# Throwing down the gauntlet



## Veneficus (Feb 21, 2011)

For those who think that a private payer healthcare system is so great, do you have the ability and the fortitude to look somebody's mother, brother, child, father, friend, husband or wife in the face and tell them they are not getting any medical care because they cannot pay?

If so, I invite you over here where we can put it to the test.


----------



## TransportJockey (Feb 21, 2011)

I've had a decent amount of people tell me I'm a heartless monster who has no soul. I bet I could do it, not that I really wanna try.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 21, 2011)

jtpaintball70 said:


> I've had a decent amount of people tell me I'm a heartless monster who has no soul. I bet I could do it, not that I really wanna try.



How many times do you think you could do it?


----------



## TransportJockey (Feb 21, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> How many times do you think you could do it?



Probably very few. Like I said, I really don't think I ever wanna try


----------



## 8jimi8 (Feb 21, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> For those who think that a private payer healthcare system is so great, do you have the ability and the fortitude to look somebody's mother, brother, child, father, friend, husband or wife in the face and tell them they are not getting any medical care because they cannot pay?
> 
> If so, I invite you over here where we can put it to the test.



I don't care how barren life can become. I could never withhold care for lack of compensation.  I don't understand or care about the intricacies of coming reform ( which remains unfunded, correct?) I don't quite understand what will be different except I thought they were going to tax those of us who have good benefits...

Aren't people getting all the free ambulance rides they want under the current scheme?


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 21, 2011)

8jimi8 said:


> I don't care how barren life can become. I could never withhold care for lack of compensation.  I don't understand or care about the intricacies of coming reform ( which remains unfunded, correct?) I don't quite understand what will be different except I thought they were going to tax those of us who have good benefits...
> 
> Aren't people getting all the free ambulance rides they want under the current scheme?



I don't think the coming reform is going to work as it is written. I also don't see how a private payer system under the current spending can have any other outcome but pay to play.

But I am not interested in arguing systems, I want to know who has the balls to tell people who cannot afford it they will not be recieving it to come over here and put their money where their mouth is. Because there is ample opportunity and quite frankly, it sucks.


----------



## Hal9000 (Feb 21, 2011)

*Yes, emphatically.*

I have told myself that on numerous occasions.


----------



## terrible one (Feb 21, 2011)

Whats the alternative? Ya it sucks ***, and no I don't want to be the one that has to tell someone they cant/wont get care because they cannot afford it, however, what other choice is there under the current system? I honestly have no idea how private hospitals make any money. how can any business afford to pay all those specialists and DR salaries when in certain areas half of your customers dont pay their bills?


----------



## 8jimi8 (Feb 21, 2011)

I'd be happy to trade goods or services for nursing care.  heck, that's what i plan on doing during the apocalypse...  why do you think i want my emt-p...


----------



## Emma (Feb 21, 2011)

Public schools do it all the time. Not denying health care, but denying them education. We tell kids who are sick to go home and not come back until they are better.  We yank them from class, sit them in the office, and make their parents leave their jobs to come get them.

If the parents (or whoever is responsible) don't have health insurance, nothing happens. They wont take the kid to the doctor because they can't afford it. A $500 bill for an ambulance ride can completely crush someone who's teetering on the edge of poverty. 

End result is the kid doesn't get any medical care and misses weeks of school. It's a mess.  I have at least 10 or so (of my 120) students out each week because school won't let them back in until they are well.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 21, 2011)

terrible one said:


> Whats the alternative? Ya it sucks ***, and no I don't want to be the one that has to tell someone they cant/wont get care because they cannot afford it, however, what other choice is there under the current system? I honestly have no idea how private hospitals make any money. how can any business afford to pay all those specialists and DR salaries when in certain areas half of your customers dont pay their bills?



The current system doesn't work. A better alternative is a matter of debate.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 21, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> The current system doesn't work. A better alternative is a matter of debate.



The alternative is deadbeats paying their bills and stop abusing the system.


It's a snowball-- One person doesn't pay, so the next has to pay more to recoup costs.  Eventually someone else wont pay the higher fees, so the next has to pay even more.



I hope we never see federally funded universal healthcare in the states.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 21, 2011)

In the county where I work, we only bill the pt's insurance. No out of pocket payment is requested by DAB (diversified ambulance billing). If you're not a county resident, you'll be billed. Regardless of where you live, you can fill out and submit a financial hardship waiver and not have to pay. Otherwise, your bill goes to collections after three bills are sent. 

I've worked for two IFT companies, and my old hospital that also does IFT. In my experience, the txp will simply not be scheduled if the company is not compensated.

At my 911 job, we don't charge if there's no transport. If the pt says they won't go because they're uninsured and can't afford it, I fully inform them of the consequences of refusing txp, and also the county's billing policies. It was the same back in NYC. The situation is what it is. I'm not going to lie to the pt. To feign ignorance as to if they'll be billed or not is also lying. I always tell them the straight story. It may come over as harsh, but lying to them isn't doing them any good. The pt (or their guardian) is an adult, and they're going to have to dealmwith the circumstances, however unfair they may be. 

I won't discuss billing unless I'm asked. If I'm asked, I tell them what I believe to be true. If I think telling them off the record that (if I were them, hypothetically) I would refuse txp after the eval, and take myself to the ED or urgent care instead of getting a txp bill would benefit them, I may do so.

If someone calls 911 and thinks it's free, I have no remorse. If the pt is an immigrant, they may not realize that we charge, as they may not get billed back in their country. In that case, I'll mention that fact. Usually, the immigrant will either be insured, or not care about a bill because they have no intention of paying it anyway.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 21, 2011)

Also, if the pt is ill, and needs an ED, and refuses txp after our evaluation because of finances, they're an adult and they'll suffer the consequences of that fully informed decision. We can't kidnap them. I've had pts die on several occasions after securing a refusal. If they're that bad off, I'll have OLMC try and convince them to agree to txp before securing the refusal. With the afprementioned deaths, even the doc couldn't convince them to txp. We can't kidnap them. Again, their financial situation isn't our fault, however unfair that it might be, and we can only do so much.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 21, 2011)

Linuss said:


> The alternative is deadbeats paying their bills and stop abusing the system.
> 
> 
> It's a snowball-- One person doesn't pay, so the next has to pay more to recoup costs.  Eventually someone else wont pay the higher fees, so the next has to pay even more.



Or the deadbeat parasites eventually suck us dry, the dollar goes bust, we have a repeat of Weimar Germany type hyperinflation, and the world ceases to use the U.S. dollar as the standard, and our quality of life will be akin to that of the average third world country. 

Make sure all property titles and such are on paper, and not just on electronic media, in case we lose our technological capacity. You want to be able to prove that your house is yours.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 21, 2011)

Society's issues and tinfoil hats aside,

the purpose of this thread is to find out who is willing and able to be the healthcare provider to tell people who cannot pay for healthcare that they can not have it at the moment of their need.

And my offer stands, you come out here and I'll make sure you get the chance so you can see what it is like and if you want to keep doing it.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Feb 21, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> How many times do you think you could do it?




How much am I getting paid to do it?



> Aren't people getting all the free ambulance rides they want under the current scheme?



There's no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## HeadNurseRN (Feb 21, 2011)

this is a real nice thread, I think I could tell someone they can't get a kidney or liver more then "No $$$ No Care."  ...... That's me


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 21, 2011)

*Very easy to find the money:*

1) legalize, regulate and tax all drugs and all gambling.

2) the tax revenue + savings from law enforcement + now legal and taxed salaries from all this trade = more than enough $ to pay for health care 

3) enforce who can be in the country and who can work in the country, anyone here unlawfully gets free stabilizing care and once stabilized sent back

next problem ?


----------



## HeadNurseRN (Feb 21, 2011)

I could see the distance future being like Escape From L.A. *No smoking, no drugs, no alcohol, no women - unless you're married - no foul language, no red meat!*Welcome to the human race.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 21, 2011)

Could I?  Yup.


Would I like it?  Nope.


----------



## Aidey (Feb 21, 2011)

I could, and I couldn't. It would be situation dependent. 

In the case where a patient wants X done, instead of Y, but X isn't covered by their insurance and Y would work just as well I think I could do it. 

"Ma'am your insurance will not pay for a CT to diagnose gallstones, but it will pay for an ultrasound"
"But I want a CT"
"A ultrasound is just as effective and is safer"
"I want a CT"
"Ma'am, becuase your insurance won't pay for it I will not order a CT unless you can pay out of pocket"
"I can't afford it"
"Then I"m sorry, but I won't order it"

However, that isn't a true representation of Vene's question becuase stuff like that happens on a regular basis already (generic vs name brand meds), and it isn't really denying care. 

I think I could also do it if the further care was going to be futile, but the family wanted it anyway "just in case". Like an 8th round of chemo in a stage 4 pancreatic cancer patient. 

However, I couldn't pull a Jan Brewer and tell 100 people on the transplant list "Sorry, sucks to be you, we aren't paying for your transplant", or anything like that.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 21, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> For those who think that a private payer healthcare system is so great, do you have the ability and the fortitude to look somebody's mother, brother, child, father, friend, husband or wife in the face and tell them they are not getting any medical care because they cannot pay?
> 
> If so, I invite you over here where we can put it to the test.



So everyone there gets 100% of the treatments they want in a decent time frame with everyone in health care being appropriately reimbursed?


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 21, 2011)

8jimi8 said:


> I don't care how barren life can become. I could never withhold care for lack of compensation.



Would you say that if your income was directly connected to your patient's ability to pay? For example, if your patient doesn't pay, you're on the hook for the supplies and gas used to treat that patient and you don't get paid for how ever long between dispatch and going back in service.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 21, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> the purpose of this thread is to find out who is willing and able to be the healthcare provider to tell people who cannot pay for healthcare that they can not have it at the moment of their need.



Are we limiting this only to emergencies? After all, there's a difference between emergency trauma surgery and getting a lap band.


----------



## 8jimi8 (Feb 22, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> Would you say that if your income was directly connected to your patient's ability to pay? For example, if your patient doesn't pay, you're on the hook for the supplies and gas used to treat that patient and you don't get paid for how ever long between dispatch and going back in service.



Like i said in a follow up post, i'd take trade in service.  Maybe the guy has a gas card and can fill up my tank once a month?  Maybe he's got a pretty daughter with a large dowry...


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 22, 2011)

8jimi8 said:


> Maybe he's got a pretty daughter with a large dowry...



Well, this explains the chat room last night.


----------



## 8jimi8 (Feb 22, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> Well, this explains the chat room last night.




This explains my life post  d/c of the marriage...


----------



## Anjel (Feb 22, 2011)

I could tell someone they can't have treatment if it wasn't a life threatening issue. Like the man who stubbed his toe and is convinced its broken. 

But if someone is having serious life threatening issues. I don't know what I would do. There is no way I could or would leave them there. I really hope it never comes to that. 

On the other side of things ambulance "rides" are way to damn expensive. There should be a sliding scale for those low income people with no insurance. 

I had to call 911 for myself not to long ago. I had a syncopal episode. Live alone. And when I came to I had no choice but to call an ambulance to take me to the hospital 6 miles away. 

Nothing was done tx wise in route. Except a BGL and vitals. No monitor or anything like that. My bill was 850 bucks. I have no insurance. 

There needs to be some kind of help for those who can't afford what they NEED.


----------



## mycrofft (Feb 22, 2011)

*I used to do it for a living.*

I was a medical case manager (RN) for an alphabetic portion of five specialties, including neuro, ortho, podiatry, related durable equipment, related diagnostics, related rehab, regarding disbursement of the county's Medically Indigent funds. Some folks were cut off because they had a lawsuit started and the lawyer was supposed to pay their medical and recoup it in the settlement (say what?!), and any other coverage at all, no matter how inadequate, made potential recipients ineligible. We received the referrals from the County clinics (all but one or two of which have since been closed) and depended upon private providers who notified us they would see our clients to provide the care...which most did not because they only wanted to use us to make sure any emergency patients they accrued who were unable to pay would yield some sort of money.
Our local major medical centers are nicely landscaped, their directors make millions of dollars annually, and some are even buying up urban real estate and developing it...while crying because they lose so much money.

Private pay medical is huge business and has no true interest, as a whole, to provide care unless it is extremely profitable and they are forced to.

If there is government sponsored health care, those with enough money will still have ways to get above-average health care.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 22, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> So everyone there gets 100% of the treatments they want in a decent time frame with everyone in health care being appropriately reimbursed?



No, it is a pay to play system here. If you don't have some means of paying for it, be it insurance, if you are lucky charity, or cash, you don't get it.

There are also varying level of insurance.


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 22, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> For those who think that a private payer healthcare system is so great, do you have the ability and the fortitude to look somebody's mother, brother, child, father, friend, husband or wife in the face and tell them they are not getting any medical care because they cannot pay?
> 
> If so, I invite you over here where we can put it to the test.


 Wouldn't be able to live with myself if I did.

But then again I'm an America-hating, pinko, socialist. So I guess that explains it.


----------



## Ansible (Feb 22, 2011)

I think the whole idea is that we don't end up with a system like that of Marcus Licinius Crassus, where you have to pay to have an emergency dealt with. I would personally be willing to throw down in the debate hall and on the mat/canvas/dirt with someone who believes only those who can 'afford' aid should get it.

The main problem I see with increasing the range of healthcare and treatment is not funding, because money is an arbitrary creation to begin with, but overpopulation, because food will always have value, and we can only produce so much.


----------



## sir.shocksalot (Feb 22, 2011)

I couldn't tell someone that they won't get medical care because they are poor. I think it's inhumane, I think if you have a medical problem, you have to right to get it treated. The problem with this belief I have is that healthcare is far from free. As much as I want Joe the Hobo's alcoholism taken care of, it is going to cost money; and Joe the Hobo won't pay, so who will?

I wonder how much money is wasted trying to protect MDs from lawsuits? I just read an article, which I can't find now, but it said something like 25% or 50% of tests preformed in orthopaedics are done just to protect from lawsuits.


----------



## Smash (Feb 22, 2011)

I couldn't. I'm pleased that I will never have to either: thank you universal healthcare.


----------



## Bullets (Feb 22, 2011)

Vene, Im your huckleberry.

If i have a pt's chart in front of me and i know why they can't get the treatment they "need" then i could do it. Im just that cold and heartless of a SOB to do it. 

you dont have the money? tough, you got delt a bad hand, sorry life doesnt work out perfectly 100% of the time, hope a charity picks up your case. If you cant help yourself, then hope someone, like most of us, has the kindness in their heart to take up your case and work with you. Thats what chaity organizations are for


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 22, 2011)

HeadNurseRN said:


> I could see the distance future being like Escape From L.A. *No smoking, no drugs, no alcohol, no women - unless you're married - no foul language, no red meat!*Welcome to the human race.



Think, as someone who lived through four decades, each with a recession; as well as hearing tales of the 1930s depression, I have faith things will bounce back. The economy is cyclical. Things may get worse, but not as bad as the 1930s. Mansions were left deserted.....I rmember in the 1970s, shopping malls boarded up...

It may have to happen that the country becomes more restrictive on imports and immigration, people may have their nest eggs chipped away, not so many luxury cars, desinger clothes, and lattes to go around, but it will get better for those who survive.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 22, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> For those who think that a private payer healthcare system is so great, do you have the ability and the fortitude to look somebody's mother, brother, child, father, friend, husband or wife in the face and tell them they are not getting any medical care because they cannot pay?
> 
> If so, I invite you over here where we can put it to the test.




Getting back to the OP's ?, no, I don't think I can do it. 

My vollie has a policy of not only being free but not even getting people's insurance (which personally disagree with). It is very refreshing to be able to assure people that they will get no bill from us; even when we do a transport home.


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 22, 2011)

Bullets said:


> Vene, Im your huckleberry.
> 
> If i have a pt's chart in front of me and i know why they can't get the treatment they "need" then i could do it. Im just that cold and heartless of a SOB to do it.
> 
> you dont have the money? tough, you got delt a bad hand, sorry life doesnt work out perfectly 100% of the time, hope a charity picks up your case. If you cant help yourself, then hope someone, like most of us, has the kindness in their heart to take up your case and work with you. Thats what chaity organizations are for


Well I hope you never take care of anyone I know.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 22, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> If you don't have some means of paying for it, , you don't get it.




Even emergency care to stabilize the patient ?

In NYC that is rendered on demand. Am I mistaken to have assumed it was like that everywhere in USA ?


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 22, 2011)

emt seeking first job said:


> Even emergency care to stabilize the patient ?
> 
> In NYC that is rendered on demand. Am I mistaken to have assumed it was like that everywhere in USA ?



I spend a large portion of my time outside the USA, but I know of 2 hospitals in the US that moved things like their OB departments outside of city limits into very wealthy neighborhoods in order to be able to transfer charity OB out instead of rendering mandated care because "they don't ofer the service."


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 22, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> I spend a large portion of my time outside the USA, but I know of 2 hospitals in the US that moved things like their OB departments outside of city limits into very wealthy neighborhoods in order to be able to transfer charity OB out instead of rendering mandated care because "they don't ofer the service."



I noticed a lot of "urgent care" with signs that read THIS IS NOT AN EMERGENCY ROOM, CALL 911 FOR EMERGENCY clinics opening up and ER's closing. In fact I know of one hospital, shut down, ER closed, another insititution bought it, and now it is an "Urgent Care Center"


----------



## 46Young (Feb 22, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> Society's issues and tinfoil hats aside,
> 
> the purpose of this thread is to find out who is willing and able to be the healthcare provider to tell people who cannot pay for healthcare that they can not have it at the moment of their need.
> 
> And my offer stands, you come out here and I'll make sure you get the chance so you can see what it is like and if you want to keep doing it.



Get the chance and see what it's like? Are you going to tell us at some point that you, or someone in your family (God forbid) is being denied a treatment or surgery?


----------



## 46Young (Feb 22, 2011)

emt seeking first job said:


> I noticed a lot of "urgent care" with signs that read THIS IS NOT AN EMERGENCY ROOM, CALL 911 FOR EMERGENCY clinics opening up and ER's closing. In fact I know of one hospital, shut down, ER closed, another insititution bought it, and now it is an "Urgent Care Center"



The good thing about urgent care centers is that it cut down on the ED crowds, and also our call volume. I didn't see many at all back in NY , although I last worked in the system in 2007. We get emergent calls out of these centers from time to time, but they're typically insured, so we're at least getting reimbursed.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 22, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> I spend a large portion of my time outside the USA, but I know of 2 hospitals in the US that moved things like their OB departments outside of city limits into very wealthy neighborhoods in order to be able to transfer charity OB out instead of rendering mandated care because "they don't ofer the service."



I've seen that as well. In my own county, INOVA Mt. Vernon cut their OB dept. The Richmond Highway (Rt. 1) area is the poorest region in the county. I think that we're eventually going to see just a handful of huge hospiatlas that provide many specialty services, like NYU, Cornell, NSUH Manhasset in NY, for example. Those surgeries and services can overcome the burden of the numerous uncompensated cases. The smaller hospitals will keep falling like dominoes, like NYC's St. Vincent's CMC. They just can't cut a profit with so many of the uninsured and underinsured using them. I understand they may have nowhere else to go, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it still results in the hospital going belly up at some point.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 22, 2011)

46Young said:


> Get the chance and see what it's like? Are you going to tell us at some point that you, or someone in your family (God forbid) is being denied a treatment or surgery?



No, that is not the case.

I am experiencing what it is like when people are turned down for treatment because they cannot afford it due to under or uninsured.

Where when a medicine is prescribed the patient tells you they simply cannot afford it. 

I find it is very difficult to see people go through it and see it as the direction the US is heading unless some type of meaningful and workable reform is enacted.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 22, 2011)

Taking the example of the numerous hospital closings in NYC over the past several years, if the hospital denies no one, and provides treatment and surgeries to anyone who needs it, they'll eventually run deep in the red and shut down.

My understanding in Canada is that the physician or specialist is capped at a certain dollar amount of profit each year. Specialists can make more than a general practicioner, but they're still capped. What they do is pace themselves throughout the year, to reach that cap at or just before the end of the year. This applied to treatment and surgeries as well as office visits. This is why there are waiting lists, why elective surgeries have to wait months and months. There's no incentive to get pts what they need as quickly as possible; they'll be working for free for the last few months of every year, or be taking under the table bribes to place the more affluent ahead of all others in line. This keeps costs down, I would think, since there are less surgeries and treatments being provided. Actually, this keeps the govt's costs down, not mine, since we're all carrying those who refuse to pay (welfare abusers and career entitlement scam artists, not those that have legitimate need). This is what we're headed for.

So what do you suggest?


----------



## Emma (Feb 22, 2011)

46Young said:


> The Richmond Highway (Rt. 1) area is the poorest region in the county.



That's where I teach. 

I have lots of stories of students (or student's immediate family members) being denied care because they can't pay, but I feel like I'd cross a professionalism line if I shared.

I understand that everything costs money, and health care has to be paid for some how, but it's _wrong_ to let people suffer because we can't figure out how to fix health insurance.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 22, 2011)

46Young said:


> Taking the example of the numerous hospital closings in NYC over the past several years, if the hospital denies no one, and provides treatment and surgeries to anyone who needs it, they'll eventually run deep in the red and shut down.
> 
> My understanding in Canada is that the physician or specialist is capped at a certain dollar amount of profit each year. Specialists can make more than a general practicioner, but they're still capped. What they do is pace themselves throughout the year, to reach that cap at or just before the end of the year. This applied to treatment and surgeries as well as office visits. This is why there are waiting lists, why elective surgeries have to wait months and months. There's no incentive to get pts what they need as quickly as possible; they'll be working for free for the last few months of every year, or be taking under the table bribes to place the more affluent ahead of all others in line. This keeps costs down, I would think, since there are less surgeries and treatments being provided. Actually, this keeps the govt's costs down, not mine, since we're all carrying those who refuse to pay (welfare abusers and career entitlement scam artists, not those that have legitimate need). This is what we're headed for.
> 
> So what do you suggest?



There is no simple answer, there are many issues that have to be addressed, and too many hands in the pot that have too much to lose to let anything meaningful happen. 

Ultimately I think everyone who has an interest will have to sacrifice something. 

The only real question is whether it is done before the economic realities force a cash and carry only system.


----------



## Smash (Feb 22, 2011)

Bullets said:


> Vene, Im your huckleberry.
> 
> If i have a pt's chart in front of me and i know why they can't get the treatment they "need" then i could do it. Im just that cold and heartless of a SOB to do it.
> 
> you dont have the money? tough, you got delt a bad hand, sorry life doesnt work out perfectly 100% of the time, hope a charity picks up your case. If you cant help yourself, then hope someone, like most of us, has the kindness in their heart to take up your case and work with you. Thats what chaity organizations are for



The rest of the world looks on with dismay at this sort of attitude amongst those who are supposedly in caring professions. We also find it perplexing when we happily provide the Great Satan of socialized health care, and yet strangely enough our economies haven't collapsed, society hasn't broken down, and everyone gets the care they need. 

Sure, the system isn't perfect, there are many things that could be changed for the better, but the fact of the matter is, if I pick up a homeless, jobless and uninsured patient off the street who is having a STEMI, he will get stented, he will get the medications he needs (not plavix or heparin hopefully!) and he will get follow up and cardiac rehab afterwards. This doesn't break the economy, doesn't cost jobs and doesn't cripple us with taxation, hence our trouble understanding the vicious, cold hearted and frankly disturbing attitude displayed here. 

The mark of true civilization is how we treat those less fortunate than ourselves.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 22, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> No, that is not the case.
> Thank goodness.
> 
> I am experiencing what it is like when people are turned down for treatment because they cannot afford it due to under or uninsured.
> ...



So, either we deepen the rift between the haves and the have nots, and tell the have nots that they're SOL, or we all carry those that can't provide for themselves (a relatively small number) and the career entitlement abusers (their numbers are legion, and their votes are highly valued). I'm okay with universal healthcare, provided that all able bodied adults are productive in some way, shape, or form, and there needs to be massive entitlemnt reform (pipe dream, that would constitute political suicide). There's absolutely no reason why a welfare recipient can't perform labor for the government. How about litter removal, parks beautification, landscaping such as cutting grass, stuffing envelopes, janitorial work such as cleaning bathrooms and mopping, something. If the career entitlement abusers were forced to leave their homes and surrender their free time to perform labor for 40 hours a week, you would see a lot less people on the gov't dole. It's hard to work your under the table job while receiving a gov't check when you're mandated to be somewhere else.

I'd also like to see our retirement system replaced with a plan similar to the one in Chile: 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5981

Why is a proposal similar to this not on the table, as we're discussing entitlement reform?


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 22, 2011)

Smash said:


> The rest of the world looks on with dismay at this sort of attitude amongst those who are supposedly in caring professions. We also find it perplexing when we happily provide the Great Satan of socialized health care, and yet strangely enough our economies haven't collapsed, society hasn't broken down, and everyone gets the care they need.
> 
> Sure, the system isn't perfect, there are many things that could be changed for the better, but the fact of the matter is, if I pick up a homeless, jobless and uninsured patient off the street who is having a STEMI, he will get stented, he will get the medications he needs (not plavix or heparin hopefully!) and he will get follow up and cardiac rehab afterwards. This doesn't break the economy, doesn't cost jobs and doesn't cripple us with taxation, hence our trouble understanding the vicious, cold hearted and frankly disturbing attitude displayed here.
> 
> The mark of true civilization is how we treat those less fortunate than ourselves.









IMHO, just like everyone is entitled to a basic level of police, fire, and education for free, there should be free health care.

Just like the above can be augemented with private security and private schools/tutors; private health care could be made available for those willing and able to pay.

There was a time when there was no public education and some places have subscriber paid police and fire...

It could be done, it just has to be fitted into the baseline status quo.

Think of all the taxes saved if there were no free schools. But nobody ever says to do away with that.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 22, 2011)

46Young said:


> So, either we deepen the rift between the haves and the have nots, and tell the have nots that they're SOL, or we all carry those that can't provide for themselves (a relatively small number) and the career entitlement abusers (their numbers are legion, and their votes are highly valued). I'm okay with universal healthcare, provided that all able bodied adults are productive in some way, shape, or form, and there needs to be massive entitlemnt reform (pipe dream, that would constitute political suicide). There's absolutely no reason why a welfare recipient can't perform labor for the government. How about litter removal, parks beautification, landscaping such as cutting grass, stuffing envelopes, janitorial work such as cleaning bathrooms and mopping, something. If the career entitlement abusers were forced to leave their homes and surrender their free time to perform labor for 40 hours a week, you would see a lot less people on the gov't dole. It's hard to work your under the table job while receiving a gov't check when you're mandated to be somewhere else.
> 
> I'd also like to see our retirement system replaced with a plan similar to the one in Chile:
> 
> ...







I agree with 46Y, there has to be other reforms implemented in. Also as I wrote end the prohibition on recreational drug use. Also better mass transit in population dense areas.

So long as no one is in a position of trust, or operating a vehicle or vessel, why cant someone toke/shoot/snort away...?


----------



## 46Young (Feb 22, 2011)

emt seeking first job said:


> I agree with 46Y, there has to be other reforms implemented in. Also as I wrote end the prohibition on recreational drug use. Also better mass transit in population dense areas.
> 
> So long as no one is in a position of trust, or operating a vehicle or vessel, why cant someone toke/shoot/snort away...?



I agree. People are always going to get their drugs. We might as well regulate it, and get revenue from taxes, permits, etc. Starve out these gangs by taking their income. At least start with weed and ecstasy and see how this goes. Do it with prostitution as well. Regulate these things, and you won't see hookers on the street corner, and much less junkies mugging people, carjacking, etc. Gang numbers and prison populations will dwindle. Gang recruitment will suffer, as there won't be enough money to attract many kids without the drug money. There's not enough money in stickups, home break ins, and car jackings to be able to live the glorified lifestyle they see on MTV. Without drug money, you'll actually make more by going to school and getting a job.


----------



## the_negro_puppy (Feb 22, 2011)

Not an issue down under. Public hospitals are free and ambulances are free ($100) levy per year added to electricity bill. Obviously this opens the system for abuse. We also have private hospitals with private health insurance available. Obviously there can be long waits for less acute patients but the option exists to go private for instant treatment if you want to pay. This system works well though is inevitably always under resourced. I take great comfort in the fact that even if I was homeless I could still access and not worry about getting a $25k bill for the basic human right of healthcare. Why is america the only developed nation without socialized health?


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 22, 2011)

Some (and by some I mean "a lot") of the people on this thread need to read some John Rawls...and some Keynes.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 22, 2011)

46Young said:


> There's not enough money in stickups, home break ins, and car jackings




Those are crimes with victims.

If there were organized gangs doing that there would be public outcry, selling drugs, gambling or sex, people just avert their eyes....


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 22, 2011)

the_negro_puppy said:


> Why is america the only developed nation without socialized health?





Greed and misguided priorities.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 22, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> Some (and by some I mean "a lot") of the people on this thread need to read some John Rawls...and some Keynes.



"Priming the pump" by increasing spending, increasing the money supply, or the gov't buying things on the market itself...... that obviously isn't working. Keynesian economics warns against the practice of too much saving, or underconsumption, and not enough consumption, or spending, in the economy. It also supports considerable redistribution of wealth, when needed. Keynesian economics further concludes that there is a pragmatic reason for the massive redistribution of wealth: if the poorer segments of society are given sums of money, they will likely spend it, rather than save it, thus promoting economic growth. Explain to me why that will work in the U.S. It obviously hasn't worked elsewhere. 

The role of the federal government is to provide national protective and infrastructure services. At the point they started giving my money to someone who did not earn it is the point where they legalized theft, created a nanny state, started legalized bribes for political votes, and started us on a spiral that only those with real intestinal fortitude on the Hill (like Ron Paul who has been saying this for 30+ years) can stop and reverse and eventually abolish these practices Constitutionally (which will be great when congress starts adhering to it).

Keynesian Economics was never meant to be use for long periods of time, but rather it was only supposed to "jump start" the economic system. I believe it did just that, albeit because of a war, though it continued to be used in the sense that government grew exponentially over the next few decades. 
There should be a healthy balance with everything.

Edit: Some suggested reading for you:

"This Time Is Different - Eight Centuries of Financial Folly" by Reinhart and Rogoff.

I'd like to get away from the Cloward Piven strategy that is in effect at the present.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 22, 2011)

46Young said:


> we all carry those that can't provide for themselves (a relatively small number) and the career entitlement abusers (their numbers are legion, and their votes are highly valued).



Says who? Where is the data? Where are the numbers?

I spent many years working in "underpriviledged" US neighborhoods, most of those people weren't even registered to vote. (or even had a permanant address) Thinking they would actually be bothered to take the time to vote, or protest, is beyond fantasy.

I doubt many would even wake up in time.

For many years and in many examples both past and present, those in power defend the status quo by villifying minority groups or creating ficticious threats.

When you look at US voter turnout for elections, in the 20%s where is this massive block of entitlement voters? 

It sure does create a lot of mental security thinking there is some external force responsible for the problems of the US, but I often ask myself, who stands to gin the most by maintaining things how they are? I didn't see a whole lot of working people benefit from economic bailouts. Infact I didn't see any. 

Have you ever got the feeling that one group of people was feeding BS stories in order to deflect attention off themselves by focusing attention on another group that nobody seems to be able to account for except by hearsay?

If say a florida company rips off medicare/medicaid with fraudulent billing to the tune of 1.7 billion, how many of these entitlement people would be payed for by that money. Would you vote for him for governor?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott

"Columbia/HCA fraud case detailsOn March 19, 1997, investigators from the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services served search warrants at Columbia/HCA facilities in El Paso and on dozens of doctors with suspected ties to the company.[19]

Following the raids, the Columbia/HCA board of directors forced Scott to resign as Chairman and CEO.[20] He was paid $9.88 million in a settlement. He also left owning 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million.[21][22][23]

In 1999, Columbia/HCA changed its name back to HCA, Inc.

In settlements reached in 2000 and 2002, Columbia/HCA plead guilty to 14 felonies and agreed to a $600+ million fine in the largest fraud settlement in US history. Columbia/HCA admitted systematically overcharging the government by claiming marketing costs as reimbursable, by striking illegal deals with home care agencies, and by filing false data about use of hospital space. They also admitted fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. They filed false cost reports, fraudulently billing Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, they gave doctors "loans" never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies.[3][4][5][6][7]

In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims.[24] In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle, by far the largest fraud settlement in US history.[25]"

I am sure he is completely innocent. In an OJ sort of way. 




46Young said:


> I'm okay with universal healthcare, provided that all able bodied adults are productive in some way, shape, or form, and there needs to be massive entitlemnt reform (pipe dream, that would constitute political suicide).



Is it possible, that the reason there is so much negative propaganda about universal healthcare is because some groups might lose a lot of money?

I wonder who those groups could be?

Pharm companies? Doctors? Insurance companies? Politicians getting paid by them? Politicians invested in them? Private individuals invested in those companies? Healthcare equipment suppliers and manufacturers?

Any chance at all? 

Ever see a comparison on how much of the 26% of the GDP of the US these people get compared to the entitlement crowd? Because I can't find those numbers anywhere.



46Young said:


> There's absolutely no reason why a welfare recipient can't perform labor for the government. How about litter removal, parks beautification, landscaping such as cutting grass, stuffing envelopes, janitorial work such as cleaning bathrooms and mopping, something.



There most certainly is a reason.

Unions. 

Many of those things you listed are performed by government employees. Who make up the largest group of laborers belonging to unions in the US. If we had workfare people who were doing that for their meager benefits, who in their right mind would hire a union government worker at the average salary of a government worker? That might create more of the have nots wouldn't it?

I seem to remember reading something about early in the 20th century chaingangs being abolished for road repairs because contractors couldn't underbid prison systems.  

How many public works employees would lose their jobs do you think?



46Young said:


> If the career entitlement abusers were forced to leave their homes and surrender their free time to perform labor for 40 hours a week, you would see a lot less people on the gov't dole. It's hard to work your under the table job while receiving a gov't check when you're mandated to be somewhere else.



I really think the amount of these people is insignificant compared to the amount of government workers paid wages and benefits far beyond their value in actual positions. Those people have not only the incentive to vote, but the organization as well. 

Tell me, what organization mobilizes entitlement people to vote? What do those people paying for that organization and mobiliation have to gain?

I have belonged to 2 unions in my time, and they were always sending me information on who to vote for and why in every election. 

But unions aren't all bad, here are some of the things in the current healthcare reform they are proud of:

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/healthcare/

Are those things bad?

You are a smart guy, I think if you really start looking into some of the stuff you are hearing, you may figure out it doesn't really add up.


----------



## Bullets (Feb 22, 2011)

Smash said:


> The rest of the world looks on with dismay at this sort of attitude amongst those who are supposedly in caring professions. We also find it perplexing when we happily provide the Great Satan of socialized health care, and yet strangely enough our economies haven't collapsed, society hasn't broken down, and everyone gets the care they need.
> 
> Sure, the system isn't perfect, there are many things that could be changed for the better, but the fact of the matter is, if I pick up a homeless, jobless and uninsured patient off the street who is having a STEMI, he will get stented, he will get the medications he needs (not plavix or heparin hopefully!) and he will get follow up and cardiac rehab afterwards. This doesn't break the economy, doesn't cost jobs and doesn't cripple us with taxation, hence our trouble understanding the vicious, cold hearted and frankly disturbing attitude displayed here.
> 
> The mark of true civilization is how we treat those less fortunate than ourselves.



The rest of the world looks on in dismay, while happily taking billions of dollars in American aid every year. 

I would disagree with you that providing free health care doesnt break the economy, ect. Sure, if i want free health care, it can be done, ill move to a place like the Scandinavian countries where income is taxed at 60% to fund their systems, which i wouldnt call "working". Its an issue of entitlement, like why are other people entitled to my money? i worked hard, i pull extra hours, double shifts, overnights, to earn the money i need to have the things i want. Get your hands out of my pockets.

Now, with that being said, im not a total SOB. I CHOOSE to spend my weekends working with charity organizations to help those who have trouble providing for themselves, but thats my prerogative. Just like prehospital care or fire service, ultimately, most EMT's and FF are volunteer based, and those people, like myself, make a CHOICE to enter into this field to provide health services to the impoverished. And thats fine,in fact, thats the wonderful thing about this country, that people from disparate backgrounds can come together to help each other out. Look at the response following Katrina, or Haiti, or the South Pacific Tsunmai, ARC and the like were able to provide the services they did because of PRIVATE donations, and thats also the way it should be

You dont have a right to live to be 96 years old if your body cant function past 73, you dont have a right to be kept alive through artifical means. People die, everyone, we all run from it as long as we can, some can run longer, but that doesnt mean those who cant keep up should be scooped up by the golfcart and carried along. They slow humanity down trying to drag them along. You live your life and hope it goes well, but its a crap shoot and its ruining this planet. These medical facilities keep people alive well past their time, and now we face a global population facing insane proportions, and the US faces a looming mass retirement and draw on social services that a much smaller portion of the population simply wont be able to support, at which point this whole ship sinks.


----------



## Smash (Feb 22, 2011)

Exactly how much foreign aid does America provide to Australia, New Zealand or the Scandinavian countries? I'd be fascinated to know as these are the countries with functioning models of socialized health care. 

As for taxation and income, I do struggle terribly under that burden. Every afternoon as I finish work, knowing that I only have a minimum of ten hours break, and that I shall have to slave away working 4 days on, 4 days off with a scant 3 months paid leave every year. I climb into my new European sedan to drive home to my half million dollar home and ponder how terrible it is to have to prop up those greedy people who want to take all my money off me for nothing! I take my mind off it by weighing up where I am going to buy my next investment property or what my next motorbike will be, but it weighs heavy upon my mind 

From my position way down the totem pole as a regular old ambulance driver it sure seems like the system works

Strangely enough at the same time, we are one of the countries that has got through the GFC relatively unscathed. For the most part people have kept their jobs and their homes, and business have stayed open. 

So, can you give examples of where universal health care has crippled a nations economy because from where I'm sitting that's nothing more than tinfoil-hat hysteria. 

So is someone not entitled to live past 45 because they lost their job and can't afford insurance to pay for their bypass? Does a 3 year old deserve to die of asthma because her parents struggle to make ends meet on minimum wage and can't afford to buy medications?  If you lose your job tomorrow, can't afford to make payments on your house, the bank forecloses and you are left with nowhere to go, will you continue to happily embrace a system that says that you are not entitled to basic medical needs?

Living in a civilized country brings with it great advantages, but with these advantages comes responsibility.


----------



## lampnyter (Feb 22, 2011)

I can do it without hesitation. Im a heartless :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored:.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 22, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> Says who? Where is the data? Where are the numbers?
> 
> I spent many years working in "underpriviledged" US neighborhoods, most of those people weren't even registered to vote. (or even had a permanant address) Thinking they would actually be bothered to take the time to vote, or protest, is beyond fantasy.
> 
> ...



I understand your point on villianizing certain groups to shift attention away from the ones at fault. My claim as to the large numbers of entitlement abusers is largely anecdotal, mostly from my personal experience, both at work and from numerous encounters in my personal life (I've lived in some rough areas in NYC, such as Bushwick Brooklyn for one; I saw a lot). I don't see nearly as much entitlement abuse down here in VA, and it's weird seeing so many families that actually have two parents.

I realized early on that the bailouts were just one hand washing the other, and was of no benefit to the general public whatsoever. And that stuff Gov. Scott did was unbelieveable.

I still don't know what to think about the Obamacare Bill. "We need to pass the bill to know what's in it" was enough to make me highly skeptical. Of course the pharm. reps, doctors, insurance companies are going to be against it. That's understandable. It makes sense that certain politicians that are greased by these doctors, reps, etc. would seek to demonize the bill. I'm still trying to make sense of it.

I'm beginning to see the light regarding unions. I think back to stories I heard from my uncles:

They would work for seven or eight months out of the year, go right on unemployment for the rest, work off the books, and not even try to get legitimate work in the interim. People clocking in drink or high, and no one bothers them. People showing up at 1000, leaving at 1500, and having their buddies punch them out much later for some OT. Tuning up scabs, threatening their families, following them home, etc. One guy walked up to his supervisor during labor negotiations, punched him, broke his nose, and nothing happened to him.The work gets done slow, to make the job last, and then they need OT to get the job finished. You can't even change a light bulb; only the union worker is allowed to do that, whenever he feels like getting around to it. I feel that the unions drove up the costs of doing business so much that many businesses have fled to right to work states, or right out of the country.

I get the same advisoried about who to vote for from my union. At least here it's a right to work state. The environment seems to be what you would see if you blended a hardcore northeast shop with a deep south right to work situation. Understand that union was all that I knew for most of my life, and most of my family, and many of my friends were also union, and they all did well for themselves. Then I moved to SC to work for Charleston County EMS. You read about their mandatory holover policies. They made you do whatever they wanted; it was their way or the highway, no iffs, ands, or buts. I consider myself a productive worker, who follows the rules and does the job that I'm paid to do. They were very clicky, and did abuse their labor. This was evidenced by the constant turnover there, despite the good benefits, and generous pay for the area. That experience only served to reaffirm my belief in unions. I'm seeing things differently now, though.


----------



## Melclin (Feb 23, 2011)

@OP, Nope. I wouldn't, I shouldn't and I'll never have too. I watched one of those chronicles of EMS things the other day and laughed at the look on the face of that British paramedic who was shocked by how much cost factored into US healthcare, even the emergency kind. That would be me, sitting there going pale, while an old bloke with chest pain chose between a trip to hospital and losing his house. 



Smash said:


> Strangely enough at the same time, we are one of the countries that has got through the GFC relatively unscathed. For the most part people have kept their jobs and their homes, and business have stayed open.



Not without some help from the mineral cash cow we're sitting on, but its still a valid point.



Bullets said:


> The rest of the world looks on in dismay, while happily taking billions of dollars in American aid every year.



Ridiculous argument. "Woohhh America F**k yeah" is all I hear.



> I would disagree with you that providing free health care doesnt break the economy, ect. Sure, if i want free health care, it can be done, ill move to a place like the Scandinavian countries where income is taxed at 60% to fund their systems, which i wouldnt call "working". Its an issue of entitlement, like why are other people entitled to my money? i worked hard, i pull extra hours, double shifts, overnights, to earn the money i need to have the things i want. Get your hands out of my pockets.



*If you want the government to take less from your pockets, it would be in your interests to fund a universal healthcare system*. You would spend less per person than you would currently and you'd get better value for that money spent. Our government, last I checked, spends less per person on health care than does the American government. That's because prevention is cheaper than treatment, especially for chronic problems, but preventative medicine does not fare well in systems like yours. 

Also, where on earth do you people get these figures from. 60% tax? I suppose the very highest European brackets would have recently hit 60% but its hardly an average of all countries with some form of universal healthcare. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

I know I know, Wikipedia and all that, but its a reasonable illustration. Our highest income tax bracket is 45% and that's only on any dollar earned above 180k. _Not_ 45% of 180k. 45% of anything you earn _over_ 180k and a smaller percentage applies to what you earned before that. When I start on a qualified wage of around 70k per annum (about 15k above the average wage), I'll pay around 22% tax. Not terribly different to most Americans. As far as I can tell, its slightly less in some cases. Yet we manage to find the pennies for a decent universal health care system, maybe because its actually _cheaper_ than your current system. Its all about priorities I suppose. I'm sure your war in Iraq has made you feel 700 billion dollars safer. I'm not making a value judgment about Iraq, I'm just saying you rarely hear conservatives moaning about the government's hand in their pocket when the costly controversy in question is consistent with their ideology.

Some Americans are perplexingly ideological. The cold war is over guys. Jesus won. Move on. 



> And thats fine,in fact, thats the wonderful thing about this country,e



That really has nothing to do with the issue of universal healthcare. Most countries and their citizens contribute in various ways to various disasters. It seems pretty common that Americans think they are more charitable that others. I don't know how that came about. Is there some reliable statistic showing more volunteer involvement or more charitable spending in the US than other developed nations kicking around somewhere? 

The burden placed on the system by modern medicines refusal to let people die is universal. American doesn't avoid those costs. Also, employers are required to pay a minimum of 9% of an employee's wages into a superannuation fund for retirement, to offset the costs of retirement to the taxpayer. We may as well just start goose stepping and running a red flag up the side of our collective farms.

One of the few people I've ever argued with about this who made sense was Linuss. He's been strangely absent.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 23, 2011)

If I'm going to buy in to the idea that universal healthcare is the best choice, I'm going to need a little convincing. Can someone who believes that ther healthcare system is solvent explain how their system works, and then compare it to what Obamacare is supposed to be? Everywhere I turn, I hear nothing but bad things about Obamacare. I still don't exactly know what the bill entails. I'm not against universal healthcare per se, but I need someone to explain to my why and how Obamacare is supposed to work. Until then, I'm not buying. 

Also, Melclin had a good point. In our system, preventative medicine doesn't fare well. There's no money in it. all the profit is in symptomatic treatment and surgeries.


----------



## jrm818 (Feb 23, 2011)

Smash said:


> As for taxation and income, I do struggle terribly under that burden. Every afternoon as I finish work, knowing that I only have a minimum of ten hours break, and that I shall have to slave away working 4 days on, 4 days off with a scant 3 months paid leave every year. I climb into my new European sedan to drive home to my half million dollar home and ponder how terrible it is to have to prop up those greedy people who want to take all my money off me for nothing! I take my mind off it by weighing up where I am going to buy my next investment property or what my next motorbike will be, but it weighs heavy upon my mind
> 
> From my position way down the totem pole as a regular old ambulance driver it sure seems like the system works



So..um...what do your immigration laws look like?  I think I could find something to do with my 3 months...


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

46Young said:


> Explain to me why that will work in the U.S. It obviously hasn't worked elsewhere.


It worked out rather well when FDR utilized a Keynesian program in implementing the New Deal which pulled us out of the Great Depression, created the middle class sector out of nothing, and caused an economic boom which lasted an entire generation. Far outliving the wartime efforts. Ironically, Regan used it Keynesian methods to great effect to overcome double-digit inflation in the 80s with MASSIVE increases in government spending - spending the likes of which we have not seen since  - yet he is touted by conservatives as their prototypical "small government" hero. Nothing is further from the truth about Regan.

Since that time Keynesian systems have been dismantled and coupled with massive tax cuts for the wealthiest people at the expense of social safety net programs that effect a socioeconomically equitable society. Keynesian economics HAS been tried and used to great effect in this country but has since been abandoned. President Obama is, himself, thoroughly Keynesian but his policies have not been effective due to blatant obstructionism and radicalization of the GOP. 

Furthermore, every other developed nation (literally every one of them) emerged from WWII with some version of the welfare state which they've done nothing but expand while we've chipped away at it. Are you prepared to suggest that Western European countries are in worse shape economically and socially than we are?



> The role of the federal government is to provide national protective and infrastructure services. At the point they started giving my money to someone who did not earn it is the point where they legalized theft, created a nanny state, started legalized bribes for political votes, and started us on a spiral that only those with real intestinal fortitude on the Hill (like Ron Paul who has been saying this for 30+ years) can stop and reverse and eventually abolish these practices Constitutionally (which will be great when congress starts adhering to it).


Well, currently your money is being given to those who did not earn it but whom are working in Wall Street. Middle class workers are, for example, more educated on average than they were 30 years ago but have not seen the benefits of such an education. They aren't seeing any gains, whereas people in the top economic 1% have seen ENORMOUS gains in wealth. Furthermore, this concept of "not earning it" is derived from a profusely common American myth. That is the Myth of the Self-Made Man. The truth is no such person exists. Life is a lottery, and certain people simply have a leg up on others by virtue of forces external to themselves. There is always a certain debt one owes to society regardless of how instrumental one's own abilities were in one's success. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet talk at great lengths about this and that's largely why they've opted towards giving away their fortunes. It's not something they feel they have a "right to" and this perspective is shared by many successful people the world over. It's really only in America where you have CEOs taking personal salaries in excess of tens of millions of dollars a year. In other countries such behavior is not seen as anything other than greed. So, this idea of "I earned everything I've got and I made myself who I am" is just a pervasive American myth.

Secondly, most of the people who benefit from state aid are stuck in a cycle of socioeconomic disenfranchisement. Upward mobility is another myth beheld with tremendous fervor by Americans, but it's not something you can fairly _expect_ of someone unlucky enough to be born into a disenfranchised state. Horatio Alger stories are nice and heartwarming but they do not bear resemblance to reality. For example, the National Center for Education Statistics tracked the educational experience for children who were 8th-graders in 1988 and sorted them by academic talent and the socioeconomic status of their parents. The results of the study can be found in this table. As you can see from the table, having a high degree of academic talent and high-status family increased likelihood of achieving a bachelor's degree, but family status mattered much more. Indeed, students who scored in the bottom quartile but had a family status in the top quartile were much more likely to finish college than students scoring in the top quartile but with a family status in the bottom quartile. So, this idea that people are poor simply because they're too lazy or worthless to change their situation is yet another myth which needs to change. Inequality leads to class warfare, and that's the direction America is headed towards.



> Keynesian Economics was never meant to be use for long periods of time, but rather it was only supposed to "jump start" the economic system. I believe it did just that, albeit because of a war, though it continued to be used in the sense that government grew exponentially over the next few decades.


 Disagree. Again, look at Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand. All Keynesian welfare states and have been for the last 65-ish years. They're doing rather well for themselves I'd say.


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

46Young said:


> If I'm going to buy in to the idea that universal healthcare is the best choice, I'm going to need a little convincing. Can someone who believes that ther healthcare system is solvent explain how their system works, and then compare it to what Obamacare is supposed to be? Everywhere I turn, I hear nothing but bad things about Obamacare. I still don't exactly know what the bill entails. I'm not against universal healthcare per se, but I need someone to explain to my why and how Obamacare is supposed to work. Until then, I'm not buying.


 Obamacare is not universal health. It's a mandate that uses the existing privatized system which was actually suggested by Republicans in the 90s except now it's supposedly unconstitutional. If you want a good overview of how the single-payer system (what people mean when they say "universal healthcare" unless you're talking about a truly "socialized" system like the NHS in the UK - only one in the world as far as I know and there's still a private sector within the UK health system) is fiscally the best option and how it could work in America I strongly suggest you read _A Second Opinion: Rescuing America's Health Care_ by Dr. Arnold Relman. Great overview of the topic.



> Also, Melclin had a good point. In our system, preventative medicine doesn't fare well. There's no money in it. all the profit is in symptomatic treatment and surgeries.


Investor-owned insurance companies have no incentive to cover preventative medicine, since by the time people benefit from it they qualify for Medicare and aren't dependent on their private insurance provider for coverage any longer. Thus, by covering preventative procedures they lose out on honoring the claim and don't get any return on premiums since those using such services are by that point on Medicare.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 23, 2011)

Any time I hear this debate, I can't help thinking its both these issues together and several more.

Yes, people abuse social services. Yes corporate interests abuse there position. To what extent ($) there is no way to measure. There should be a system of checks and balances to limit this.

I have also noticed in the past 25 years or so this hidden tax we all pay, and some zealously in the form of cable TV, media, and consumer products.

How much to we spend on take out food (guilty here) that we could have saved by brown bagging and using a thermos ?

Ever go by the NYC Time Warner Building ? See all the luxury car service cars outside ? Who willingly paid for that ? Everyone who subscribes to cable who really has no time to watch all the stupid shows.

With the stupid shows on TV, in the 70s, maybe there would be a documenary about a motorcycle builder, or a small time gold miner, but why is there a weekly showe for years about something that could be handled ina one hour episode......?

Designer label clothes and accessoires. The old commercial, who was that in those Foster Grants ($15 sunglasses), now people who really should not indulge in designer frames, with a huge logo on them, who really shouldnt....

It goes on and on. Maybe there needs to be a huge crash and depression like the 1930s time build something up again. I was born in the tail end of the era when people use to do things(camping, fishing, sailing, etc), not buy things. and the things they bought to do things with  did not put them into debt. All these celebrity endorsed products. $5000 bicycles, really meant for competition, not Larry the Yuppie lawyer on the bike path near his condo....


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 23, 2011)

In the past five years or so, I have become somewhat of a minimalist. For example, I sold off on EBAY my Vinyls, Casettes and CDs (and a few 8 tracks, lol, yes my Dad like Red in that 70s show got me an 8 track from christmas).

I had a moderate collection.

I still like music. I listen to the radio or online radio in a genere I am in a mood for. I like the DJ banter and commentary. I might get xm/sirus for more of that.

One of my buddies, for example, known him since 10. He bought vinyl, enhanced cassettes (back in the day of boom boxes), then CDs, then DVD-Audio, then MP3s, all of the same songs. He even bought used vinyl of the same albums for the jackets to stick in frames and hang them up on the wall. It takes up a lot of space. And I really think he rarely touches it. He mostly listens to his XM/Sirus or just sits in his chair complaining he is "bored"

Not to mention every movie he bought on VHS, then DVD, then enhanced DVD with special bonus features, and now buying all the same titles on Blue Ray.

He makes 100k as a motion picture camera man yet he is in heavy credit card debt.

When he does not work for a certain amount of time, he loses his health insurance from his union and is content to go insured. If something happens, he puts it on a credit card. (that interest in effect the same thing as paying premiums after the fact)

All that money had to go someplace........its in someone's hands.

He is typical. Most in the USA have a neglibable or negative net worth.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 23, 2011)

Insurance companies are not the bad guys. Why expect them to operate at a loss.

As I wrote before, however, I think the insurance companies can be removed from the equation. Just the way in the USA there is free k-12, police and fire, there could be free medical care.

If someone wanted to pay for private, as they can with the above, let them. Let there be insurance for that.

We dont force parents into investment plans to pay for a K-12 education for their kids....


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

46Young said:


> If I'm going to buy in to the idea that universal healthcare is the best choice, I'm going to need a little convincing. Can someone who believes that ther healthcare system is solvent explain how their system works, and then compare it to what Obamacare is supposed to be? Everywhere I turn, I hear nothing but bad things about Obamacare. I still don't exactly know what the bill entails. I'm not against universal healthcare per se, but I need someone to explain to my why and how Obamacare is supposed to work. Until then, I'm not buying.
> 
> Also, Melclin had a good point. In our system, preventative medicine doesn't fare well. There's no money in it. all the profit is in symptomatic treatment and surgeries.



It doesn't work and it is not going to.

It is a 1/2 assed measure that was supposed to be a step in the direction of reform.

But a large amount of democratic trial lawyers lobbied to make sure malpractice reform was not part of it. There is no way to save money on eliminating defensive medicine when there will just be more defensive medicine practiced on more people.

I like the idea of universal care, but I know it is not the panecea. But I would definately accept a system like the UK or NZ or AU over the degradation to pay to play medicine in the US. Insurance companies are simply going to price themselves out of the market attempting to maintain profits.

Having employers provide coverage drives up the price of goods which costs jobs. At some point employers outside of the government will not be able to provide these benefits to employees. Even with a mandate it will get to the point where it is cheaper to pay the fine or move out of the country.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 23, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> It doesn't work and it is not going to.
> 
> It is a 1/2 assed measure that was supposed to be a step in the direction of reform.
> 
> ...



If everyone gets a k-12 education, why can't everyone get a cradle to grave health care ?

Part of that is on after stabilizing, assesing if they should be in the country in the first place and if not Stat-Flight them home....


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

emt seeking first job said:


> Insurance companies are not the bad guys. Why expect them to operate at a loss.....



nobody is expecting these companies to operate at a loss, but billions in profit while deffering the losses onto the government programs like medicare/medicaid or refusing to pay for "experimental procedures" like liver transplants which are performed all over the world every day, or denying claims until a person dies and stops making claims isn't protecting against operating at a loss. It is protecting the share price. Which really was never the point of having insurance.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

emt seeking first job said:


> If everyone gets a k-12 education, why can't everyone get a cradle to grave health care ?



Without total system reform, the cost would be absolutely prohibitive. As it stands now government health programs are nearing 1/4 the national GDP and raising. Simply offering coverage to everyone without controlling costs is simply futile. 

That k-12 education compared to what is spent and achieved by the rest of the civilized world is also disproportionate. $7k on a kid a year to pass a proficency test is a waste of money. $7K a year on a kid to get universities to compete for their attendance would be a bargain. There is a reason that there are work and student visas for highly educated and capable foreigners. It is because the US cannot produce their own. Last I saw close to 35% of all top end jobs in the US are filled by foreigners. (I honestly don't remember where I saw the stat though, but even if it is off by 10% that is a major issue)


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 23, 2011)

Medicare/Medicaid is proof that federally run health programs will not work in the US.


(Aside from them being unconstitutional but too ingrained to be gotten rid of)


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 23, 2011)

corporations act in the interest of preserving the corporations assets

governments act in the intrests of people

that is why I think health care should be paid for by the government, eliminate the insurance companies

an appendix operation costs the price of the operation not the price + the price of processing the claim....

I am realistic to realize it would take a lot to have this happen in my lifetime.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> Medicare/Medicaid is proof that federally run health programs will not work in the US.
> 
> 
> (Aside from them being unconstitutional but too ingrained to be gotten rid of)



Actually, just like social security, the original concept was set up very well. The problem came when the trusts were raided or borrowed against to fund other endevors. If the money collected could only be used for health puropses it would work fine.

I should also point out the system was also set up under the philosophy that each generation would be larger so it would always mean more people paying and less using. With the modern change in that dynamic to less children per generation, there is an increase in intake that would have to be adjusted for until equalibrium is reached. To my knowledge, only Japan has succeeded at addressing this shift.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 23, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> Without total system reform, the cost would be absolutely prohibitive. As it stands now government health programs are nearing 1/4 the national GDP and raising. Simply offering coverage to everyone without controlling costs is simply futile.
> 
> That k-12 education compared to what is spent and achieved by the rest of the civilized world is also disproportionate. $7k on a kid a year to pass a proficency test is a waste of money. $7K a year on a kid to get universities to compete for their attendance would be a bargain. There is a reason that there are work and student visas for highly educated and capable foreigners. It is because the US cannot produce their own. Last I saw close to 35% of all top end jobs in the US are filled by foreigners. (I honestly don't remember where I saw the stat though, but even if it is off by 10% that is a major issue)



Of course control costs.

Eliminate the insurance part would reduce the cost of running the insurance company from health care.

And they could find enough US workers for hi level jobs at this point, they really could.....

And they let foreigner students  in for the tuition money...


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 23, 2011)

Hi tech foreign workers will do the job for less money.

They let them in to have a higher market supply of workers versus jobs. So the corpoartions can pay less.

Doctors live normal lives in other countries, come here to live like rock stars....

It also creates situations that rather than fic their own corrupt conutries, like Mexico, etc, they come here to enjoy greater rights standards of living etc.

If they could not come here they would be forced to rebel in their own lands.

The richest man in the world is in Mexico.....


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 23, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> Actually, just like social security, the original concept was set up very well. The problem came when the trusts were raided or borrowed against to fund other endevors. If the money collected could only be used for health puropses it would work fine.



Don't get me wrong--- communism, in theory, is fantastic.  However, it will NEVER work that way, EVER, and people need to quit pursuing the pipe dream.    It's an illusion.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

emt seeking first job said:


> And they could find enough US workers for hi level jobs at this point, they really could......



ROTFL, not on the best day. 

US education has long focused on test taking over understanding and the ability to manipulate knowledge. 

Another major difference between US and other countries education is that the US education is also focused on "doing the job" over theory. Which works out fine for training highly skilled workers, but not for creating innovators.

Thenb there is the problem that every ignoramous in the country who can vote determines what is taught in primary education in the US. So we keep seeing things like Texas revisionest education and the court battles over intelligent design or whatever creationism is being called today.



emt seeking first job said:


> And they let foreigner students  in for the tuition money...



Perhaps in some cases, not most. The US education is so cost prohibitive that schools are springing up all over the world and even US students are traveling to in order to get an affordable education. Universities that need researchers are recruiting talent. Often at reduced tuition or actually paying.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 23, 2011)

emt seeking first job said:


> governments act in the intrests of people



In theory at least...


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> Medicare/Medicaid is proof that federally run health programs will not work in the US.


 CMS actually has lower administrative and overhead costs than private insurance. Private insurance has to invest large amounts in underwriting, robust HR programs to facilitate increasingly complex plans, and a significant portion of premiums goes to executive and investor salaries. CMS does not have these problems.




> (Aside from them being unconstitutional but too ingrained to be gotten rid of)


How exactly are they unconstitutional?


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 23, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> How exactly are they unconstitutional?



In the strictest reading of the Constitution and its amendments, there is never a single expressed power given to the federal government for anything Medicare/Medicaid/ welfare related. Problem is, judges typically don't go by the strictest definition and instead, due to loose views,  has changed the very idea of the Constitution.  The makers of those programs are hiding behind the "It's tax money" defense, and although everyone can see through it, it continues to be allowed.  


If states wanted to do state funded healthcare, that's their prerogative... but it should NEVER be federally funded.    The federal government is here for trade, diplomacy, and protecting us from foreign enemies... the rest is technically supposed to be left to the individual states to decide.   Everything else has just been piled on top over the years, and due to lawyer speak and liberal judges, has been held up.  Add on top of the fact that all these were passed regardless of what the constituents wanted... and that's just wrong.


Anyone (but apparently lawyers and judges) can clearly see that if you follow the very words of the Constitution, welfare/Social Security/Medicare etc etc should not exist on the federal level without further amendments, but they're twisting the words to get their socialistic views through.


----------



## Emma (Feb 23, 2011)

Veneficus said:
			
		

> US education has long focused on test taking over understanding and the ability to manipulate knowledge.




Ain't that the truth.  I've had to take 3 days off for being sick and I'm sitting here worrying that I can't prep my students properly for the standardized test we take May19.  There's no science test in VA for 6th or 7th grade, which means me (the 8th grade science teacher) is responsible for making sure they know 3 years worth of material.

And by responsible, I mean, if my kid's test scores aren't up to par I will be removed from teaching.   Thanks, NCLB.

(I also have stories of insane things local school boards have voted on as the curriculum I have been forced to teach, but that's a thread all on it's own.)


----------



## abckidsmom (Feb 23, 2011)

Emma said:


> Ain't that the truth.  I've had to take 3 days off for being sick and I'm sitting here worrying that I can't prep my students properly for the standardized test we take May19.  There's no science test in VA for 6th or 7th grade, which means me (the 8th grade science teacher) is responsible for making sure they know 3 years worth of material.
> 
> And by responsible, I mean, if my kid's test scores aren't up to par I will be removed from teaching.   Thanks, NCLB.
> 
> (I also have stories of insane things local school boards have voted on as the curriculum I have been forced to teach, but that's a thread all on it's own.)



Dang!  Middle school on Rt 1?  That's a tough gig.

/hijack.  Props needed where props were due, though.


----------



## Emma (Feb 23, 2011)

abckidsmom said:


> Dang!  Middle school on Rt 1?  That's a tough gig.
> 
> /hijack.  Props needed where props were due, though.




:blush: Thanks.   For whatever reason, I'm better at teaching kids like the Rt 1 corridor kids.  Not sure what the says about me, lol!    I'm actually in the process of applying for a DCPS job.  meep.


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> In the strictest reading of the Constitution and its amendments, there is never a single expressed power given to the federal government for anything Medicare/Medicaid/ welfare related. Problem is, judges typically don't go by the strictest definition and instead, due to loose views,  has changed the very idea of the Constitution.  The makers of those programs are hiding behind the "It's tax money" defense, and although everyone can see through it, it continues to be allowed.


 First of all, the Constitution was not intended to cover every single detail of what federal law could be authorized. A certain degree of ambiguity was intentionally built into it so that as history progressed, the document could be changed or interpreted in such ways so as not to become hopelessly dated and inapplicable as society changed (which, some might argue, has occurred to a certain extent). Furthermore, the Taxing and Spending clause contains the so-called "general welfare clause":

_The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States_ (US Const. Art I. §8, cl. 1).

If you've read _The Federalist Papers_ you'll know that there was early debate on the interpretation of "general welfare" - articulated between Alexander Hamilton (who advocated for a broad interpretation - see _Federalist_ 30 and 31) and James Madison (who advocated for a narrow on limited to commerce regulation, prohibitive taxes, and tarrifs - see _Federalist_ 41).

Over the years the Hamiltonian view has predominated in US case law, and the decisive case was the SCOTUS decision in _Helvering v. Davis_ (301 US 619 [1937]) which held that the Social Security Act of 1935 was constitutional.

The point is there is a complex history of legal precedent on such matters that extends beyond partisan politics and "judges taking loose interpretations of the Constitution". It seems to me, however, that if you're going to reject the constitutionality of SSA or CMS the same criticism could also apply to the existence of the FBI, DEA, ATF, USMS, etc.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 23, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> It seems to me, however, that if you're going to reject the constitutionality of SSA or CMS the same criticism could also apply to the existence of the FBI, DEA, ATF, USMS, etc.



Law enforcement agencies = necessary and proper clause to enforce federal law. Now if the FBI decided to start handing out speeding tickets on city streets, you'd have an argument.


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> Law enforcement agencies = necessary and proper clause to enforce federal law. Now if the FBI decided to start handing out speeding tickets on city streets, you'd have an argument.


Again, this goes back to the historic interpretations of what constitutes "common defense" and "general welfare". The Hamiltonian view has predominated and there precious few attempts to address why that legal precedent should be overturned when discussions like this arise.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> In theory at least...



What people is not stipulated.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 23, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> First of all, the Constitution was not intended to cover every single detail of what federal law could be authorized. A certain degree of ambiguity was intentionally built into it so that as history progressed, the document could be changed or interpreted in such ways so as not to become hopelessly dated and inapplicable as society changed




Here's the thing:  The ambiguity, which the writers knew would exist, was specifically stated to benefit the individual states and people, and not the federal government.




> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.





The commerce clause, social security act, etc etc were ALL passed during the same period by a liberal federal government, and 70 years later the same people are using it has a bypass of the original intent of the Constitution.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> Here's the thing:  The ambiguity, which the writers knew would exist, was specifically stated to benefit the individual states and people, and not the federal government..



I'm sorry, bt the federal government is not some independant villanous entity with a will, mind, and benefit of its own. That type of thinking is just ignorant. 

It is an entity elected by the people, of the people, for the people, or some such. 

Those people may not share your views or my views, they may be representing corperations or wealthy individuals, trade unions, or any other pressure group. But the people do retain the power and ability to elect such representatives. If they do so based on propaganda or oversimplified issues, they have chosen their own doom. The will of the majority is reflected and enacted.

That will may not be the best thing. It does not mean it is the will of all. It doesn't even represent the will of most when the voter turnout is <51%. But until the federal government self appoints its legislators and executives, and without oversight its justices, I am afraid the idea of this self serving entity is just BS that is continued by nothing more substantial than baseless propaganda which has its greatest effect on the ignorant masses.




Linuss said:


> The commerce clause, social security act, etc etc were ALL passed during the same period by a liberal federal government, and 70 years later the same people are using it has a bypass of the original intent of the Constitution.



Liberals like Regan? Bush? Nixon?

I think you need to diversify your sources of information.


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> Here's the thing:  The ambiguity, which the writers knew would exist, was specifically stated to benefit the individual states and people, and not the federal government.


 The American people are benefited greatly by SSA & CMS. How is their existence a "benefit" for the federal government? What does that even mean?



> The commerce clause, social security act, etc etc were ALL passed during the same period by a liberal federal government, and 70 years later the same people are using it has a bypass of the original intent of the Constitution.


(1) The Government is chosen by the people, and its composition is reflective of their values and desires of the time. The result of a democratic process. They may have held different views than you, but that is not evidence of some moral deficiency on their part. Conservatives are particularly afflicted with this notion that if some legislation is passed which they don't agree with then, well, some legal sleight-of-hand or collusion must be afoot. It's absurd. If they're so obviously unconstitutional why didn't Eisenhower, Nixon, Regan, or Bush I attempt to repeal them? The only one who made any such attempt was GW Bush which failed miserably, and the only reason he was able to get as far as he did with it was because of the radicalization of the GOP and its base. Eisenhower and Nixon would cringe at the policy eschewed by contemporary conservatives which during their presidencies were at the fringe of their parties. It's only since Regan, really, that such policy has become mainstream as a result of propaganda and conditioning.

(2) The "original intent" of the Constitution is highly controversial aspect of jurisprudence. For example, in all likelihood the "all men are created equal" phrase of the Declaration of Independence didn't apply to minorities and this was reflected in our Bill of Rights. I mean it took 15 amendments before universal voting rights were established and almost 100 years before additional legislation made it workable. Should the "original intent" be applied here as well? It's not a resolved issue, there is not agreement among legal authorities on what role authorial intent has in jurisprudence. Indeed, the whole concept of "authorial intent" is a contentious issue in all aspects of literary criticism.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> The commerce clause, social security act, etc etc



My bad, meant welfare, ss, medicare etc, not the commerce clause.  





Veneficus said:


> I'm sorry, bt the federal government is not some independant villanous entity with a will, mind, and benefit of its own. That type of thinking is just ignorant.



The very purpose of the Constitution was to prevent a strong centralized federal government.  Any historian can tell you that.  It was a huge fear of our founding fathers to make such a powerful government as that is the very thing they fought to get away from, which is why they made it quite clear what were and were not the powers they delegated to the federal government.

All the powers they have now were by people in the federal government (liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican) had snuck in using legalize and new laws. twisting idiots (yes, idiots) in to believing the founding fathers meant one thing by the words, when anyone with an IQ over 100 and critical thinking can quite easily understand that what the fathers wrote is what they meant, they didn't use code, didn't write stuff so people could go "Well, they wrote this, but they ACTUALLY meant this"




> It is an entity elected by the people, of the people, for the people, or some such.


   Right, because the elected officials ALWAYS do what the majority of the people who elected them want...

Oh wait.. Obamacare....  hmph, my bad.






Veneficus said:


> Liberals like Regan? Bush? Nixon?
> 
> I think you need to diversify your sources of information.



No, liberals like FDR.  You know... 50 years before Regan.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> The commerce clause, social security act, etc etc were ALL passed during the same period by a liberal federal government, and 70 years later the same people are using it has a bypass of the original intent of the Constitution.



Err... quick point of clarification. The commerce clause has been there the entire time, it's just recently it's been used as an end run around constitutional limits.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 23, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> Err... quick point of clarification. The commerce clause has been there the entire time, it's just recently it's been used as an end run around constitutional limits.



Yeah, I fixed it in my response above this one 





thegreypilgrim said:


> The American people are benefited greatly by SSA & CMS. How is there existence a "benefit" for the federal government? What does that even mean?



No.  Deadbeats, lazy, and the abusers benefit the most from these programs.  If someone had actually done their duty as a citizen, none of the programs would even be needed by them.  


Exceptions?  Sure.  Someone quite possibly could fall on hard times and need help, but in my experience, this is not true the majority of the time.






> (1) The Government is chosen by the people, and its composition is reflective of their values and desires of the time. The result of a democratic process.



Too bad we're not a democracy, eh?



> They may have held different views than you, but that is not evidence of some moral deficiency on their part. Conservatives are particularly afflicted with this notion that if some legislation is passed which they don't agree with then, well, some legal sleight-of-hand or collusion must be afoot. It's absurd.


  Just as absurd that you think it's ok that I work hard for my money and that you can take it and give it to someone that doesn't.

Where, at any point in the Constitution, is it even alluded to that the federal government is to help the poor achieve healthcare, let alone any of the other help they get?   Where is it alluded to that the federal government has a responsibility to tax the middle class to help the lower class?


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> No.  Deadbeats, lazy, and the abusers benefit the most from these programs.  If someone had actually done their duty as a citizen, none of the programs would even be needed by them.
> Exceptions?  Sure. Someone quite possibly could fall on hard times and need help, but in my experience, this is not true the majority of the time.


 You're going to have to substantiate these claims. Are single mothers "dead beats"? 



> Too bad we're not a democracy, eh?


Don't get caught up in semantics. Sure the US is a constitutional republic, but its government structure is not so simplistically defined. It utilizes processes of a representative democracy.



> Just as absurd that you think it's ok that I work hard for my money and that you can take it and give it to someone that doesn't.


This isn't the program. The major recipients of state aid are single mothers and senior citizens, so please spare the moral outrage. Sure, there are abusers and fraudulent cases, such a thing is called _acceptable risk_. It can never be completely mitigated, merely reduced; and, personally I'm willing to accept a level of abuse below a certain threshold rather than run the risk of not providing assistance to the needy. Just like I'd rather let 10 guilty men go free rather than convict 1 innocent man to use another tired cliche. 

Consider the alternatives. There will just always be a fraction of the population that is, for whatever reason, unemployable. What are you going to do with those people? How long after you cut off all assistance to them do they resort to criminal activity? Why is the violent crime rate in the US so much higher than in other developed nations?

This is the basic difference in thinking between liberals and conservatives. From a policy standpoint you have to look at things from a "problem solving" perspective - how to make the best of an ambiguous situation so that the greatest number of people are benefited - rather than getting caught up in the moral fervor of the situation. Justice is fairness - equitability. Not some archaic notion of just deserts. No one is a  self-made man.



> Where, at any point in the Constitution, is it even alluded to that the federal government can tax the rich to help the poor?  (Though, it's more the middle class be taxed to help the poor)


It doesn't need to specifically spell that out. The Congress is granted the authority to levy taxes and that's all the authority necessary. Furthermore the middle class is shrinking and buckling under the weight of its burdens precisely because it has been co-opted by the GOP whose primary constituents are the top 1% earners. Conflict of interest? We're heading back to the sort of society that existed in the so-called Gilded Age prior to the 1930s where there were MASSIVE class differences and essentially no middle class which is a direct result of 30 odd years of conservative policy.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 23, 2011)

> Sure, there are abusers and fraudulent cases, such a thing is called acceptable risk. It can never be completely mitigated, merely reduced; and, personally I'm willing to accept a level of abuse below a certain threshold rather than run the risk of not providing assistance to the needy. Just like I'd rather let 10 guilty men go free rather than convict 1 innocent man to use another tired cliche.



So, you're admitting that in a flawed system, it's better to make sure the minority doesn't get trampled on as opposed to helping the majority?

Kind of the exact opposite of triage, is it not?


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> So, you're admitting that in a flawed system it's better to make sure the minority doesn't get trampled on as opposed to helping the majority?


That's a false dichotomy. Ensuring minority rights does not necessarily run counter to the interests of the majority. But frankly when there is such gross disparity between the enfranchised (majority) and disenfranchised (minority), then yes. Ensuring minority rights is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of social stability.



> Kind of the exact opposite of triage, is it not?


Medical decision making and public policy are rather different things!


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> The very purpose of the Constitution was to prevent a strong centralized federal government.  Any historian can tell you that.  It was a huge fear of our founding fathers to make such a powerful government as that is the very thing they fought to get away from, which is why they made it quite clear what were and were not the powers they delegated to the federal government.



As was pointed out, the intents of constitution and its literal word is a matter of debate. There were specifically provisions for modifying the document, which has been done legally 27 times.

It took the 17th amendment in 1920 to give women the right to vote. Since the founding fathers didn't consider women as equal to men, which was not only the poplar iew of the time, but established by pseudoscience of the day as well, if we accept only the literal interpretation of what the founding fathers intentions, the 17th amendment would also be considered unconstitutional and would be repealed. 

As a hint on interpreting constitutional law, you cannot accept the literal interpretation for only the issues you like. The very purpose of the bill of rights is to ensure the rights of the minority.

Much of the legislation you described was supported by the majority. It's constitutionality upheld. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it unconstitutional. I am sure we could find more than a few who actually voted against equal rights for women and minorities.  



Linuss said:


> All the powers they have now were by people in the federal government (liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican) had snuck in using legalize and new laws.



There was no sneaking. Many of these initiatives were very public. You want me to repost instructions on how to make a tinfoil hat?

(I have to ask, were you educated in Texas whos account of history seems a bit different from everyone elses in the US?)




Linuss said:


> twisting idiots (yes, idiots) in to believing the founding fathers meant one thing by the words, when anyone with an IQ over 100 and critical thinking can quite easily understand that what the fathers wrote is what they meant, they didn't use code, didn't write stuff so people could go "Well, they wrote this, but they ACTUALLY meant this"



Really? Perhaps I am an idiot, but I do understand something about the English language and living languages in general. 

If you decide you know exactly what the founding fathers said and meant, I beg the indulgence of my fancy.

If I go to the UK and say I am pissed, does it mean I am angry, drunk, or having to do with urination?

If I tell you that you are cool, does it mean I socially accept you, that your temperature is low, or that you are calm?

Do I really need to point out the definitions of Gay where the primary meaning and connotation has evolved over time?

Can you really claim to be such an expert on the language used by the founding fathers that you can easily interpret their intentions?

Has it ever crossed your highly educated mind that some of the most respected legal, language, and social scholars in the history of our nation have spent their entire careers and lives trying to figure out what the framers of the constitution meant, and have been unable to come to consensus, but it is so simple that some guy who simply watches tv could figure it out?



Linuss said:


> Right, because the elected officials ALWAYS do what the majority of the people who elected them want...



This is almost as big of a question. Are the leaders of the US supposed to be just representatives carrying out the will of the majority or are they also supposed to choose what is best for their electorate?

Personally I do not support mob rule. But consider for a moment what the outcome of some very important decisions in our nation's history would have been in the leadership always chose what the mob wanted. 

I have seen recent mobs call for "second amendment remedies." should the people who were elected to represent them also support the use of violence to overthrow people who were also elected by a majority of their constituants because the two parties do not agree? 




Linuss said:


> Oh wait.. Obamacare....  hmph, my bad.



I do not support the current government healthcare plan. 

However, the people who passed that bill were elected by a majority and it was signed into law by a popularly elected president. No different than the invasion of Iraq was ordered and supported by the elected officials of that day. No different than the declaration of war in WWI or police actions in Korea, or Vietnam.

as of the moment there is not enough popular support to repeal the law, in the future there may be. Bt it doesn't make it unconstitutional, whether you or I agree with it.   



Linuss said:


> No, liberals like FDR.  You know... 50 years before Regan.



And nobody since then has been able to repeal it. It has been found constitutional, and no efforts are made by past or modern conservatives to repeal it. I stipulate because it is so valued by such a majority of the population, that anyone attempting would quickly find themselves no longer elected to represent any part of the American people. No different than if somebody suggested repealing minoirty or women's rights. 

A social safety net even with those abusing it, is an upheld value of the majority of people of the United States of America. Just as owning slaves was a value of a majority of Americans in 1780. 

Time 2 go back to skule?

or will partisan media still suffice as "informative education?"


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 23, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> That's a false dichotomy. Ensuring minority rights does not necessarily run counter to the interests of the majority. But frankly when there is such gross disparity between the enfranchised (majority) and disenfranchised (minority), then yes. Ensuring minority rights is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of social stability.



Not at all.  In your very examples, helping the minority directly puts the majority at risks.  That's no acceptable.  





> Medical decision making and public policy are rather different things!



Not at all.  Do the most good you can with the resources at hand, unlucky be damned.


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> Not at all.  In your very examples, helping the minority directly puts the majority at risks.  That's no acceptable.


What risk is someone who makes over $375k/year placed in if they're income is taxed at 39% as opposed to 35%? Or taxing income above $1 million? I doubt they'll be at any real financial hazard. Again acceptable risk vs. unacceptable. It's more acceptable for someone who makes more than 98% of the country to shell out a paltry 4% extra in taxes to make sure some kid gets to eat for a day or someone gets the healthcare they need.



> Not at all.  Do the most good you can with the resources at hand, unlucky be damned.


That's the principle, but the analogy doesn't hold. Resources in public policymaking are not as constrained nor are they as time-compressed.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 23, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> Has it ever crossed your highly educated mind that some of the most respected legal, language, and social scholars in the history of our nation have spent their entire careers and lives trying to figure out what the framers of the constitution meant, and have been unable to come to consensus, but it is so simple that some guy who simply watches tv could figure it out?



I've always prided myself on looking at most things in purely black and white to make logical decisions.  


Most people don't agree with that way of thinking, as there are always gray areas.  However, you can never get anything done if you never have a definitive line.


Plus-- scholar =/= smart 




Veneficus said:


> (I have to ask, were you educated in Texas whos account of history seems a bit different from everyone elses in the US?)



Nope, actually educated in an affluent part of very liberal suburban Michigan, surrounded by poor cities, not far from Detroit.  







> I do not support the current government healthcare plan.
> 
> However, the people who passed that bill were elected by a majority and it was signed into law by a popularly elected president. No different than the invasion of Iraq was ordered and supported by the elected officials of that day.



The thing about that whole process is they rushed it through.  They rushed it through knowing the vast majority of the US, including the people that voted them in, were against it.  They rushed it through knowing that just 9 months later they'd lose the election and any chance of getting it passed.  They rushed it through knowing that almost NONE of them ran on the platform of 'healthcare overhaul' the election prior. 

They rushed it through against every bit of logic and brain power in existence, and knew it.






> And nobody since then has been able to repeal it. It has been found constitutional, and no efforts are made by past or modern conservatives to repeal it.




Because due to the checks and balances in the US, things don't move as fast as they should.    More judges have ordered it unconstitutional than constitutional.   However, nothing will be able to be definitive till the Supreme Court review it, years down the road, and issues a decision, years later as well.  It's a slow system.  

The House is currently trying to repeal it in their area as well.  



> I stipulate because it is so valued by such a majority of the population, that anyone attempting would quickly find themselves no longer elected to represent any part of the American people.



The majority of voting Americans are against it.  The majority that ARE for it tend to be the poorer and/or more liberally aligned.


Infact, the percentage of those against it compared to those for it have always held a double digit lead in all of the reports I've seen.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 23, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> What risk is someone who makes over $375k/year placed in if they're income is taxed at 39% as opposed to 35%? Or taxing income above $1 million? I doubt they'll be at any real financial hazard. Again acceptable risk vs. unacceptable. It's more acceptable for someone who makes more than 98% of the country to shell out a paltry 4% extra in taxes to make sure some kid gets to eat for a day or someone gets the healthcare they need.



Everyone should pay a flat tax, regardless of income, regardless of Billy making $1000, or Samantha making $100,000.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> I've always prided myself on looking at most things in purely black and white to make logical decisions.
> 
> 
> Most people don't agree with that way of thinking, as there are always gray areas.  However, you can never get anything done if you never have a definitive line.



I seem to get along just fine.




Linuss said:


> Nope, actually educated in an affluent part of very liberal suburban Michigan, surrounded by poor cities, not far from Detroit.



I am sorry. still though, probably better than Texas.  




Linuss said:


> The thing about that whole process is they rushed it through.  They rushed it through knowing the vast majority of the US, including the people that voted them in, were against it.  They rushed it through knowing that just 9 months later they'd lose the election and any chance of getting it passed.  They rushed it through knowing that almost NONE of them ran on the platform of 'healthcare overhaul' the election prior..



But that is not true, it is still supported by organized labor who is a majority of the constituency that votes democrat. As I posted they even celebrate it as an achievement. Organized labor will continue to support those that support them. These same laboers also make up a majority of an artifically inflated middle class. The poor stand to gain the most, so when you add, poor + middle class + a handful of elite + a handful of independants, you get a majority, not the fringe.



Linuss said:


> They rushed it through against every bit of logic and brain power in existence, and knew it...



It seems to me they just seized the moment to get what they could. Sort of like a war in Iraq payed for with debt isn't it?




Linuss said:


> Because due to the checks and balances in the US, things don't move as fast as they should.    More judges have ordered it unconstitutional than constitutional.   However, nothing will be able to be definitive till the Supreme Court review it, years down the road, and issues a decision, years later as well.  It's a slow system.



There is a definitive purpose behind this. So that things can be decided by cooler heads, not the passions of the moment. It will be decided by the supreme court as it should be. Before or after the collapse of the modern US, to be determined.




Linuss said:


> The House is currently trying to repeal it in their area as well.



Like I said, I don't support the law, but I think this is just a political ploy so doomed to fail it is a waste of the peoples time and money. If it were a legitimate attempt to do what is best, then negotiations for ammending it into something beneficial would be in full swing. as it stands going back to the way it was, is jst hastening the collapse of the US healthcare system. That benefits absolutely no one. But it wouldn't stop some interested parties to milk it for all they could prior to collapse and having to accept a settlement.



Linuss said:


> The majority of voting Americans are against it.  The majority that ARE for it tend to be the poorer and/or more liberally aligned.



Given the average education and intellignce of the average voting American, I am not sure their majority lends credit to their position. The support of any majority doesn't automatically make an idea smart.




Linuss said:


> Infact, the percentage of those against it compared to those for it have always held a double digit lead in all of the reports I've seen.



You should change the channel occasionally. You might see something different.


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> Everyone should pay a flat tax, regardless of income, regardless of Billy making $1000, or Samantha making $100,000.


Why? How will that resort in an equitable level of resource distribution? Have you considered how this will affect the lives of real, actual people and the social structure of the country? Do you not see how this will contribute to the rising disparity between the wealthy and the poor? Are you aware of the historical precedent of such inequality on the social stability of a given society? Ever heard of the French Revolution?


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 23, 2011)

Flat tax? Really? Because, assuming it's $100, Billy paying 10% and Samantha paying 0.01% is somehow fair or sustainable?


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 23, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> Given the average education and intellignce of the average voting American, I am not sure their majority lends credit to their position. The support of any majority doesn't automatically make an idea smart.



You think it's bad NOW?  Wait till people raised by the idiots of today get power... my generation is going to ruin America.  




Veneficus said:


> You should change the channel occasionally. You might see something different.



If that's a dig at Fox News  1)  I don't watch them, and 2) CNN and MSNBC are just as biased.  And Al Jazeera just annoys the hell out of me.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> Why? How will that resort in an equitable level of resource distribution? Have you considered how this will affect the lives of real, actual people and the social structure of the country? Do you not see how this will contribute to the rising disparity between the wealthy and the poor? Are you aware of the historical precedent of such inequality on the social stability of a given society? Ever heard of the French Revolution?



Let them eat cake.

What will really be interesting to watch from afar is when all these sheep end up the big losers in this grand scheme.

Of course when it happens they will blame everyone except themselves and no mention will be made they were duped.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 23, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> Flat tax? Really? Because, assuming it's $100, Billy paying 10% and Samantha paying 0.01% is somehow fair or sustainable?



Not flat tax as in "$10 from Billy, $10 from Samantha", but "35% from everyone"


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> If that's a dig at Fox News  1)  I don't watch them, and 2) CNN and MSNBC are just as biased.  And Al Jazeera just annoys the hell out of me.



Actually it was a dig that rather than spending time researching and weighing evidence, most American's get their information from sound bytes. 

Most humans tend to gravitate towards positions that make themselves feel better. It does not lend to objectivity.

If you take opposing views the truth is usually found somewhere in the middle.


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> I've always prided myself on looking at most things in purely black and white to make logical decisions.


You've prided yourself on this?




> Plus-- scholar =/= smart


 Yes it does. It may not equate to prudential wisdom, but generally people with advanced degrees are pretty sharp.




> The thing about that whole process is they rushed it through.  They rushed it through knowing the vast majority of the US, including the people that voted them in, were against it.  They rushed it through knowing that just 9 months later they'd lose the election and any chance of getting it passed.  They rushed it through knowing that almost NONE of them ran on the platform of 'healthcare overhaul' the election prior.
> 
> They rushed it through against every bit of logic and brain power in existence, and knew it.


 Like Vene said they capitalized on their mandate. You simply don't agree with their platform. It's no different in principle than rushing into the Iraq war...except it wasn't based on faulty intelligence, lies, and manipulation of post-9/11 paranoia.



> Because due to the checks and balances in the US, things don't move as fast as they should.    More judges have ordered it unconstitutional than constitutional.   However, nothing will be able to be definitive till the Supreme Court review it, years down the road, and issues a decision, years later as well.  It's a slow system.
> 
> The House is currently trying to repeal it in their area as well.


 You do realize that the health insurance mandate was originally a Republican idea? It was the alternative to the failed Clinton-era attempts at health reform in the 90s and is basically the same program that Mitt Romney implemented as governor of Massachusetts. Suddenly now it's unconstitutional? Why wasn't it unconstitutional in the 90s or in 2006?


----------



## ffemt8978 (Feb 23, 2011)

How about we get back on topic and not turn this into a Constitutional debate?


----------



## firecoins (Feb 23, 2011)

people wouldn't need healthcare if people stopped throwing gauntlets.  Those things hurt!


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

ffemt8978 said:


> How about we get back on topic and not turn this into a Constitutional debate?


How about we just allow threads to take on a life of their own?


----------



## 46Young (Feb 23, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> What risk is someone who makes over $375k/year placed in if they're income is taxed at 39% as opposed to 35%? Or taxing income above $1 million? I doubt they'll be at any real financial hazard. Again acceptable risk vs. unacceptable. It's more acceptable for someone who makes more than 98% of the country to shell out a paltry 4% extra in taxes to make sure some kid gets to eat for a day or someone gets the healthcare they need.
> 
> 
> That's the principle, but the analogy doesn't hold. Resources in public policymaking are not as constrained nor are they as time-compressed.



What's the risk? The wealthiest people in the U.S. are international people. If you tax them too much, they'll just leave. Our corporate tax rate is also the second highest behind only Japan, the last time I checked.

This reminds me of a simple explanation to understanding our tax structure:

http://blueridgeskyline.com/humor/taxlaw.htm


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 23, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> You do realize that the health insurance mandate was originally a Republican idea? It was the alternative to the failed Clinton-era attempts at health reform in the 90s and is basically the same program that Mitt Romney implemented as governor of Massachusetts. Suddenly now it's unconstitutional? Why wasn't it unconstitutional in the 90s or in 2006?



Why do people constantly bring this up as if it would change my views on the matter?  I'm against the mandate, regardless of Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green Party, whoever.

Difference?  It passed under the Democrats, so they'll get the blame.


And, also again-- If a state wants to pass a law just like this, that's their decision.  It, however, is NOT the federal governments position.


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

46Young said:


> What's the risk? The wealthiest people in the U.S. are international people. If you tax them too much, they'll just leave. Our corporate tax rate is also the second highest behind only Japan, the last time I checked.
> 
> This reminds me of a simple explanation to understanding our tax structure:
> 
> http://blueridgeskyline.com/humor/taxlaw.htm


The US is a massive economy, how can they afford to not do business with the US? Furthermore, where are they going to go? Other advanced nations have comparatively higher tax rates for the wealthy than we do. What else is left? The third world?


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 23, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> The US is a massive economy, how can they afford to not do business with the US? Furthermore, where are they going to go? Other advanced nations have comparatively higher tax rates for the wealthy than we do. What else is left? The third world?



With the US is not the same as IN the US.


They'll move their HQs and most of their operations overseas.


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> Why do people constantly bring this up as if it would change my views on the matter?  I'm against the mandate, regardless of Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green Party, whoever.
> 
> Difference?  It passed under the Democrats, so they'll get the blame.
> 
> ...


 Because it's all rather convenient and rather disingenuous. There wouldn't be nearly the fervor about this were it to have bipartisan support. The GOP are the ones driving the frenzy about it, and if their intentions were to actually effect health care reform rather than merely deposing Obama we wouldn't have nearly the polarized opinions about it.


----------



## Emma (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss, if you ever come over this way you should come to school with me for a week and see what and who you're actually talking about.


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> With the US is not the same as IN the US.
> 
> 
> They'll move their HQs and most of their operations overseas.


 Really? All their administrative personnel, high-powered executives, etc. are going to relocate? You can out-source skilled labor (not viable in long-term but you can do it) but not really your management and strategic decision makers.

Also, jobs are being outsourced to other developed nations not just third world. General Motors has moved a considerable amount of its operations to Canada because they have universal healthcare, thus relieving employers of the burden of administering health insurance to its employees.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 23, 2011)

Emma said:


> Linuss, if you ever come over this way you should come to school with me for a week and see what and who you're actually talking about.



Canada?


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> The US is a massive economy, how can they afford to not do business with the US? Furthermore, where are they going to go? Other advanced nations have comparatively higher tax rates for the wealthy than we do. What else is left? The third world?



I would like to point out the US has the lowest tax rate of all modern nations.

In order to protect wealth, those with it will stay in America. They will however invest their money in other places. That is why outsourcing became so popular.

Why pay a US worker $10 an hour when you could pay an Asian 10 cents for the same thing or better and $1 to ship it back to the US?

Better still, why not just be a distributor and then you only show the profit margin of what it cost you to get it vs. what you sell it for rather than the price to manufacture it and what you sell it for?


----------



## the_negro_puppy (Feb 23, 2011)

Lol at the person who suggested that the U.S gives foreign aid to Aus, NZ and Scandinavian Countries. Are you serious or trolling? I really hope its the latter...

I am actually in the U.S and have been travelling here for a number of weeks. I think that the U.S is the extreme example of a capitalist society, where you can succeed and be mega rich, but also have a alrge amount of poverty and such a gap between the rich and poor. Until American psyche and culture changes, socialised healthcare etc will never be implemented. 

Again using the Scandinavian countries, NZ, Aus etc as a model, it seems that capitalism with social aspects has the most success. One only has to look at the human development index, quality of life, crime levels etc of the developed countries to see that the countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Aus, NZ arguably have the right balance.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

ffemt8978 said:


> How about we get back on topic and not turn this into a Constitutional debate?



If I could just point out and ask your indulgence.

This is perhaps one of the most civil discussions on this matter I have ever seen. If it remains in control, why not let it continue?

Even though we don't all agree, many of the people in this discussion are really sharp and it is nice to have something smarter to talk about than what boots to buy or how many questions it took to pass the EMT test.


----------



## Emma (Feb 23, 2011)

Linuss said:


> Canada?



Funny, but no.

DC.  Generational poverty, inner city people and how they're trying to live with the current system and lack of health care we have now.

No one in poverty wants to stay there and keep living off the government.  If you truly believe that about the majority of people getting government help/healthcare, then you need to make an appointment with reality.

Sorry, I just saw multiple digs at "poor people" on this thread and it bothers me.  I'm in the middle of that every day, and I get irritated when people start waving around their ill informed solutions about welfare. I'm not a bleeding heart hippy-well, maybe I am but I had to drop that years ago just to survive going to school each day and dealing with the effects of poverty my kids bring to class.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 23, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> The US is a massive economy, how can they afford to not do business with the US? Furthermore, where are they going to go? Other advanced nations have comparatively higher tax rates for the wealthy than we do. What else is left? The third world?



Largely due to our level of debt, China is already trying to relace the dollar as the world's standard: 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123780272456212885.html

When we begin to default on our debts, which we're in real danger of doing with the current level of government spending, we can kiss the dollar standard goodbye, and with itm our standard of living. We can't print our way out of debt either. Just ask Weimar Germany among others. Citizens were using the currency as wallpaper. 

Also, even if they do business here, they may show residence in another country, one that doesn't penalize the affluent. Since the wealthy pay the lion's share of federal taxes, having them leave will greatly reduce our income tax base.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

46Young said:


> Largely due to our level of debt, China is already trying to relace the dollar as the world's standard:
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123780272456212885.html
> 
> ...



The wealthy will have a very hard, if it is even possible which I doubt, time finding any modern nation where they will pay less tax. 

When it comes to foreign currency standards, it becomes important to see what is posturing and what is not.

I deal with foreign exchange rates everyday. While the dollar does fluctuate up and down, I have seen as much as a 66% loss of value in 3 months, it generally has less dramatic movements, which makes it somewhat predictable.

Also consider all nations try to undervalue their currency on purpose in order to make their exports more attractive.


----------



## thegreypilgrim (Feb 23, 2011)

46Young said:


> Largely due to our level of debt, China is already trying to relace the dollar as the world's standard:
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123780272456212885.html
> 
> When we begin to default on our debts, which we're in real danger of doing with the current level of government spending, we can kiss the dollar standard goodbye, and with itm our standard of living. We can't print our way out of debt either. Just ask Weimar Germany among others. Citizens were using the currency as wallpaper.


 Stable democracies can run up debt accounting for sizable percentages of their GDP without risk of default or investor withdrawal. Belgium, for example has consistently existed with a debt exceeding 100% of their GDP yet it gets along just fine. Historically we have run up similar debts, and we're still here. Debt is a problem, but it's not an overwhelming or insurmountable problem, and you lower it by generating revenue not cutting back on expenditures. There's all sorts of talk about China and its potential lordship over us, but the reality is the world economies are all so entangled and dependent on one another such debtor relationships don't really exist at that level. The situation can be described thusly: if you owe the bank $10,000 you have a problem, but if you owe the bank $1 million the BANK has the problem.



> Also, even if they do business here, they may show residence in another country, one that doesn't penalize the affluent. Since the wealthy pay the lion's share of federal taxes, having them leave will greatly reduce our income tax base.


 There are some rather harsh laws on offshore tax shelters. Furthermore, like Vene says the US is already something of a tax haven for the rich, but outsourcing has become popular because of the expenses employers are burdened with here that don't exist in other advanced countries. Outsourcing to other developed/advanced countries occurs just as often as outsourcing to the third world. Consider the example of GM and moving its operations to Canada. GM has been satirized as a health insurance company that also manufactures cars because of the extraordinary expenditures it makes on employee benefits. Canadian businesses don't have that problem because they have universal health even though they pay slightly higher taxes.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

thegreypilgrim said:


> Canadian businesses don't have that problem because they have universal health even though they pay slightly higher taxes.



There is a lot of wisdom in collecting health insurance premiums from as large as body as possible in order to help offset costs on those that money is being spent on for sickness. That was originally the plan and mandate of private health insurance. 

However, as the greed factor set in, it was discovered more profit could be made taking money from only healthy people, not paying out for expenses, and they deferring those expenses to a third party.

It is strangely like convincing people to send you money for a service then expecting the US government to cover the cost of that service so you don't lose any money.

wait... That's exactly what it is!

and as a bonus, the government has to shell out the cash for those sick people that are denied anyway.

It is the perfect scam.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 23, 2011)

Vene and TGP, I'm picking up what you're putting down.

Mods, please keep the thread open. It's really getting me thinking, and economics and politics are relevant to the thread, since we're talking about denying healthcare due to cost, that universal healthcare is supposed to be more sustainable, politics comes up, as does the U.S. constitution, etc. The thread is progressing, like a conversation, as threads and conversations often do.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Feb 23, 2011)

Genetic research is eventually going to reach a point where they can nail down exactly what diseases you are predisposed to and at that point I think private systems will fall apart. Let's face it the whole point of insurance is to spread the risk among folks who may get sick and folks who won't get sick. If you can be reasonably certain that you won't get cancer then why would you get private insurance. This means that at some point the only way the system will continue to function is to make everybody buy into it regardless of need. I hate to admit it but I think a mandated state/national health system is an inevitability here in the states at some point. Have we reached that point yet, maybe but I don't think so.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 23, 2011)

I was just viewing another thread that had vene and bstone debating if it's really in the pt's best interest for us to do everything possible for them.

It made me think of a question:

In our current healthcare system, what can one do to protect their assests from being seized to pay medical bills? One of my greatest fears is to work all my life, delaying gratification to save and invest, pay off a home, save even more to build up a sizeable deferred comp account, just to have all that wealth snuffed out by a significant illness and subsequent treatment at the hospital. Every time I think about it I want to vomit. If there's no way to avoid that, I'll have to decide between losing everything I've ever worked for and get the treatment, or go off somewhere and shoot up a lethal dose of heroin, bolus a ton of insulin, or run my car in the garage with me in it.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 23, 2011)

46Young said:


> I was just viewing another thread that had vene and bstone debating if it's really in the pt's best interest for us to do everything possible for them.
> 
> It made me think of a question:
> 
> In our current healthcare system, what can one do to protect their assests from being seized to pay medical bills? One of my greatest fears is to work all my life, delaying gratification to save and invest, pay off a home, save even more to build up a sizeable deferred comp account, just to have all that wealth snuffed out by a significant illness and subsequent treatment at the hospital. Every time I think about it I want to vomit. If there's no way to avoid that, I'll have to decide between losing everything I've ever worked for and get the treatment, or go off somewhere and shoot up a lethal dose of heroin, bolus a ton of insulin, or run my car in the garage with me in it.




If you figure it out, please let me know too.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 23, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> If you figure it out, please let me know too.



Drug OD it is then. Maybe "go overboard" during a fishing trip or something. I think getting a pilot's license and ramming the aircraft into the side of a mountain would be pretty bad***. At least my wife and kids can keep our assets. I'm sure I'm not the first person to consider this.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 23, 2011)

46Young said:


> At least my wife and kids can keep our assets. I'm sure I'm not the first person to consider this.



Also much easier to get it ruled an accident/pilot error, and thus death benefits.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Feb 23, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> Also much easier to get it ruled an accident/pilot error, and thus death benefits.



Just FYI most insurance policies have a "recreational pilot" exclusion for death benefits. Just saying.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 23, 2011)

Ahh...

don't get one of those...


----------



## emt seeking first job (Feb 23, 2011)

46Young said:


> Drug OD it is then. Maybe "go overboard" during a fishing trip or something. I think getting a pilot's license and ramming the aircraft into the side of a mountain would be pretty bad***. At least my wife and kids can keep our assets. I'm sure I'm not the first person to consider this.




Um......

There is such a thing as asset management.

How about forumulating a plan to transfer some of your wealth to your heirs so you don't have to spend it down when you are old ?

How about getting an annuity ?

Life Insurance insures you against dying, and annuity insures you against living.

There are options for dealing with issues like that aside from ending one's life.


----------



## 46Young (Feb 23, 2011)

emt seeking first job said:


> Um......
> 
> There is such a thing as asset management.
> 
> ...



I'm planning to meet with a financial planner soon. 

With an annuity, I'd have to surrender my principal. Since I'll already get a pension, I prefer to keep my assets invested, and receive dividends to supplement that pension plus some modest growth, at least to pace inflation.

I'm most likely going to take the full pension benefit, and take a policy out on myself, instead of a reduced benefit so that my spouse can continue to collect my pension if I die. 

You have to be careful when transferring your assets to your heirs. A spouse can scam my child out of their inheritance. My 6 year old may turn out to be a drug addict, and squander the money. My future grandchildren may turn out the same way. My two children (maybe more in the future) can lead different lives. who's to say who deserves more of a cut? One may choose not to have kids, the other may have several. I'm sure a financial planner and maybe a tax attorney can help me figure it out. I'll look into what types of living trusts are appropriate, if long term care insurance is worth it, etc.


----------



## Melclin (Feb 23, 2011)

Bah! I go off to bed and yet the world goes on chatting without me. Outrageous. 

I'm tagging out.


----------

