Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
gswarbrick
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:35 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:45 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 79):
Quoting gswarbrick (Reply 76):
There was a fascinating article in The Economist a couple of weeks ago about Chinese and Indian medical equipment, the gist of which is that rich American and European insurance companies and governments have been so willing to pay vast amounts of money for equipment like MRI scanners (partly after running cost-benefit analyses that showed that good diagnostic equipment paid for itself in lower treatment costs down the line...)

OK but here's the kicker - there was a $900 difference in price between my echo here in the states and the one I had in Japan, and because I'm observant about these things, both units were made by Philips. So either Japan is paying their technicians absolutely nothing (which I find hard to believe) or the administrative overhead here in the US justifies tremendous bill-padding. I'm going with the latter.

Oh I'm sure that's true. It was just an interesting aside...
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:32 pm

Quoting ManuCH (Reply 98):
Does a (supposedly private) medical insurance exist that can give me this service? If yes, how much would this cost per month?

I'm sure you can find a policy with the benefits noted, but pricing is hard to determine. NYC will have significantly costs because they have more uninsured people there. Several years ago I saw a report on the "hidden socialized medicine tax" built into health care premiums. NYC had one of the highest "tax rates - over 50% of the monthly premiums.

You also need to be careful on how they define the $1,000 deductibles - you can really get screwed on that as well.

Finally you need to take care in selecting the company. Check how many times they have been sued as well as the Better Business Bureau for complaints. The lower the price the higher your risk is that you will get screwed is something happens.
 
Quokka
Posts: 1315
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:26 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:56 pm

Quoting pwm2txlhopper (Reply 89):
And if I was rich, I wouldn't want to be forced to pay higher taxes than those making less to subsidize other peoples health car


It is good to see that bar tenders and pizza boys earn such good money that they can afford the best treatment without ever being a burden. It is good to see that despite a medical condition no-one in the US is ever discriminated against in the provision of health insurance, despite not being able to pursue their chosen career. If such a health care system were universally available the whole debate would be academic.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
Finally you need to take care in selecting the company. Check how many times they have been sued as well as the Better Business Bureau for complaints. The lower the price the higher your risk is that you will get screwed is something happens.


And this is one of the greatest weaknesses of privatised health care. When even lawyers dispute the meaning of single words how can ordinary citizens make a choice? No insurance company exists because it wants to pay out. I will repeat that for those who can't read as fast as I type. No insurance company exists because it wants to pay out. Some may be better than others but each wants to minimise its risk and reduce its liability. Some will even go so far and deny a claim even when the policy covers it in the hope that the policy holder lets the matter drop because they don't speak the same language as the company lawyers and almost certainly lack the funds to mount a legal challenge.

The benefit of the Australian system is that, for all its faults, it ensures health treatment for all while allowing those who want greater choice the option of private medical insurance.
 
travelavnut
Posts: 1327
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:35 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:48 pm

Quoting AA7295 (Reply 99):
You'd be looking at AT LEAST $100-$150 a week!

I pay that per month, get the same, and even a bit more (extensive dental plan)

Quoting slz396 (Reply 97):
Strange that what is a no brainer for car insurance or home insurance, suddenly becomes a complex equation when it comes to health insurance if one is to believe some people out here, not because the paramaters change dramatically, but because the context changes: health insurance has a smell of socialism over it and they just don't want to admit that there might be elements from it that may be working after all....

  

Quoting slz396 (Reply 97):
No surprise really: the thinner you can spread the risk (i.e. the more insured you have), the lower the costs, and thus the more money is reserved for real care rather than risk coverage.

  
 
rabenschlag
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 10:28 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:20 am

One curious aspect of this debate is that those who would profit from a cross-subsidization (i.e. the poor, the lower to middle class incomes) do not seem to be in favor of it. They are the majority, they could vote for it. Yet, they don't.

[Edited 2011-02-13 01:53:07]
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22270
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:06 am

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 104):
One curious aspect of this debate is that those who would profit from a cross-subsidization (i.e. the poor, the lower to middle class incomes) do not seem to be in favor of it. They are the majority, they could vote for it. Yet, they don't.

Obama ran with this as a flagship piece of his platform and got elected, so I would submit that it did get voted for.
 
gswarbrick
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:35 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:28 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 105):
Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 104):
One curious aspect of this debate is that those who would profit from a cross-subsidization (i.e. the poor, the lower to middle class incomes) do not seem to be in favor of it. They are the majority, they could vote for it. Yet, they don't.

Obama ran with this as a flagship piece of his platform and got elected, so I would submit that it did get voted for.

Indeed. But the poor don't get much of a voice in the subsequent media and online debate....
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:32 pm

Quoting ManuCH (Reply 98):
Does a (supposedly private) medical insurance exist that can give me this service? If yes, how much would this cost per month?

As a comparison, I have this exact plan in Switzerland, and I pay about $270/month for it, including free choice of the hospital and a private room.
Quoting AA7295 (Reply 99):
You'd be looking at AT LEAST $100-$150 a week!

Not quite. What drives up costs in the American system (one of the things, anyway) is that people want insurance to cover every little incident, with or without co-pays. The Swiss system is designed to cover the big expenses - the first $1000 or so per year (depending on your plan) are 100% on you. I like the Swiss system - it's not perfect, but I think that should be the model for an American universal coverage system.

But to mandate such a system, we need to pass a Constitutional amendment - As with Obamacare, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to get involved with Healthcare at this level - in fact I think Medicare should never have been allowed to happen.
 
slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:24 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 105):
Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 104):
One curious aspect of this debate is that those who would profit from a cross-subsidization (i.e. the poor, the lower to middle class incomes) do not seem to be in favor of it. They are the majority, they could vote for it. Yet, they don't.

Obama ran with this as a flagship piece of his platform and got elected, so I would submit that it did get voted for.

That's where the right makes a mistake indeed. They think there's no majority for it, but there is, albeit silent at present.

Poor and lower middle class people generally are not very much represented in the media, or certainly do not organize themselves as well as wealthy people do to get their voice heart.

They will however make an effort to come out and vote during presidential elections....
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:28 pm

Quoting slz396 (Reply 108):

That's where the right makes a mistake indeed. They think there's no majority for it, but there is, albeit silent at present.

Poor and lower middle class people generally are not very much represented in the media, or certainly do not organize themselves as well as wealthy people do to get their voice heart.

I find it sad that you think so poorly of the electorate that you simply assume that they should vote for whatever politicians who'll give them stuff paid for by someone else. Self-respect is not completely dead, you know.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:37 pm

Quoting gswarbrick (Reply 106):
But the poor don't get much of a voice in the subsequent media and online debate....

Most of the voices shouting during the health care reform debate was paid for by the health insurance industry. The average American doesn't stand a chance against them.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 107):
What drives up costs in the American system (one of the things, anyway) is that people want insurance to cover every little incident, with or without co-pays.

Even bigger is the medical care delivered to the poor and lower wage earners. Because we have the most expensive health care in the world a very large number of people cannot get preventative care and use the ER as their "doctor". We pay out the nose (or other body part) because of that.

Yet you can be sure the conservatives will want to cut any community health care efforts - driving even MORE people to the ER.

Did I mention that we also have the dumbest health care system in the world. Or maybe the dumbest politicians.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 109):
I find it sad that you think so poorly of the electorate that you simply assume that they should vote for whatever politicians who'll give them stuff paid for by someone else.

The queer thing is that you are currently paying far too much to ensure others get "free" health care and are fighting with vigor to keep it that way.
 
D L X
Posts: 12726
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:54 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 110):
The queer thing is that you are currently paying far too much to ensure others get "free" health care and are fighting with vigor to keep it that way.

Wow. That is a powerful statement.

  
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:05 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 110):

The queer thing is that you are currently paying far too much to ensure others get "free" health care and are fighting with vigor to keep it that way.
Quoting D L X (Reply 111):

Wow. That is a powerful statement.

And wrong. Have I ever said that the healthcare system in the US makes any sense whatsoever, or that we should leave it as it is? No I haven't. I believe that a universal mandate must be imposed, and a Swiss-style system would be ideal. I also believe that Obamacare 1) is unconstitutional, because an individual mandate requires an amendment prior to passage, 2) Is otherwise fundamentally flawed in a variety of details, which cumulatively will make things even worse than they are now.

I know that intellectual honesty might come hard to you, but do not confuse opposition to Obamacare as being the same as not wanting to change anything.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:10 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 14):
How is Medicare at all valid then?

You will never catch me arguing that it is. The only problem is that, for years, money has been confiscated from individuals toward paying for it, creating a conflict between the federal government exceeding its authority, and the implied contractual obligation it created by doing so. The only fair resolution I can think of is to develop a sunset provision, that will gradually reduce to zero both the money collected, and the benefits paid out using an an age/eligibility based formula.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 14):
Surely no less deliberately blind than continuing a system where we directly subsidize those without coverage at both the private insurer and state/county tax level.

The State/county level are entirely separate than the federal level. If a given state provides for such subsidies in its Constitution and laws, that is a separate matter.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 15):
That is not only a bad thing for the people that are un-insured, but also for the US economy in general.

It is only a problem because insurance and Medicare/Medicaid have so distorted medical prices, that it is scarcely possible to find out what a lab or procedure will cost ahead of time, determine what a fair market value is, and then determine if you want it from that source. There is no transparency in medical prices in the US.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 15):
It is not like you are forced to contribute to society in the Netherlands, I was merily stating it as an example.

I understand that, and I seized upon it to demonstrate a difference in philosophy regarding the purpose of government.

Quoting AA7295 (Reply 16):
Yeah... currently. The US Constitution has an amazing ability to be amended. Especially for the betterment of US citizens. Also, you are talking about "participating in a health care system" when Universal Health Care implies medical treatment as a right.

The US Constitution has not been so amended at this time, so that pretty much renders further discussion along those lines academic. The Federal Government in the US is (or should be) restricted in the exercise of its powers. All affirming or prescribing action should only be in defense of the rights of individuals or the constituent states. "Participation in a Health Care System", as I earlier mentions was a reference to the requirement to purchase health insurance that the current health care bill contained.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:28 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 112):
I also believe that Obamacare 1) is unconstitutional, because an individual mandate requires an amendment prior to passage, 2) Is otherwise fundamentally flawed in a variety of details, which cumulatively will make things even worse than they are now.

1) The individual mandate was a compromise that "avoided" the public (a Republican desire) and it actually used the model brought in by Romney when he was governor. The CONSERVATIVE Romney.

Republican were quite happy with the change from a public option to a mandate because their Sugar Daddies in the health insurance industry were very happy with it.

2) The reform that was reached was as big a step as could be taken at one time. Major problems, like pre-existing conditions, were addressed. Other problems can be addressed on an on-going basis if the Republicans want to stop playing games and start working on problems in this country, including unemployment, health care, the nation's budgets, etc.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 112):
I know that intellectual honesty might come hard to you

Nope, not at all. I try to use my few remaining brain cells as best I can and I try to prevent my thoughts as honestly as I can. I certainly try to NOT challenge the honesty of others on the board.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:16 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 114):
1) The individual mandate was a compromise that "avoided" the public (a Republican desire) and it actually used the model brought in by Romney when he was governor. The CONSERVATIVE Romney.

Republican were quite happy with the change from a public option to a mandate because their Sugar Daddies in the health insurance industry were very happy with it.

Like I said, I am in favor of an individual mandate. But you need a constitutional amendment.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 114):
2) The reform that was reached was as big a step as could be taken at one time. Major problems, like pre-existing conditions, were addressed. Other problems can be addressed on an on-going basis if the Republicans want to stop playing games and start working on problems in this country, including unemployment, health care, the nation's budgets, etc.

Some good things were addressed, but Obamacare rammed through a lot of crap in with it. It's easy to cherry-pick 3 or 4 good things out of the whole 2000+ page bill. Obamacare should have provided 1) a constitutional amendment authorizing the bill, and 2) mandated only catastrophic health insurance through the individual mandate, instead of pushing through the kitchen sink.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:46 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 115):
But you need a constitutional amendment.

In the end Romney didn't need a constitutional change. Was it because he was a Republican? Conservative? Or maybe the residents of MA felt it was wise to go that route?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 115):
mandated only catastrophic health insurance through the individual mandate, instead of pushing through the kitchen sink.

We need the whole kitchen sink at the core care level. Check out an ER sometimes and count the uninsured waiting to be seen because they are sick and cannot afford to "go to the doctor". Add it all up and my bet is that this public cost is greater than the catastrophic health care costs. Each patient will end up in an exam room, have a list of tests (including blood tests) and may be given medications at the hospital because the doctor knows they will not be able to afford to pay for prescriptions.

The elimination of the public option does nothing but ensure that the average American (or employer) pays more than is needed. If we develop a public option and move core care to a tax based funding then you can see costs go down. Otherwise hang on.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:30 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 116):
In the end Romney didn't need a constitutional change. Was it because he was a Republican? Conservative? Or maybe the residents of MA felt it was wise to go that route?

Last I checked, Massachusetts is not the federal government, and is not limited to the enumerated powers therein. States can pretty much do what they want, subject to their own constitutions and citizenry.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 116):

We need the whole kitchen sink at the core care level. Check out an ER sometimes and count the uninsured waiting to be seen because they are sick and cannot afford to "go to the doctor". Add it all up and my bet is that this public cost is greater than the catastrophic health care costs

That's a key issue to solve, and can be solved by a properly policed individual mandate for catastrophic coverage. If you go to the emergency room for a head cold, the co-pay should be about as much as if you went to the doctor and paid out of your pocket and possibly more. The big question is what should the penalty be if you don't have insurance. For that I sincerely believe that the federal government is too far away, too heavy-handed to police it. Local authorities should be in charge of that, but the law is limited even there.
 
zhiao
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:52 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:01 am

People talk much about the Swiss system; did anyone know that the Swiss spend more per capita out of pocket on heathcare than anyone else? 25% more than the US!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:35 am

Quoting zhiao (Reply 118):
People talk much about the Swiss system; did anyone know that the Swiss spend more per capita out of pocket on heathcare than anyone else? 25% more than the US!

Don't forget to take into account the strength of the Swiss Franc, which is now worth more than the USD. I remember when it was 4 francs per USD. When you take into account the difference in annual salaries, their expenditures on medical insurance and expenses is more in proportion.

Also, out-of-pocket medical expenses imply that these are not paid by insurance companies, which is a good thing, because it keeps rates down. The Swiss system works on the basis of deductables between 300 and 2500 francs per year. Up to your deductable, YOU pay 100%. After the deductable, the insurance pays something like 90% of everything - you still pay something.
 
zhiao
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:52 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:48 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 119):
Don't forget to take into account the strength of the Swiss Franc, which is now worth more than the USD. I remember when it was 4 francs per USD. When you take into account the difference in annual salaries, their expenditures on medical insurance and expenses is more in proportion.

Also, out-of-pocket medical expenses imply that these are not paid by insurance companies, which is a good thing, because it keeps rates down. The Swiss system works on the basis of deductables between 300 and 2500 francs per year. Up to your deductable, YOU pay 100%. After the deductable, the insurance pays something like 90% of everything - you still pay something.

Actually, the figure is not on the basis of exchange rates, but rather purchasing power. Doesn't change my initial point anyway. And what difference in annual salaries do you speak of? They are very close:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage
 
D L X
Posts: 12726
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:29 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 112):
I know that intellectual honesty might come hard to you

Charles, this is unnecessary, and out of character for you.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 112):
I also believe that Obamacare 1) is unconstitutional, because an individual mandate requires an amendment prior to passage

I think you believe it to be unconstitutional because you accept partisan "news" sources telling you so, even in the face of constitutional scholars explaining why it is perfectly constitutional. I do not recall you saying it was unconstitutional before pundits started saying it (and pundits didn't start saying it until Obama was elected). Please correct me if I am mistaken.

This act is _not_ unconstitutional based on a hundred years of case law. And maybe you're not the poster child of this mantra, but other conservatives have latched onto the flawed argument of unconstitutionality as a way to PREVENT universal health care from ever taking hold in the United States because they can't block it through the political process. Their fight, as Ken777 correctly summed, amounts to fighting to ensure the status quo, where people without insurance have their health care paid by people that do have it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 112):
2) Is otherwise fundamentally flawed in a variety of details, which cumulatively will make things even worse than they are now.

I agree that it is flawed - it is not the system that I would have chosen at all.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22270
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:58 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 117):

That's a key issue to solve, and can be solved by a properly policed individual mandate for catastrophic coverage.

You just said an individual mandate was unconstitutional, now you want an individual mandate?

On the local level no less? Talk about a mess. That's like letting individual states figure out who is and isn't a citizen of the nation.

Yes, ER abuse is out of hand in this country but lack of access to care is to blame. The uninsured are not to blame because each and every one of them wishes that they did have it. It's not that they are "free" to not have it, they are FORCED to not have it.
 
JJJ
Posts: 4118
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:10 am

Quoting zhiao (Reply 118):
People talk much about the Swiss system; did anyone know that the Swiss spend more per capita out of pocket on heathcare than anyone else? 25% more than the US!

In any case, the Swiss system is just behind the US in cost as a % of GDP.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:33 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 121):

I think you believe it to be unconstitutional because you accept partisan "news" sources telling you so, even in the face of constitutional scholars explaining why it is perfectly constitutional.

I believe it to be unconstitutional because I can read. What is it about "enumerated powers" do you not understand? And those "scholars" you talk about are basically saying that black is white and you say I should believe them?

Quoting D L X (Reply 121):

This act is _not_ unconstitutional based on a hundred years of case law



And I say the case law is wrong. It runs counter to the letter and intent of the Constitution, and has been propagated by an overly legalistic and opportunistic twisting and stretching of terms - such as "interstate commerce", which literally means the actual traffic of goods back and forth between states has now become relevant to any good or service that might possibly be remotely connected to anything or anyone who might one day perchance cross a state boundry. Sorry, but that's not what was intended.

I think the entire concept of case law should be thrown out.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 122):

You just said an individual mandate was unconstitutional, now you want an individual mandate?

Just because something is unconstitutional does not mean I don't want it. The constitution is not set in stone - it has a process for amendment. But rather than the leftist, "living document" view, I don't want some judge to simply decide out of thin air something that agrees with me. For instance, I said above that case law should not be relevant in the courts. Aside from the fact that it would be ironic and contradictory for the USSC to agree with me on that, I think that should be done by a constitution amendment, where about 2/3rds of the people say "that's what we want" rather than by fiat from 9 High Priests. I want an amendment that says (paraphrased), "The law means what it says and says what it means. Prior case history shall have no bearing on matters presented in court." If the law is vague on certain matters or results in undesired decisions, change the law. Put the onus on the legislature to write clearly and distinctly what it means, and make them go back and correct improperly worded laws.

Sidetracking a little bit - I think the US Constitution will soon disappear into irrelevancy, where people won't even pretend to care what it says or not, or it will be replaced with an entirely new one. As far as I know, no other nation in the world has laws based on a 200+ year old constitution with over 200 years of case law. It has become completely unmanageable and will continue to become more so. Imagine what the case law will look like in 100 years. It will be impossible for the human mind to comprehend. Based on the principle of "a law means what it says", there is no reason why all the valid laws at the federal level should not fit into a single volume, and that no case law books should be relevant, apart from being valuable for lawyers to learn arguments that may or may not have worked in the past.

Basically our system been converted by lawyers into a huge mess that benefits only lawyers.
 
D L X
Posts: 12726
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:57 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 124):
I believe it to be unconstitutional because I can read.

Then I posit that you are reading the wrong things.

Don't forget that our constitution was written in the context of a common law nation and did not undo our common law system.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 124):
And I say the case law is wrong.

It might be! But, stare decisis. You don't have the power to ignore cases because you don't like them. I mean, if we had that power, it would have been President Gore!  
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 124):
"interstate commerce", which literally means the actual traffic of goods back and forth between states has now become relevant to any good or service that might possibly be remotely connected to anything or anyone who might one day perchance cross a state boundry. Sorry, but that's not what was intended.

I don't think you can know what was intended considering the constitution was written in an extremely opaque setting (on purpose) by men who intended different things from each other.

Be that as it may, you also have to understand that commerce between the states was the unusual situation back when the Constitution was written. Now, having your supply chain exist entirely within one state is the (extremely) unusual situation. In other words, it's not that the founders never intended Congress to have the power to regulate such menial day to day things as commerce, but rather that they never imagined the day where so much of each individual's actions would have an effect on interstate commerce. To pull these actions out of the label "interstate commerce" because they are menial would require believing that the constitution is a living document. You can't have it both ways.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 124):
I think the entire concept of case law should be thrown out.

That is not, and never has been the American system. We are a common law country (and always have been) and as such, case law is the way of the land.

It's not surprising to hear you espouse favor of a civil law system such as exists where you are from, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just not what we do here.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:39 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 125):
Don't forget that our constitution was written in the context of a common law nation and did not undo our common law system

Actually it was written in the context of 13 sovergn states ceding limited powers to a central body in pursuit of common goals.

Quoting D L X (Reply 125):
I don't think you can know what was intended considering the constitution was written in an extremely opaque setting (on purpose) by men who intended different things from each other.

Too bad the entire past is lost to us. If only we had the letters, journals, published writings, minutes of meetings, and transcripts from ratifying meetings where the exact intent was discussed and explained. Oh why did we not preserve these in some central library, perhaps in the capitol. All of their thoughts are lost to antiquity.

Quoting D L X (Reply 125):
Be that as it may, you also have to understand that commerce between the states was the unusual situation back when the Constitution was written.

No it wasn't. This is part of what helped convince the colonies band together, particularly when the British government tried to restrict this trade. You really think the colonies traded exclusively with Britain, and not another colony 75 miles away?
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:45 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 125):
Then I posit that you are reading the wrong things.

Such as this? What a subversive document!

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Quoting D L X (Reply 125):

Don't forget that our constitution was written in the context of a common law nation and did not undo our common law system.

Which I consider to be possibly their greatest mistake.

Quoting D L X (Reply 125):
I don't think you can know what was intended considering the constitution was written in an extremely opaque setting (on purpose) by men who intended different things from each other.

I think their intent was fairly clear when you read the surrounding context such as the Federalist Papers.

Quoting D L X (Reply 125):
Be that as it may, you also have to understand that commerce between the states was the unusual situation back when the Constitution was written. Now, having your supply chain exist entirely within one state is the (extremely) unusual situation. In other words, it's not that the founders never intended Congress to have the power to regulate such menial day to day things as commerce, but rather that they never imagined the day where so much of each individual's actions would have an effect on interstate commerce. To pull these actions out of the label "interstate commerce" because they are menial would require believing that the constitution is a living document. You can't have it both ways.

I understand the argument, and it is not wrong - however I think that the matter should have been handled via an amendment to the Constitution or the careful wording of laws rather than ever-expanding case law. In the military, they have a term - "mission creep", which I think may apply here.

Quoting D L X (Reply 125):

That is not, and never has been the American system. We are a common law country (and always have been) and as such, case law is the way of the land.

It's not surprising to hear you espouse favor of a civil law system such as exists where you are from, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just not what we do here.

Tell me, do you think that our Constitution can survive this much longer without becoming irrelevant? 200+ years of case law has become this incredible amount of baggage which means that nobody can read a law in plain simple English and be certain that it doesn't mean something completely different.
 
User avatar
Asturias
Posts: 1977
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:32 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:34 pm

What I don't understand is why people (here) seem to be making an effort to convince Americans that their health-care system should be more "universal" than it is.

It's not like we have to do as they do - our time would be better spent making sure our universal health care system is working well.

Personally I prefer the government run and managed health-care system, it's good and reliable - but if Americans don't want it, well that's that. ... I also realize that the health-care system in my country isn't perfect, which I assume can be said of every European or Western health-care system.

So I prefer to spend my energy to make better what I have - Americans can have what they want.

asturias
 
D L X
Posts: 12726
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:45 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 126):
Quoting D L X (Reply 125):
Don't forget that our constitution was written in the context of a common law nation and did not undo our common law system

Actually it was written in the context of 13 sovergn states ceding limited powers to a central body in pursuit of common goals.

But each were and are common law governments. My statement is still true. There has never been civil law in the US except in Louisiana, which they inherited from the French.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 126):
Too bad the entire past is lost to us. If only we had the letters, journals, published writings, minutes of meetings, and transcripts from ratifying meetings where the exact intent was discussed and explained. Oh why did we not preserve these in some central library, perhaps in the capitol. All of their thoughts are lost to antiquity.

I think it was the intent of the founders to not disclose the negotiations and brainstorming that they went through. They wanted the words on the paper to be the law, not the thoughts in their heads, which could be argued over.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 126):
No it wasn't. This is part of what helped convince the colonies band together, particularly when the British government tried to restrict this trade. You really think the colonies traded exclusively with Britain, and not another colony 75 miles away?

No, that is not what I'm saying. I think people in the individual states got their corn from the corn farmer down the street, their horseshoes from the shaw down the street, and their barrels from the cooper down the street, as opposed to ordering it from Amazon.com and having it shipped in from another state (or country).

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 127):
Such as this? What a subversive document!

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

We do not live in a civil law nation, and you need to accept that to have this argument. If you haven't read any commerce law cases in the Supreme Court or at least read about them, you don't have all the information you need to declare something unconstitutional in a common law system. I get that you hate common law, but it is what it is. It's like arguing that you don't like the forward pass in football, and they never should have picked up the ball in the first place.  
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 127):
I think their intent was fairly clear when you read the surrounding context such as the Federalist Papers.

But this confirms my point whole cloth. Who wrote the Federalist Papers? Are they the minutes of the Constitutional Convention? No. They are not. Rather, they are one faction's ideas. Other factions did not necessarily publish their ideas, and still other factions had ideas that directly contradicted Publius. But all had a hand in crafting the final document. That's why Publius is not only not binding on our laws, but is not even a reasonable source to interpret our laws.

By the way, you have to also recognize the irony that you are unwilling to accept Supreme Court cases as relevant (though that is the law of the land) because they are not in your opinion perfectly aligned with the scant words in the constitution, but you _are_ willing to accept the words of the Federalist Papers, which was ratified by no one. Both cases and federalist papers are extra-documental, but cases are the law of the land while the federalist papers are not.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 127):
Tell me, do you think that our Constitution can survive this much longer without becoming irrelevant?

Great question!   Now, if we want to talk intent of the founders, I know that Jefferson expected that Amendments would come much more frequently than they have, accepting that the document they produced has always had some flaws. He knew that the founders did not have the foresight to know how this document would affect people 200 years later. I think he was right, but unfortunately, one of the constitution's biggest flaws was that it was made too difficult to amend. (One thing the founders lacked foresight in was how each new state entering the union would make amendments more difficult.)

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 127):
I understand the argument, and it is not wrong - however I think that the matter should have been handled via an amendment to the Constitution or the careful wording of laws rather than ever-expanding case law. In the military, they have a term - "mission creep", which I think may apply here.

I appreciate your words. I don't think this is mission creep, but rather that new issues are finding their way into the mission. If the mission was "eliminate the threats" and a slew of new threats show up, it is still within the mission to go after the new threats, even if they weren't imagined when the mission was first crafted.

Americans have changed the way that they act, largely because _states_ are pretty irrelevant in this day and age. Cars, the internet, and large corporations have hastened their irrelevance. Americans live transborder lives day in and day out, which is just a fundamental change in the pattern the founders knew.

What's more is that the idea that the founders were intent on protecting personal liberties as their highest priority is an invention of the 20th century. Sure, it was on their minds (unless you were black), but it was not the #1 focus. The Commerce Clause is there as an understanding that the nation as a whole should jump in to referee the actions in commerce of individuals as they act across state borders. It is and has always been a limitation on personal liberty, but it is a limitation that merely supplanted the limitation that each individual state had already placed abrogating each individuals personal liberty.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:49 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 117):
States can pretty much do what they want, subject to their own constitutions and citizenry.

And subject to the US Constitution as well. The states cannot bring in a law that is, at the Federal level, unconstitutional and have a guarantee that they can get away with it.

I'm one who also believes in the concept of Equal Protection Under the Law.

And some state level control is plain stupid. Take a doctor just completing his licensing exam. It's a national exam and scoring is based at the national level. Passing that exam should qualify a doctor for a license in any state. I can see paying a license in only one state at a time, but moving to another state should basically be automatic if you passed the national licensing exam.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 117):
If you go to the emergency room for a head cold, the co-pay should be about as much as if you went to the doctor and paid out of your pocket and possibly more.

The problem is that they cannot afford to go to the doctor. The relief valve here would be community health centers funded in part via Medicaid. My money, however, is that the Republicans will cut any funds for those centers, pushing more people into the ERs.

Again, you address core care at a single payer level or you adversely impact the quality of care you will be getting in the future.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 117):
Local authorities should be in charge of that, but the law is limited even there.

If you can trust them. And if they do not provide less benefits than other states (Equal Protection Under the Law).

Personally I don't trust the states that much when it comes to health. It's far too easy to get screwed at that level.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 127):
which means that nobody can read a law in plain simple English and be certain that it doesn't mean something completely different.

Some years back I talked to a lawyer from Brisbane. QLD is a simple English state that requires that laws be written so they can be read by the common man. The problem with this, according to the lawyer, is that the new approach ended up loosing the precision that the law does need in order to work properly.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:41 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 130):
And subject to the US Constitution as well. The states cannot bring in a law that is, at the Federal level, unconstitutional and have a guarantee that they can get away with it.

Given that the Constitution was meant to grant only certain limited powers to the federal government and put few restrictions on the States, that shouldn't be an issue very often. That's why states have their own constitutions.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 130):
And some state level control is plain stupid. Take a doctor just completing his licensing exam. It's a national exam and scoring is based at the national level. Passing that exam should qualify a doctor for a license in any state. I can see paying a license in only one state at a time, but moving to another state should basically be automatic if you passed the national licensing exam.

I don't disagree, some of it is pretty stupid. My point is either change the law, or obey it as it is. Choose one or the other, but don't just ignore it by pushing through a judicial fiat that says it means something it doesn't.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 130):
The problem is that they cannot afford to go to the doctor. The relief valve here would be community health centers funded in part via Medicaid. My money, however, is that the Republicans will cut any funds for those centers, pushing more people into the ERs.

My uncle, who's a very successful patent lawyer and about 65 recently had a heart attack and landed in intensive care. While there they discovered that he has Stage IV colon cancer. He is seriously messed up. And in spite of the millions he made (and spent lavishly), we just found out that he has no medical insurance. So Medicaid is going to end up picking up the tab. I find that sickening - Medicaid should only be for people who seriously cannot afford to pay for their own healthcare - not for people who choose not to.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 130):
If you can trust them. And if they do not provide less benefits than other states (Equal Protection Under the Law).

Personally I don't trust the states that much when it comes to health. It's far too easy to get screwed at that level.

I trust them better than the federal government, because you have a choice. If Georgia was a poorly run state I have the choice to move elsewhere. Michigan is a state where sometime soon they will be forced to make huge changes because of all the good businesses that have moved away. States have to live within their means and as efficiently as possible, or else they can go belly-up, forcing change - as we are starting to see now in some states. There is no such option at the federal level - no incentive for the federal government to operate efficiently or well. Overbudget? Print more money. Not efficient? What choice do you have?
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:59 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 126):
If only we had the letters, journals, published writings, minutes of meetings, and transcripts from ratifying meetings where the exact intent was discussed and explained.

What we do have and we do know from history is that after the failure of the strong states Articles of Confederation government, the folks who worked to create the new Constitution worked as hard as possible to create a strong central government that could force the states to comply with Federal laws. That could balance the inequities in laws and policies across the several states with consistent federal laws.

These were issues which arose under the first government created by the former colonies, which people knew had to be addressed.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:16 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 132):
What we do have and we do know from history is that after the failure of the strong states Articles of Confederation government, the folks who worked to create the new Constitution worked as hard as possible to create a strong central government that could force the states to comply with Federal laws. That could balance the inequities in laws and policies across the several states with consistent federal laws.

I disagree. The Articles of Confederation failed because of too little central power, but that does not mean that the Founders suddenly fell in love with centralized government. They still distrusted the hell out of it. Their second try, with the Constitution, provided the federal government with just a little bit more authority, enough to overcome the failures of the Articles, but certainly not the all-inclusive monolith we know today. I have little doubt that if Washington, Jefferson or Madison were alive today, they would look at Washington DC over the past few decades and say, "Ya'll f&%ked it up."
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:18 pm

Quoting Asturias (Reply 128):
It's not like we have to do as they do

Which makes you very fortunate when compared to millions of Americans.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 128):
but if Americans don't want it, well that's that.

Not quite. In our over-priced system we are still seeing huge increases in the costs of insurance and more & more companies getting out of the nanny care business. As the businesses wise up they are going to move further and further away from this benefit. When you see the benefit being taxed as income, which is only logical in the deficit crisis we have, you are also going to see reasonable people moving closer to a universal health care for core care.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 131):
So Medicaid is going to end up picking up the tab. I find that sickening - Medicaid should only be for people who seriously cannot afford to pay for their own healthcare - not for people who choose not to.

Remember that the money he spent during his working years went into the economy, helping it grow.

There is also Medicare that kicks in at 65. It can kick in earlier under a disability (if he can't work again) but the bright spark politicians will make him wait for 2 years from the start of his condition before he can start. If he's at stage IV then he may be able to back date his problem back over a year and get Medicare to kick in soon. I wish him well.

BTW, how much money do you think your uncle has kicked into FICA over his working life? My bet is that he's paid in enough to have earned some care.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 131):
I trust them better than the federal government, because you have a choice.

I prefer to give more confidence to the Federal government because it's far easier to "motivate"legislatures at the state level.

To be blunt, we can process Medicare without a lot of problems (excluding fraud) on a national level, with very profitable participation from the private insurance industry. It's stupid to have 50 different Medicaid programs, admin costs, different rules (all costing a lot) simply because we consider it a "state issue".

Again, why work vigorously to make it more expensive when it can be done within the national infrastructure that is basically in place today? Maybe we should consolidate the 50 different programs and apply the savings to our national debt.  Wow!
 
D L X
Posts: 12726
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:23 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 133):
Their second try, with the Constitution, provided the federal government with just a little bit more authority, enough to overcome the failures of the Articles, but certainly not the all-inclusive monolith we know today.

What is arguably our third try, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments (if you don't count the 11th), all abrogated state power bringing it to the federal level. These Amendments, especially the 14th, created the strong central government that the nation needs.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 133):
I have little doubt that if Washington, Jefferson or Madison were alive today, they would look at Washington DC over the past few decades and say, "Ya'll f&%ked it up."

Just as Lincoln looked back at Washington, Jefferson, and Madison in 1861 and said "this was y'all's fault."
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:58 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 133):
Their second try, with the Constitution, provided the federal government with just a little bit more authority, enough to overcome the failures of the Articles, but certainly not the all-inclusive monolith we know today.

IIRC, when the Constitution was written people in the various states had more loyalty to their states than to the nation. I would hope that by now our basic loyalty is to our country.

Excluding college sports, or course.  
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 133):
I have little doubt that if Washington, Jefferson or Madison were alive today, they would look at Washington DC over the past few decades and say, "Ya'll f&%ked it up."

Being a General I have little doubt that Washington would understand Ike's interest in building the Interstate system. He would also be impressed with our commercial airlines and the Federal efforts to maintain some type of organization.

Other issues, especially in the area of communications, would appeal to him.

And he would probably be a staunch supporter of both care for the elderly and for veterans. Washington was a first rate officer and I'm sure knew his first obligation was to his men.

As far as the deficit I believe the first thing out of his mouth would be to raise taxes if you're spending more than you're taking in.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:07 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 129):
I think it was the intent of the founders to not disclose the negotiations and brainstorming that they went through. They wanted the words on the paper to be the law, not the thoughts in their heads, which could be argued over.

That was sarcasm. The is a huge body of documents surrounding the theories, thoughts, and intents of the Framers. It is just that it is conveniently ignored and not taught today. It does not fit well with the fraudulent "living document" view.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 132):
the folks who worked to create the new Constitution worked as hard as possible to create a strong central government that could force the states to comply with Federal laws.

I disagree, and the later writings of Jefferson and Madison support my view. Further, they had just recently fought a war to separate from a strong, central governing body. It will be utterly illogical to replace one evil for another.

Quoting D L X (Reply 129):
But each were and are common law governments. My statement is still true.

Actually most of them had a Compact/Contract, which is similar to a corporate charter, and the terms were usually dictated by the Monarch who authorized it.

Quoting D L X (Reply 129):
Americans have changed the way that they act, largely because _states_ are pretty irrelevant in this day and age.

Not at all. For example, states are still actively playing a role in nullifying unconstitutional federal laws. This is the only real check on the power of the US Supreme Court. While the 17th amendment partially neutered the states, they still play a very important role.
 
D L X
Posts: 12726
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:46 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 137):
For example, states are still actively playing a role in nullifying unconstitutional federal laws.

I can't get past this comment to begin to respond to your whole post. Can you explain what you mean or cite an example?
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:01 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 138):
Can you explain what you mean or cite an example?

I think he is referring to the politicians in some states who want to look good to conservative voters by filing suits against the "mandate".

But then I agree that a mandate should be replaced with a single payer for core care. It's far cheaper, more efficient and better allows for the free movement of Americans between states.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:04 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 136):
And he would probably be a staunch supporter of both care for the elderly and for veterans. Washington was a first rate officer and I'm sure knew his first obligation was to his men.

As far as the deficit I believe the first thing out of his mouth would be to raise taxes if you're spending more than you're taking in.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington.

Like all conservatives, Washington had no love of government. It is a necessary evil, needed to maintain the foundations of a civil society, but not to be looked at as a source of beneficence.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:09 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 138):
Can you explain what you mean or cite an example?

The idea is that the States are the ultimate check on the power of both the US Supreme Court and Congress. By refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws or rulings that exceed the power of the Federal Government, the States can nullify Federal Laws. According to Nullification theory, this does not violate the Supremacy Clause because any law or ruling that exceeds the limits of federal power is, by definition, outside the scope of the Constitution and therefore not protected by that clause. Since the States set down the constitution, and enumerated the powers of the federal government, they retain jurisdiction and are competent to judge in these matter.

There are many examples throughout history, but a few recent ones include California's medical marijuana laws, allowing for the use of medical marijuana irregardless of federal laws and despite rulings like Gonzales v Raich. (interestly, states as diverse as Washington, Alabama, Louisiana, and Maryland filed briefs on behalf of Raich, and both Justices Scalia and O'Conner sided with Raich) Some think that the refusal of some states to cooperate with the REAL ID act constitutes an act of nullification. Arizona, Georgia, and Florida have already passed laws for the purpose of nullifying portions of the health care bill. Further back, you could look at the States' resistance to the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, The Principles of 98, or read "The Rescue of Joshua Glover".

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 139):
I think he is referring to the politicians in some states who want to look good to conservative voters by filing suits against the "mandate".

This is neglected piece of jurisprudence, that requires a certain amount of courage and resolution by state legislatures, not a cheap political stunt.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:15 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 136):
As far as the deficit I believe the first thing out of his mouth would be to raise taxes if you're spending more than you're taking in.

As a General who had to fight a war with a very limited budget, I am also sure he would cut to the bare essentials and show that he was spending the money well before asking for more.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:29 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 140):
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington.

Government is a force, just look at Iraq to see the blunt hand of he force and how government can truly be a dangerous servant.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 142):
As a General who had to fight a war with a very limited budget, I am also sure he would cut to the bare essentials and show that he was spending the money well before asking for more.

Washing worked with the base essentials, but I seem to recall that he (unlike Bush & Cheney) was able to raise funds to support his war.

You are assuming, of course, that Washington would not embrace modern medicare at a cost everyone could afford, or taking care of veterans.

And also take a hard look at Washington. He was a man of his times, which included slavery, and might be a bit surprised to see an integrated America.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:37 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 143):
was able to raise funds to support his war.

It was a pay as you go war. And he was not always able to meet payroll.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 143):
You are assuming, of course, that Washington would not embrace modern medicare at a cost everyone could afford, or taking care of veterans.

No, I assume that he would not support raising taxes without first cutting to the bare essentials.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:31 am

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 144):
No, I assume that he would not support raising taxes without first cutting to the bare essentials.

Maybe he understood the problems and inefficiencies of bare operations and would have jumped at the chance of having proper funding.

But then the "rich" probably would have rebelled and turned their back on the nation.

Just like today.  
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:34 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 145):
But then the "rich" probably would have rebelled and turned their back on the nation.

You mean the same "rich" that were helping bankroll the war or the one who helped secure loans from France? As for the Loyalists, they couldn't abandon what they never supported in the first place.
 
D L X
Posts: 12726
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:48 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 140):
Like all conservatives, Washington

Oh come now, you have no basis to say that Washington would agree with what we today call "conservative."

And to be fair, Ken777, you do not know that Washington would raise taxes.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 141):
By refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws or rulings that exceed the power of the Federal Government, the States can nullify Federal Laws.

States do not have the power to refuse to enforce or in any way hinder the execution of federal laws.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 141):
According to Nullification theory, this does not violate the Supremacy Clause because any law or ruling that exceeds the limits of federal power is, by definition, outside the scope of the Constitution and therefore not protected by that clause. Since the States set down the constitution, and enumerated the powers of the federal government, they retain jurisdiction and are competent to judge in these matter.

It is not the state's ability to determine (finally) whether a law is constitutional or not. The states are still beholden and inferior to the United States Supreme Court.

Be careful when you talk about "nullification." Nullification has a meaning - ignoring the federal government's edict to desegregate.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:12 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 147):
States do not have the power to refuse to enforce or in any way hinder the execution of federal laws.

Then how do you explain the past instances of it? If the US government draws its authority from the consent of the governed, and the states do not consent in a particular matter, how can the federal government legally override and ignore the wishes of the states.

Quoting D L X (Reply 147):
Be careful when you talk about "nullification." Nullification has a meaning - ignoring the federal government's edict to desegregate.

No, that is what its critics want it to mean. They wish to confine it to some disreputable corner and ignore it. It has a much longer history, and was actually advocated as a strategy by proponents of abolition.

Quoting D L X (Reply 147):
It is not the state's ability to determine (finally) whether a law is constitutional or not. The states are still beholden and inferior to the United States Supreme Court.

Not according to Jefferson, Madison, and others, not to mention actual instances in US history. It has happened in the past, and will again.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:19 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 92):
My wife had a urinary tract infection a couple years ago, called, got an appointment, and finished treatment within 5 days. The whole thing took less than 2 weeks. Good luck doing that in the good 'ol USA.

People with a corporate or govt job have quite good service here. People without, oh boy. They are forced to decide between paying a mortgage, feeding a family, or insurance / drastically expensive medical bills. Access to care? For a lot of people, it's a problem.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 141):
There are many examples throughout history, but a few recent ones include California's medical marijuana laws, allowing for the use of medical marijuana irregardless of federal laws and despite rulings like Gonzales v Raich.

Just because California doesn't help Federal officials enforce their law does not mean the Federal law is nullified in California. I thought we had a civil war about that in the 1860s. The Union won I think.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 1337Delta764, Elkadad313, Francoflier, ThePointblank and 49 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos