The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[raptor10]

No, because my entry level job comes with health insurance and stock options. Plus there were only 115 other plans to chose from.

 

[Cate]

You're so cute.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

The founders wrote the Bill of Rights as not a bestowment of rights from the government to the people; instead, the statement serves to solidify the basic rights we each inherit simply because we are born human. These are basic and fundamental rights that we were written as a promise from the government to the people- that they will strive to protect and insure that each individual's rights will not be impeded.

With that in mind, I can't fathom how our society does not support a universal health care system. Of course, I understand that private individuals don't wish to subsidize this program with higher taxes and corporations don't feel that they should either but do you think our society would be enriched if such a program was instituted?

As we enter 2008 and I observe the presidential race heating up, I am finding that I will be persuaded by the candidate which has the best and most comprehensive plan for universal health care; however, some of these individuals wish to support UHC by eliminating funding in other areas, i.e. the military.

So, I'm asking you learned men and women what your opinions are on this issue as I am still trying to make up my mind.

I think your interpretation of the Constitution is laughable. Furthermore, your explanation of the purpose of the Bill of Rights only serves to make you sound ignorant. The purpose of the Bill of Rights has absolutely nothing to do with individual freedoms. The Bill of Rights was a political maneuver to ensure the Constitution would be ratified. Individual freedoms were (and are) guaranteed by the Constitution not by specifying what rights we have, but instead by giving the government very specific and limited powers. The Bill of Rights is moot, and honestly, has absolutely nothing to do with government healthcare.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

I think your interpretation of the Constitution is laughable. Furthermore, your explanation of the purpose of the Bill of Rights only serves to make you sound ignorant. The purpose of the Bill of Rights has absolutely nothing to do with individual freedoms. The Bill of Rights was a political maneuver to ensure the Constitution would be ratified. Individual freedoms were (and are) guaranteed by the Constitution not by specifying what rights we have, but instead by giving the government very specific and limited powers. The Bill of Rights is moot, and honestly, has absolutely nothing to do with government healthcare.

Of course, for every reader of the Bill of Rights there will be a different interpretation. Saying that, I disagree with your statement about the Bill of Rights having absolutely nothing to do with individual freedoms. It has everything to do with basic human rights which are inalienable; no one can bestow them upon you because you are born with them. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to illustrate that the founding government was cognizant that no man can bestow such freedoms; they come directly from God. This mentality was in contrast with the previous belief system of the British monarchy which possessed the arrogance of placing limits upon these rights.

 

[Son of a Grunt]

You are not conservative any more then Hilery is "not a liberal, but a progressive."

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Of course, for every reader of the Bill of Rights there will be a different interpretation.

Of course there will, because most readers don't know the history behind the first 10 amendments. Think about it. If the rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, were so important, then why not make them part of the original text of the Constitution? Furthermore, for example, why is there nothing to be said of the "right" to privacy in the Constitution? Seems pretty important to me.

Saying that, I disagree with your statement about the Bill of Rights having absolutely nothing to do with individual freedoms. It has everything to do with basic human rights which are inalienable; no one can bestow them upon you because you are born with them. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to illustrate that the founding government was cognizant that no man can bestow such freedoms; they come directly from God. This mentality was in contrast with the previous belief system of the British monarchy which possessed the arrogance of placing limits upon these rights.

Don't confuse the Bill of Rights (or the Constitution) with the Declaration of Independence. That being said, the Constitution is not about defining our rights. It's about defining, specifically, the powers of the government.

 

[Flash]

Most women only rate one sonogram during a pregnancy. The check-ups you describe usually involve measuring with a tape and a brief fetal heart monitor check. I've been through this too with the wife, 3 times.

You're talking about a choice again. If someone chooses to pay for cable tv rather than go get an annual physical that could lead to early detection, that's his/her choice. I'm also not sure that making a service "free" (at the expense of everyone) available would compel someone to go to the doctor. I think it likely that many would still not seek preventative care, and only go after symptoms popped up.

This discussion is really about personal priorities. Needs vs. perceived needs which are really wants.

My point is, Medicare/Medicaid already cost this country more than defense. That doesn't include social security.

From the CBO, what do you think nationalizing health care will cost?

I am not sure what it would cost, but it is already costing the average American quite a bit of money, including me, and I am a federal employee.

I dont' think you quite grasp the expense of even normal health care. Everything from vaccines to MRI's, mammography machines and the latest meds cost a lot of money, and a lot of that is to provde everyday care.

When you say it is a choice to get care, it is in many cases. But what happens when that vaccine is not taken and sickens the person and others? What about the person who does not have their broken leg examined for arterial damage, for a bad break? What happens when they show up to the ER and get treated for their complications later on, costing even more and not being able to pay? Hospitals and doctors are obligated to treat emergency cases, which in a lot of cases could have been prevented.

It is a vicious cycle, one made worse by pay as you go or a lack of insurance. So by default, we pay for the poor anyways in many cases? both you and I.

I do have a lot more perspective than the normal board member here. I get itemized bills for every health care expense now that I have insurance, so I constantly get to see what health care costs my wife and I. But I also have a parent who has been involved in public health for the past 40 years, mainly as a provider to the poor. Running health care clinics/centers you learn the true cost of health care since you provide the services at cost, if you chage at all. Even providing the minimum of care to just a few thousand costs an enormous amount of money. This does not include intensive care of any kind, but treating broken bones and the sniffles.

The reality of health care costs is much starker than you wish to believe.

 

[Spekkio]

Raptor: I use XP and have windows blinds . Still, my area doesn't support any of those plans. Of course you could tell me that I have the "choice" to move, but that takes money, which must be made in a job with no insurance ...

Moreover, my gf just got a job that is not entry level. Pays about 2x what she was making before, but she still has to go through a 3 month probationary period before they insure her. Oh, and she's at a hospital no less.

Fact of the matter is that many, if not most, jobs will not insure you immediately after hiring you.

Harrier: It has nothing to do with demand. The demand is there, but people cannot afford it. I think the downslide is going to start with insurance companies. As businesses keep cutting benefits, and people stop being able to afford it, insurance will stop being profitable. Insurance relies on pooling the money of many people together for the few who need it. When the cost of premiums approach the cost of care without getting insurance, people will stop buying it. They're going to start to go bankrupt because there's no way in hell that the execs are going to take a paycut. They'll invest in the next upcoming thing. The people who want healthcare, the same ones who can't afford it right now, won't be able to afford it when insurance goes under. And thus you have a lot of highly trained professionals with people who can't afford their product...

That's just my prediction. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing at way too high of a rate these days for this system to survive for long.

Oh, and I meant highest in life expectancy. That's what I get for writing a post when I'm about to run out the door =/.

Steve: The Bill of Rights certainly does have meaning. The Constitution has the elastic clause, which basically has been interpreted that Congress can enact any law so long as the Constitution specifically says that it can't. The Bill of Rights is a list of 10 things that Congress cannot do.

The "Right to Privacy" doesn't exist in the Constitution. It's a loose interpretation of the 4th and 9th Amendments, the latter which basically says that the rights of the people outlined in the Constitution are not exhaustive.

Under those same lines, you could argue that healthcare is a right without specifically being stated as such. However, that's not my basis for my argument for healthcare reform.

 

[raptor10]

Steve: The Bill of Rights certainly does have meaning. The Constitution has the elastic clause, which basically has been interpreted that Congress can enact any law so long as the Constitution specifically says that it can't. The Bill of Rights is a list of 10 things that Congress cannot do.

Have you read that clause?

"The Congress shall have power …To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution."

That clause only gives congress the power to make laws that allow it to exercise it's powers i.e. to provide for the common defense we need to have money, so voila, taxes. It does not give Congress the right to make up any non constitutionally infringing law that it wants.

Here's a good link

Click the banner...

 

[Spekkio]

I have read the claws, and am well aware of the judicial conflict caused by such a vague statement.

I was simply stating that while Steve could be right regarding the political maneuvering behind the Bill of Rights (I haven't heard that version, but I'm not familiar with it at this point), stating that it has no meaning beyond a political ploy is a far stretch. Numerous laws have been stricken down under the provisions in the Bill of Rights.

 

[raptor10]

Ratification and the Massachusetts Compromise

In Massachusetts, the Constitution ran into serious, organized opposition. Only after two leading Antifederalists, Adams and Hancock, negotiated a far-reaching compromise did the convention vote for ratification on February 6, 1788 (187–168). Antifederalists had demanded that the Constitution be amended before they would consider it or that amendments be a condition of ratification; Federalists had retorted that it had to be accepted or rejected as it was. Under the Massachusetts compromise, the delegates recommended amendments to be considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into effect. The Massachusetts compromise determined the fate of the Constitution, as it permitted delegates with doubts to vote for it in the hope that it would be amended.[8]
​

 

[Harrier Dude]

Moreover, my gf just got a job that is not entry level. Pays about 2x what she was making before, but she still has to go through a 3 month probationary period before they insure her. Oh, and she's at a hospital no less.

Fact of the matter is that many, if not most, jobs will not insure you immediately after hiring you.

Life is full of risks. Deal with it. There are rewards, too. That's what makes life worth it.

Harrier: It has nothing to do with demand. The demand is there, but people cannot afford it. I think the downslide is going to start with insurance companies. As businesses keep cutting benefits, and people stop being able to afford it, insurance will stop being profitable. Insurance relies on pooling the money of many people together for the few who need it. When the cost of premiums approach the cost of care without getting insurance, people will stop buying it. They're going to start to go bankrupt because there's no way in hell that the execs are going to take a paycut. They'll invest in the next upcoming thing. The people who want healthcare, the same ones who can't afford it right now, won't be able to afford it when insurance goes under. And thus you have a lot of highly trained professionals with people who can't afford their product...That's just my prediction. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing at way too high of a rate these days for this system to survive for long.

For the love of God.......pick up an economics textbook. Even a high school text will suffice for you at this point. Supply and demand do not exist independently. They are forces of the free market that will achieve a balance point unless directly manipulated by regulatory forces, which have their own deleterious side effects (minimum wage, price caps, etc.). Seriously, this is ECON 101.

Oh, and I meant highest in life expectancy. That's what I get for writing a post when I'm about to run out the door =/.

I realize that. I was kidding with you.

Steve: The Bill of Rights certainly does have meaning. The Constitution has the elastic clause, which basically has been interpreted that Congress can enact any law so long as the Constitution specifically says that it can't. The Bill of Rights is a list of 10 things that Congress cannot do.

WHAT?? Please tell me you wrote that running out the door, too. I've seen judicial activism before, but never anybody so blantantly quantify it in a straightforward manner. They usually try to disguise it a little better than that.

The "Right to Privacy" doesn't exist in the Constitution. It's a loose interpretation of the 4th and 9th Amendments, the latter which basically says that the rights of the people outlined in the Constitution are not exhaustive

"Privacy" is not a right in and of itself. It is derived by govenmental restraint. By NOT allowing the govenrment to act upon us in ways not described in the Constitution, we get privacy.

[/QUOTE]Under those same lines, you could argue that healthcare is a right without specifically being stated as such. However, that's not my basis for my argument for healthcare reform.[/QUOTE]

Now that's judicial activism for you.

 

[Hozer]

But what happens when that vaccine is not taken and sickens the person and others? What about the person who does not have their broken leg examined for arterial damage, for a bad break?

In both cases, coverage is not a factor, since it is incumbent upon the individual to seek care. In the ER, a broken femur will automatically be examined for arteriel damage and monitored for p/c embolisms. Your cases illustrate the personal choices each of us makes. At the end of the day, you can say "now what, because society is stuck with the end result", but it starts with choices the individual makes.

I dont' think you quite grasp the expense of even normal health care. Everything from vaccines to MRI's, mammography machines and the latest meds cost a lot of money, and a lot of that is to provde everyday care

Well, I've paid tens of thousands directly out of pocket to doctors for both of my parents. I made choices. I also know these are things every family deals with too, none of us are the exception.

I just don't think UHC will work. Our medical care system would collapse after a massive influx of non-payers. Add in fixed rates for services, which from experience, robs incentive. All of this is moot, because the gov't can't afford it anyway.

 

[Red Anjin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hozer
I forgot my liberal gibberish translation book at Starbuck's. Seriously, you should run for office. In Sweden.

Maybe this comment was a kneejerk response. I would hazard a guess that you've become comfortable labeling anyone with an opinion different than your's as a liberal because my comments speak of identifying societal values which have deteriorated over the generations. A conservative is a person who wishes to preserve the traditional values; it would seem that I am espousing a conservative viewpoint there, sir.


No, this comment wasn't a knee jerk reaction. When "progressives" start throwing phrases around like "societal values" and insist they "need to be addressed" it is done in an attempt to belittle those who disagree. You're starting from an assumed position that these issues are somehow society's responsibility, which they are not, and simply because you say they are does not make it true. Case in point, you claiming to be espousing a "conservative viewpoint".

You're not. There is no way you can logically twist this argument (for UHC) into one of a conservative viewpoint. So your assertion has as much weight as my claim that the sky is bright green.

There is no "societal issue" here. No, really, this is not a societal issue, its a personal issue. As was suggested, if your state wants UHC, pass an amendment. Health care is not a right, it should not be expected. If your neighbor is a doctor and you break you leg he might set it because he likes you but otherwise, you'll have to pay. Welcome to the real world.

Do you know Hozer? If not, then you should keep your snotty opinion about what he is and is not comfortable with to yourself. He doesn't label you a liberal because your opinion is different than his, he labels you a liberal because you are running your suck about a topic that clearly comes from a liberal viewpoint. Its logic, not dislike. Aside from that you have described yourself as a liberal in past posts. So he has displayed nothing of his personal feelings towards you in his post. Please stop playing the victim here.

This topic might was well be locked because no one is going to convince anyone of anything. You have a belief in a type of America that doesn't exist. You believe America should be responsible for all Americans. Most of us here believe that Americans (note the slight difference) should be responsile for....THEMSELVES! You have an idea of America that is not in the character of this nation, but of many nations over the seas.

You believe the sweat of our labour should be taken from us and given to those who need. "From each according to his labor to each according to his need". Sound familiar?

You can couch it in whatever self-righteous phrases you want (societal issues that need to be addressed) but it means the same thing. Take from those who have, who work for it, who risk and give it to those who didn't.

No one has the right to my money. I made it, I earned it, you didn't, get your greedy hands off. I'll tell you what, you set up your doomed experiment and I'll opt out. I wont pay even more taxes for UHC and I wont use it. How does that sound? While we're at it, I'd like to opt out of Social Security as well, since I'm never going to see all my money and I'm 100% positive I can invest it better than the government. There is another stellar program run by the government for the good of all. Is there a trend in these entitlement programs that only I can see?

If so, we're doomed.

Red Anjin

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hozer
I forgot my liberal gibberish translation book at Starbuck's. Seriously, you should run for office. In Sweden.

Maybe this comment was a kneejerk response. I would hazard a guess that you've become comfortable labeling anyone with an opinion different than your's as a liberal because my comments speak of identifying societal values which have deteriorated over the generations. A conservative is a person who wishes to preserve the traditional values; it would seem that I am espousing a conservative viewpoint there, sir.


No, this comment wasn't a knee jerk reaction. When "progressives" start throwing phrases around like "societal values" and insist they "need to be addressed" it is done in an attempt to belittle those who disagree. You're starting from an assumed position that these issues are somehow society's responsibility, which they are not, and simply because you say they are does not make it true. Case in point, you claiming to be espousing a "conservative viewpoint".

You're not. There is no way you can logically twist this argument (for UHC) into one of a conservative viewpoint. So your assertion has as much weight as my claim that the sky is bright green.

There is no "societal issue" here. No, really, this is not a societal issue, its a personal issue. As was suggested, if your state wants UHC, pass an amendment. Health care is not a right, it should not be expected. If your neighbor is a doctor and you break you leg he might set it because he likes you but otherwise, you'll have to pay. Welcome to the real world.

Do you know Hozer? If not, then you should keep your snotty opinion about what he is and is not comfortable with to yourself. He doesn't label you a liberal because your opinion is different than his, he labels you a liberal because you are running your suck about a topic that clearly comes from a liberal viewpoint. Its logic, not dislike. Aside from that you have described yourself as a liberal in past posts. So he has displayed nothing of his personal feelings towards you in his post. Please stop playing the victim here.

This topic might was well be locked because no one is going to convince anyone of anything. You have a belief in a type of America that doesn't exist. You believe America should be responsible for all Americans. Most of us here believe that Americans (note the slight difference) should be responsile for....THEMSELVES! You have an idea of America that is not in the character of this nation, but of many nations over the seas.

You believe the sweat of our labour should be taken from us and given to those who need. "From each according to his labor to each according to his need". Sound familiar?

You can couch it in whatever self-righteous phrases you want (societal issues that need to be addressed) but it means the same thing. Take from those who have, who work for it, who risk and give it to those who didn't.

No one has the right to my money. I made it, I earned it, you didn't, get your greedy hands off. I'll tell you what, you set up your doomed experiment and I'll opt out. I wont pay even more taxes for UHC and I wont use it. How does that sound? While we're at it, I'd like to opt out of Social Security as well, since I'm never going to see all my money and I'm 100% positive I can invest it better than the government. There is another stellar program run by the government for the good of all. Is there a trend in these entitlement programs that only I can see?

If so, we're doomed.

Red Anjin

My comments were in direct response to his quoted phrase of my post. He called what I spoke of as liberal gibberish when I spoke about "societal values." Are you saying that as Americans we don't have basic shared values? And, that we don't have ideals as to where our country should be headed? I find the rate of teenage mothers alarming. I find the rate of unwed single mothers to be alarming. I find the number of high school drop-outs to be alarming. Basic, foundational issues have to be addressed in today's America because they have an impact upon the number of people receiving public benefits. FULL STOP. When I speak about preserving present or past values, that is a conservative viewpoint. No where did I say that it made me a conservative; in spite of being a liberal, I hold many conservative viewpoints. On the issue of health care, I take a very progressive stance which I freely admit.

At one time, giving freedom to the slaves was a very progressive stance. At another time, acknowledging women's right to vote was a very progressive stance. Not too long ago, having intergrated schools was a very progressive stance.

If my comments appeared to be "snotty" they were done so because his comments were sardonic. I'm one of those people who responds to derision with derision but I guess you may have overlooked that aspect in your very esteemed defense. However, you have twisted my words or have done a dismal job of reading what I wrote because I never stated that having a UHC was a conservative viewpoint; nope, never said that.

Once again, I freely admit that the difference in viewpoints is due to fundamental and philosphical differences. So, do not speak down to me as if you expect me to retract any of my previous statements.

Good day.