Hard to Believe this Happens Here...

[bigjim]

Tiresome...so very tiresome.

It seems somewhat odd to me that as a forum, we're proud of the fact that some of the money we spend in HI goes to improve the quality of the kamis lives, and that that their lack of access to health care is frequently cited as an example of how bad things are in Nepal and their problems with caste, yet the idea of access to health care to all in the U.S. isn't considered a good thing to everyone.

The difference is obvious. Buying from HI is a matter of engaging VOLUNTARILY in a charitable act, the compassionate result of mutually beneficial exchange. The other is a Government engaging in forced redistribution of wealth which is the opposite of compassion.

If I choose to provide health care to another that is my business and in my mind commendable. If you and your government thugs force me support others it is theft and morally bankrupt.

 

[SASSAS]

Tiresome...so very tiresome.

The difference is obvious. Buying from HI is a matter of engaging VOLUNTARILY in a charitable act, the compassionate result of mutually beneficial exchange. The other is a Government engaging in forced redistribution of wealth which is the opposite of compassion.

If I choose to provide health care to another that is my business and in my mind commendable. If you and your government thugs force me support others it is theft and morally bankrupt.

Actually, at this point in time I have no government thugs. At this point in time your government thugs (or someone else's, if they aren't yours) are forcibly redistributing wealth to things which are theft and morally bankrupt such as corporate kickbacks and war profiteering...the result of compassionate conservatism.

I don't want to misunderstand... Do you believe that there should be no public programs and that nobody should pay any taxes? So nobody should be forced to pay for anything of which they don't personally approve? If so, your statment is logical and in that context has definite appeal. It's a pure, no government, live and let live, everyone take care of themselves and each other philosophy. It would in it's own way be the truest redistribution of wealth, as people could only have what they could earn and protect. No standing police force to protect the status quo for the rich...

 

[bigjim]

Actually, at this point in time I have no government thugs. At this point in time your government thugs (or someone else's, if they aren't yours) are forcibly redistributing wealth to things which are theft and morally bankrupt such as corporate kickbacks and war profiteering...the result of compassionate conservatism.

I don't want to misunderstand... Do you believe that there should be no public programs and that nobody should pay any taxes? So nobody should be forced to pay for anything of which they don't personally approve? If so, your statment is logical and in that context has definite appeal. It's a pure, no government, live and let live, everyone take care of themselves and each other philosophy. It would in it's own way be the truest redistribution of wealth, as people could only have what they could earn and protect. No standing police force to protect the status quo for the rich...

I do not advocate throwing out the baby with the bath water. Governments roll should just be strictly limited at the federal level, slightly less so at the state level.

The feds should not control much more than the common defense, interstate commerce, and perhaps some infrastructure concerns. Actually there is a document now long out of favor that granted a small set of powers to the Federal Government and reserved the rest for the people.

But a direct answer to your question is there should be NO FEDERAL SOCIAL SPENDING PROGRAMS at all. I have no problems with states and local governments at the voters whim doing so. That power rightfully resides with those government entities.

 

[SASSAS]

For the common defense...does that allow the deployment of U.S. troops in such situations as support of civil rights legislation or in opposition to labor unrest, or should that be a state/local matter? Should U.S. troops be deployed internally only in response to an external threat? Does federal law enforcement have to meet the same standard (e.g. California and Nevada having their own laws legalizing production and sale of marijuana for medicinal use (or recreational use for that matter) within their state is OK)? What about agencies such as FEMA and the CDC? Should they be abolished?

I'm not being argumentative, I'd honestly like to know what you think...

EDIT - TOuchpad erased some words

 

[Thomas Linton]

For the common defense...does that allow the deployment of U.S. troops in such situations as support of civil rights legislation or in opposition to labor unrest, or should that be a state/local matter? Should U.S. troops be deployed internally only in response to an external threat? Does federal law enforcement have to meet the same standard (e.g. California and Nevada having their own laws legalizing production and sale of marijuana for medicinal use (or recreational use for that matter) within their state is OK)? What about agencies such as FEMA and the CDC? Should they be abolished?

I'm not being argumentative, I'd honestly like to know what you think...

EDIT - TOuchpad erased some words

The Constitution does not empower the Federal Government to keep internal order other than in fighting war. Nevertheless, Presidents used Federal troops to do just that. Post Civil War, Congress passed a law that says that [absent war] Federal troops cannot be used to keep internal order without express consent of Congress. (Even When Vampires Attack! [available in VHS or CD])

The Federal Goverment, all three branches largely cooperating, has used the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Const. to legislate all manner of things that have little to do with preventing barriers to the free passage of good across state lines. AKA "Modern Government." AKA "Uncle Sugar." AKA "Why hasn't the Government fixed our [local] schools?"

The Federal Government also uses your money (Or is it the Government's money and they decide how much you get to keep? I can never remember.) to bribe state and local government to do what Federal Government deems best. Don't follow fed. rules (e.g. how much alcohol is illegal for mv operator) and you don't get the $$. (Gee, Iowa is opting out of Medicaid.)

Some people want very little government. Some want lots. All shades in between. It would be better if they didn't do stuff so badly, but the Red Cross isn't doing very well lately either - or GM - or Ford - or Enron etc., etc.

How about, "That government is best that governs least." Now if we could just agree on what the reasonable "least" would be.

(Better keep the CDC. Regular flu kills 30-40,000/yr. in the U.S. alone. [How come that doesn't make CBS, ABS, or NBS?])

 

[SASSAS]

(Better keep the CDC. Regular flu kills 30-40,000/yr. in the U.S. alone. [How come that doesn't make CBS, ABS, or NBS?])

Not scary enough to sell advertising.

 

[bigjim]

For the common defense...does that allow the deployment of U.S. troops in such situations as support of civil rights legislation or in opposition to labor unrest, or should that be a state/local matter? Should U.S. troops be deployed internally only in response to an external threat? Does federal law enforcement have to meet the same standard (e.g. California and Nevada having their own laws legalizing production and sale of marijuana for medicinal use (or recreational use for that matter) within their state is OK)? What about agencies such as FEMA and the CDC? Should they be abolished?

I'm not being argumentative, I'd honestly like to know what you think...

EDIT - TOuchpad erased some words

Wow... Federal troops are not allowed now for many of the things you mention.

Yes FEMA should go that can be handled at the state level with out a federal power grab. The CDC is a interesting one..... I can see a limited rolled for a nation level CDC...Smaller and less encompassing than it is now.

But to follow your model of asking leading questions to try to take a argument passed a defensible position....... Are you telling me the Federal Government has not usurped to much power? Its not to big? Should it just be allowed to grow unchecked forever? Should The feds now be allowed to ignore the limits placed on it by law and tradition? Should the serfs have to petition the the Federal Government for every thing from birth to death?

Why don't we just leave it like this...you think that there exists a group of well intentioned intellectual elite that are so smart compassionate and wise they can spend what I earn better than I can for my own good. So far they have been hiding. But soon they will appear and we need to make sure we have the tax structure in place to quickly confiscate enough operating capital from the poor ignorant working folk.

I think your full of pooh.

Oh yeah I forgot..... The war on drugs you mentioned is the best possible argument for scaling back fed.gov. I am completely against the war on drugs and that is consistent with my position on reducing government and increasing or restoring civil liberty.

I am done here, this is boring and I need to go back to selfishly trying to find ways to keep my money and spend it on me and my family. This is what selfish pricks like me do. I may be a real bastard and invest in corporate America and get rich. Imagine the damage I can do then.

 

[SASSAS]

But to follow your model of asking leading questions to try to take a argument passed a defensible position....... Are you telling me the Federal Government has not usurped to much power? Its not to big? Should it just be allowed to grow unchecked forever? Should The feds now be allowed to ignore the limits placed on it by law and tradition? Should the serfs have to petition the the Federal Government for every thing from birth to death?

No. I said nothing close to that. I asked for clarification of your absolute statement.

Why don't we just leave it like this...you think that there exists a group of well intentioned intellecutal elite that are so smart compassionate and wise they can spend what I earn better than I can for my own good. So far they have been hiding. But soon they will appear and we need to make sure we have the tax structure in place to quickly confiscate enough operating capital from the poor ignorant working folk.

I also said nothing like this. I suggested a method of spending the money which I was contributing in a way I seem appropriate. Being the product of coal miners and steel workers, my suggestion can hardly, however well intentioned, be construed as the ideas of an elite.
[/QUOTE]

I think your full of crap.

Nice to see this staying civil.

Oh yeah I forgot..... The war on drugs you mentioned is the best possible arguement for scaling back fed.gov. I am completely against the war on drugs and that is constant with my position on reducing government and civil liberty.

It's always good to turn even common ground into an argument.

I am done here, this is boring and I need to go back to selfishly trying to find ways to keep my money and spend it on me and my family. This is what selfish pricks like me do. I may be a real bastard and invest in corprate America and get rich. Imagine the damage I can do then.

Have a good night. As I said before. My intention wasn't to argue,it was to rationally discuss. If that bores you, I'm sorry.

 

[bigjim]

I went back to remove the word crap.... I though the smilies would be enough to take the sting out.

And Sorry if I came on to strong. Its just that I work in education and I am SO tired of somebody suggesting another government program, another government power grab every time they see a social problem they think everybody else just missed.

 

[hollowdweller]

I don't know what the answer is. I do know that if millions of illegal aliens weren't pouring over the US border and recieving free
'emergency' care, we might have more money to deal with this kind of thing.
munk

That would definately be a start:thumbup:

Here's my solution to health care, good socialist that I am

The way I see it, not including the illegals we have 3 types of people in the US.

#1 the privately insured.
#2 The uninsured
#3 the insured but by public.

The privately insured pay too much because #2 the uninsured go to the hospital when they get sick and then the hospital raises the rates for the insured to offset the cost. This is at least partly responsible for health care inflation. There is #2a those who could really afford some type of insurance but are unwilling to sacrifice consumer goods and have other priorities. #2b working poor who make a bit too little to qualify. However as programs to help the underemployed have expanded there's not that many of them. Most of the women and their kids for sure are covered.

So first sad to say there needs to be some sort of a law that mandates the uninsured who can afford it to either be able to buy private health insurance or buy into medicaid somehow. This would hopefully slow the growth of health care inflation.

Second we should have a bit of socialized medicine. Not a lot but some. We need a national initiative to encourage people to exercise. We should have national screening centers for hypertension and diabetes and free medicine to anyone for these conditions. Second we need to have some sort of free funds for smoking cessation, and more nutritional education in schools.

I think health care costs, especially for the middle and lower classes could be greatly reduced if we could put forth a nationwide campaign to control obesity, hypertension, diabetes and smoking. In fact if we reduce obesity and smoking, both the other 2 would be reduced anyway.

At this time I don't think we need national health care. Everyone above 65 and most of the lower and lower middle class are already covered. What we need is some way to lower costs. A concerted effort by the government and civic groups to treat and educate the above problems would go a long way toward freeing up money spent on public health care and reducing private premiums in the long run and staving off many diseases and conditions that cost the insurance companies or doctors a lot on down the road.

 

[Yvsa]

We need a national initiative to encourage people to exercise.

I think health care costs, especially for the middle and lower classes could be greatly reduced if we could put forth a nationwide campaign to control obesity, hypertension, diabetes and smoking.

In fact if we reduce obesity and smoking, both the other 2 would be reduced anyway.

Smoking has been reduced a great deal but I agree that helping folks to quit would be a good thing.

The obesity thing is what gets me. When anyone goes to a restaurant and orders a regular meal versus a child's meal they usually get twice or three times the amount they can eat and then they pay twice or three times the amount for their dinners.
If more restaurants would serve children's meals to the general public methinks that would go a long ways in helping folks to not overeat.
Thankfully there are more and more places serving children's meals to senior citizens as they generally don't eat as much anyway.

When Barbie and I are on a road trip we always try to stop at the Flying J Truck Stops. They are clean, generally have cheaper fuel, and their restaurant is very accommodating.
Their Chicken Fried Steak is more than enough for Barbie and myself so we order one meal with extra plates.
Saves us money, we don't overeat, and food isn't wasted.:thumbup:

 

[Svashtar]

At this time I don't think we need national health care. Everyone above 65 and most of the lower and lower middle class are already covered. What we need is some way to lower costs. A concerted effort by the government and civic groups to treat and educate the above problems would go a long way toward freeing up money spent on public health care and reducing private premiums in the long run and staving off many diseases and conditions that cost the insurance companies or doctors a lot on down the road.

Well said Hollow! I can't disagree with too much of what you say here. But who bells the cat? I agree that something has to be done to control the out of control medical inflation we are all experiencing, and predatory HMO's are not the answer.

My medical coverage is good, and used to be 100% covered with a relatively small co-pay. But in the last 3 years alone the co-pay per visit has jumped from $10 to $40, and the coverage for just about everything has dropped to 80%. For major surgeries this can mean thousands more.

I'm glad I have it as part of my employment, and feel I should be paying something, but the costs go up and up. Part of it is the huge number of uninsured treated for free, and part of it is more and more expensive treatments, systems, salaries and admin costs. As the boomers get older it's only going to get worse...

Norm