it? That would increase the cost of medical care even more wouldn't it? But it would be "free" to all wouldn't it? No...
...It would increase government control over your life. It would raise your taxes, again. But the tax increases would be on the rich! No...
...it's called "Trickle Down Economics" Liberal style. Starts out on the rich but soon applies to everybody. The rebirth of the income tax in 1913 (it was declared unconstitutional in 1865) started out on the wealthy but in a few years began taxing more and more people with less and less income. Read some of the current tax increase proposals and think about what you've read. You'll see what I mean.

Health care wouldn't improve. The government would be able to stick more needles into your kids though. Maybe even you. More AD HD, Autism, ect. could be diagnosed by more school nurses (not doctors) and your kids could be "juiced up" with even more drugs they probably don't need.

People can go into the emergency rooms at hospitals and by law cannot be turned away as long as the hospital is not a private one. This raises your costs because many don't pay their bill but why would you want all the people to have to do the same thing? That's what Universal Health care is. We all get to go to the emergency room.

You have to do some research and real thinking. You may learn by hearing but you KNOW by finding out for yourself. ;) ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366952 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:08:58 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366764 KrK :
said by Tzale See Profile :

Japan also has a much higher concentrated population and a much smaller population. They also don't have a U.S. Constitution...
And those comments, while completely accurate and factual, when dealing with the topic at hand, which is quality of health care, have absolutely nothing to do with it.

--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366764 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:36:54 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366670 Tzale :
said by supergirl See Profile :

said by lg75 See Profile :

said by Tzale See Profile :

creating a "universal health care" system in this country, then that isn't FIXING the problem, that is making it WORSE.
Would you care to explain your statement? Virtually all of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated health care that works. Why couldn't we do that here?
I never said Universal Health Care. Tzale, one I ignore usually, did.

I just think Congress needs to get off their collective a@@es and start dealing with REAL problems not some HSI wi-fi crap.

Why did Congress waste OUR money on steroids in baseball? Who cares? I don't. Shoot up to your hearts content MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, etc.

Health Care can be fixed by making the Blue Cross/Blue Shields of the U.S. truly non-profit. Insurance salespeople make $100,000-250,000+ a year selling it. In fact, all health care companies should be truly non-profit. Medicare spends a whopping 1% on administration. Blue Cross, and most others, spend 35-40% on administration like "how to deny a claim."

Health Care in Socialized Medicine countries are non-profit but don't work. People in Britain pull their own teeth because the can't see a dentist. Canadians come down here for a "vacation" to get care.

I say start by making them all non-profit, not allowing a denial of person in because a pre-existing condition, and, yes, make all people buy in the system. Hospitals shouldn't be for-profits either. Health Care should be a non-profit business all around. Doctors and nurses still make tons of cash but insurance companies, Hospitals, etc. shouldn't be making tons of cash. One hospital CEO made $120 million one year. That's ridiculous.

Congress could also ban small companies from buying drugs no longer with a patent then charging outrageous money for it.

I'm sure corporate America would like it since it would lower their premiums.

The simple fact is: we need to start somewhere. Congress hasn't started anywhere. But, they have no problem having ridiculous inquires about steroids in MLB. Revoke their anti-trust exemption and the NFL's. Let them compete.

And, for the we can't do anything people, isn't non-profit in the lofty oaths Doctors take?
You actually make sense to a degree here... And why do you "usually ignore me?" Since when have I been disagreeing with everything you say? I don't even frigging recall your name much beyond a few discussions. :D

I agree, Congress should be worrying about more important things... Steroids in baseball is a bunch of BS, though I can see how they want to take the moral high ground... But still... In a perfect world, we'd have universal healthcare or non-profit insurance. Don't take my comments about universal healthcare not working as some rash political statements against you or anyone else who believes in it... I am simply speaking my own opinions. I DOUBT it will work... The Dems can say they want to roll it out, but I doubt they'll ever get it put into motion if elected. I also consider myself a strict Constitutionalist / Conservative (Not a neoconservative, most probably don't understand true conservatism) and don't think the Federal Government should be involved at all with these types of issues (including Iraq most other "issues" the mass media tries to pin on all conservatives. Where does this leave me? I disagree with liberals and I disagree with most neoconservatives.. :uhh:

-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366670 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:39:28 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366662 Tzale :
said by viperlmw See Profile :

I would point out that Japan, a country often held out here as an example of how broadband *should* be, also is on the universal health care bandwagon.

I would also point out that, as a 20 yr vetran of the US Navy (retired) that, for those 20 years, I was only allowed to use the universal health care provided by the military. Why was it good enough for me and my family, and not everyone else?
Japan also has a much higher concentrated population and a much smaller population. They also don't have a U.S. Constitution...

-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366662 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:33:34 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366661 Tzale :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by lg75 See Profile :

said by Tzale See Profile :

creating a "universal health care" system in this country, then that isn't FIXING the problem, that is making it WORSE.
Would you care to explain your statement? Virtually all of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated health care that works. Why couldn't we do that here?
Most people use phrases designed to invoke kneejerk reactions among Americans. Like, "it's *socialism*" or "I support free markets."

What they ignore is that there's virtually nothing truly "free" about the health-care market. The number of doctors who can enter the profession is severely limited *by the profession" through it's limitation of licensing of medical schools, a requirement to being licensed as a doctor.

Some will say it's the states' medical boards that license medical schools and doctors. But, those are almost entirely made up of health care professionals. That's not necessarily bad. I wouldn't want an auto mechanic regulating health care standards. But, those standards exist for *collective* goals (public health and safety, a more predictable market which reduces the need for "caveat emptor.").

There seems to be something really perverse about society limiting a "free market" in the interest of higher standards (for those who can afford the resulting higher prices), and then telling those who can't afford it: "It's just a free market. What are you, some kind of socialist?"

Opponents to universal (socialized) health care need to focus on deregulating health care and allowing lessor professionals to practice medicine. Doing nothing while insisting they're promoting "free market choices" is absurd. It's a recipe for greater socialization.

Mark
You can't have some average joe practicing medicine.. We don't live in a perfect world. We need to TRY to make this country as close to a free market as possible... Licensing ANYONE who wants to be a doctor without going through the proper schooling would be dangerous to society. Don't get me wrong. I KNOW healthcare is screwed up in this country, but this is NOT the solution. The problem is much greater than simply universal healthcare being socialist.

-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366661 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:32:35 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366655 Tzale :
said by hottboiinnc See Profile :

Canada's universal healthcare isnt bad either. You still have the option to have your private health care from your employer or not. Its better to pay for your own health care though in Canada that way you can get into see a doctor.
Canada's system isn't exactly as good as it is crocked up to be.. I'm simply against the idea at a national level and think it will fail miserably and raise our taxes.

-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366655 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:29:58 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366650 Tzale :
said by lg75 See Profile :

said by Tzale See Profile :

creating a "universal health care" system in this country, then that isn't FIXING the problem, that is making it WORSE.
Would you care to explain your statement? Virtually all of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated health care that works. Why couldn't we do that here?
Have you seen their tax rates? When you want to pay THOSE outrageous tax rates, then you can have your universal healthcare. Not to mention, it is against the U.S. Constitution. I don't care what happens at the state level, but at the national level, NO WAY. This country is SUPPOSED to be a free market. Using the old line that the "U.S. isn't a free market anymore" is a bunch of BS because since when does something being wrong make it alright to continue being wrong? Healthcare might be messed up, but that doesn't mean we should mess it up even more by getting the feds involved.

-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366650 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:28:58 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366645 Tzale :
said by Woody79_00 See Profile :

If this Country goes to Socialized Medicine, it will be the biggest mistake we ever make. I have afreind who works at Cleveland Clinic, and ya know how many Canadians come down their for Bypass surgery and many other things because they "Can't wait" ?

Let me ask you....find me one place in the Constitution that says "The Government Has to provide me Healthcare" or "The Government has to take care of me" You are given Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, that doesn't mean the government has the power to hand people a check....it was "never" intended to be that way..EVER

Welfare, Food Stamps, all that stuff has its roots in "Communism" its is a way for the government to "force" people to "rely on the government to survive" Welfare is a prime example, we have 3rd and 4th generation welfare families in this country that "Depend" on the government to take care of them...Dependence will one day = oppression, tyranny, and slavery. History proves me 200% correct, you look back in history at any nation who "took care" of their citizens, and you will see the citizens of those countries were "Enslaved" Rome is a prime example, the people loved Julius Caesar, he feed them, but he ultimately enslaved them and so did his sons and family members for generations...

I hear this argument "people can't afford healthcare" ..i ask you,...has a hospital ever denied anyone treatment? there are laws against that, even if they know you can't pay, and have no insurance, they still have to take care of you. so its a moot point...you still have healthcare.

Let me ask you...is it "fair" to take from one person and give to another?...ya wanna know who is gonna foot this bill for "Univeral Healthcare"?...the all ready "Over-taxed" Middle Class...oh and you will be required to have a "Real ID" to get this Healthcare too.....look up the Real ID Act..Ron Paul was the only one to vote against such a tyrannous act.

For exmaple, Say you need BirthControl pills, the Government is Subsidizing them so you can get them cheaper, is it "fair" they take money "out of my paycheck" to give to youy so you can get those pills? when I have "Zero" stake in it, has nothing to do with me?...how would you like it if you had to pay my 99 dollar Cable bill every month...i bet you wouldn't like it one bit

Our Economy and our citizens are taxed enough, go to the grocery store for crying out loud, we cna't afford no more taxes, people are suffering here...we can't afford this tax burden of a Universal Healthcare Plan"....30% of the people will pay their own plus the other 70% who don't work, are on welfare, and will never pay a dime...its not "Fair" Its "not the American Way"

Then again, your probably in Favor of the North American Union.

The primary Reasons for the Spike in cost of healthcare in this country is our "government's fault" you look at the cost of Healthcare prior to Medicare and Medicaid and then watch the graph and the prices steadly increased since those things were instituted.

Im going to give you an Economics Lesson, Economics is "Objective" not Subjective" what "is" and what "ought to be" are two different things, with Economics focusing on "what is"

Let me give you a lesson on the Laws of Supply and Demand

1. when Demand goes up, Supply goes down, and Price "increases"

2. when Demand goes down, Supply goes up, and Price "Decreases"

when the Government "Subsidizes" something you get "more of it" BUT you also Consume more So when consumption goes up, Supply goes down, and Price "increases".

It looks good on the outside, but you will end up paying more for it in the end....they will jsut keep raising your tax premium till you can't afford a gallon of milk because it costs you 17 dollars.

What is the Answer to the Healthcare problem? its simple really.

1. Get rid of the Healthcard for Welfare- when something costs nothing, you consume all you can at zero price, force some kind of 250 dollar deductable on the Healthcard, this will = less folks going to the doctors, and demand will go "down" and price will "decrease" The only people who should get free healthcare are mentally retarded people, people are "truly" disabled IE missing arm/leg, can't walk, etc...do away with SSI for all but mentally handicapped people.

2. Make Doctors and hospitals "immune" from mal-practice suits UNLESS their drunk or on drugs at the time of the incident- people make mistakes, were not perfect, neither are doctors. When you sue a doctor, your only punishing everyone else who goes to the doctors because they raise prices...my grandpa died in what would be said a "mal-practice suit" we didn't sue, there is no honor in that, people make mistakes, it happens...money isn't going to bring them back, and this is the reason doctors are in short demand and are not going to medical school and many doctors are closing up shop, because insurance is so high due to the frivolous suits where they award people 40 and 50 million dollars for a mistake that was not intentional..its absurd!

This is the "only" way your gonna solve the healthcare problems in this country, along with combating inflation....this country desperately needs to go back to the Gold Standard(Well not gold, but "Something" of VALUE needs to be backing american currency) be it land, Sliver, diamonds, something...as of right now, our money is backed by nothing, the Constitution says the money is to be backed with something. That alone would make your money worth something

there is going to be "growing pains" with this but it is the "only way" to fix the real problem...if we go the Universal Healthcare route, were screwed and are going to be laying on heck of a burden on our children and the taxpayers backs for years to come

We are "free" people...do you really want a communist society...read up on Karl Marx read the Communist Manifesto...i had to read it for a Political Science class, im telling you...this all has its roots in Socialism and Communism....be careful what you wish for, you just might get it...and it won't be what you "really wanted" or expected it to be.
You are a genius, sir... I couldn't have said it better myself, and I'm not going to. These words are VERY VERY true and it is the main reason why I am against universal healthcare at the national level. I don't think the healthcare system in this country is perfect, but fixing it by creating a national system would be a major mistake.

-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20366645 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:25:38 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20365880 supergirl :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

I was wrong about it being an act of Congress. It was a Supreme Court decision in the early '20s.

Mark
Yes, but the Supreme Court said Congress could revoke their exemption. The only reason the SCOTUS allowed it was it thought MLB was a "local sport" and not subject to interstate commerce laws. See »https://baseballprospectus.com/article.p···eid=1286
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20365880 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:35:48 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20365836 supergirl :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by knightmb See Profile :

often throwing in the word socialist or likening it to Russia or China?
IMO, this is just a ploy to stop all discussion. There are certain things we've been raised to reflexively oppose. Invoking those words is just a way to get people back into (unthinking) conformity.

"Socialist? I don't want to be that!"

And then we proceed with the status quo.... as our medical choices are limited by social regulation (creating non-free market standards). Or, the Federal Reserve bails out Wall St. banks (just 2-3 years after employees of those banks were receiving bonuses equal to their annual salaries). Or, home builders are allowed to write off current losses using taxes paid up to 5 years ago.

We have socialized capitalism. Those who invoke the reflex words the most ("socialist," "communist") don't want to delve into that topic.

Mark
Yes, it is a way to stop discussion by saying Socialist Medicine. Insurance companies figure tons of ways to deny a claim.

Boy, when Wall Street stumbles, they rush in don't they? Of course, the little people at Bear Stearns are all getting fired. The Bear Stearns CEO walks away with $80 million though.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20365836 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:26:14 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20365828 amigo_boy :
said by supergirl See Profile :

said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by supergirl See Profile :

Why did Congress waste OUR money on steroids in baseball? Who cares? I don't. Shoot up to your hearts content MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, etc.
In MLB, it's probably because it's a monopoly created by an act of Congress. Another example of America's so-called "free markets."

Revoke their anti-trust exemption. MLB shouldn't have one in the first place.
I was wrong about it being an act of Congress. It was a Supreme Court decision in the early '20s.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20365828 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:24:46 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20365732 sgthomas : I'm afraid we'll only get caring, dedicated people... sob, sob,sob ;)
--
To be of words & not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20365732 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:07:14 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20365657 supergirl :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by supergirl See Profile :

Why did Congress waste OUR money on steroids in baseball? Who cares? I don't. Shoot up to your hearts content MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, etc.
In MLB, it's probably because it's a monopoly created by an act of Congress. Another example of America's so-called "free markets."

Mark
Revoke their anti-trust exemption. MLB shouldn't have one in the first place.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20365657 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:57:07 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20364511 amigo_boy :
said by knightmb See Profile :

often throwing in the word socialist or likening it to Russia or China?
IMO, this is just a ploy to stop all discussion. There are certain things we've been raised to reflexively oppose. Invoking those words is just a way to get people back into (unthinking) conformity.

"Socialist? I don't want to be that!"

And then we proceed with the status quo.... as our medical choices are limited by social regulation (creating non-free market standards). Or, the Federal Reserve bails out Wall St. banks (just 2-3 years after employees of those banks were receiving bonuses equal to their annual salaries). Or, home builders are allowed to write off current losses using taxes paid up to 5 years ago.

We have socialized capitalism. Those who invoke the reflex words the most ("socialist," "communist") don't want to delve into that topic.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20364511 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:13:37 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20364477 knightmb :
said by jester121 See Profile :

Thank you for your service to our country sir.

I think the numerous cases of waste, abuse, fraud, and bureaucracy in the VA system that we've all heard about is a much better example of what we have to look forward to from universal socialist health care.
Socialist health care? Is that like the Socialist Fire Department and Socialist Police Department we have? Last time I checked, we didn't pay fireman or policeman insurance to a private company. It's provided via our taxes.

Too many people rail on universal health care, often throwing in the word socialist or likening it to Russia or China? People really need to learn some history, as when the US had universal health care before it became private, it worked very well. When health care became private, companies made billions, we all fight our insurance companies to get anything major covered, we still pay a ton for health insurance monthly, and insurance companies have staff dedicated to weaseling out of everything they are suppose to pay for coverage no matter how healthy you are.

Wake me up when we get our universal health care back and we don't have to walk into a hospital with a valid insurance card or some private company before they will treat the sick or injured. :p :p]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20364477 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:03:18 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20364395 CarterStClai : Ha ha... my wife is leaving this week for that very reason. She has an excellent dentist in Ensenada that will do the work for much less, so even with the airfare, she is saving tons of money.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20364395 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:49:10 EDT Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20364339 amigo_boy :
said by Woody79_00 See Profile :

If this Country goes to Socialized Medicine, it will be the biggest mistake we ever make.
But, that's the point. The opposite of "socialized medicine" is a "free market." We clearly don't have that. Therefore, what is really being said is that we shouldn't further soclaize medicine.

As a society we have set standards so high that the "market" is unavailable (to a various degree) to a large segment of the population. Those who can afford it get the (unarguably) best health care in the world. Those who can't, have precious few options because society has said those options can't exist.

said by Woody79_00 See Profile :

I have afreind who works at Cleveland Clinic, and ya know how many Canadians come down their for Bypass surgery and many other things because they "Can't wait" ?
Isn't it a matter of who's ox is being gored? With high standards (essentially eliminating a free market of health care choices) there are those who can't get health care. With single-payer coverage, high-quality products and services are distributed equally to all: resulting in some people not getting the services they used to get.

Why is one better (or worse) than the other?

said by Woody79_00 See Profile :

find me one place in the Constitution that says "The Government Has to provide me Healthcare" or "The Government has to take care of me"
Where does it say the government should create an artificially limited healthcare market? It seems those who benefit the most from our system (which eliminates truly free markets and the "caveat emptor" that would go with it) are the first to invoke "minimal government" when anyone suggests the "not-so-invisible hand" of society should extend to everyone.

said by Woody79_00 See Profile :

Welfare, Food Stamps, all that stuff has its roots in "Communism"
Why stop with social gifts to the poor? Why not include things like the SEC, banking regulations, food quality laws, social creation of the fictional (yet legal) entity known as "the corporation," and building/zoning laws? These all limit otherwise free, raw