Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

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

Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:58 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 149):
I thought we had a civil war about that in the 1860s. The Union won I think.

I never did buy into the logic of; You claim A is true. I claim B is true. You break my nose, therefore A is true."
 
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 4:22 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 148):
Then how do you explain the past instances of it?

Most of the time, the feds took them to court, and they were brought back in line. Medical marijuana is an open case at the moment, but there is no doubt that states are beholden to the Supremacy Clause.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 148):
If the US government draws its authority from the consent of the governed

That's the fallacy. The US government draws its authority from the constitution, not any ongoing consent from the states.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 148):
No, that is what its critics want it to mean.

It's not the critics' fault that this is its primary meaning today. I understand what you mean though.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 148):
Not according to Jefferson, Madison, and others, not to mention actual instances in US history.

Jefferson, Madison, and "others" are not the constitution. It says right there in the constitution that the Supreme Court of the United States is the supreme law of the land. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court." Article III.

That's why you appeal the constitutionality decisions of the state supreme courts to the United States Supreme Court.



Since this is becoming only loosely related to the original topic, I'll let you have the last word.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:30 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 149):
People with a corporate or govt job have quite good service here.

You've pointed out another queer factor in our current health care. All government workers get taxpayer assistance in paying for the most expensive health insurance in the world.

Any program that would shift core costs to a Medicare program, with private insurance picking up the rest, would shift the taxpayer dollars out of the ultra high level we currently pay.

So we're talking about all government workers, from the President on down to the state, county, district, city and village workers.

The Tea Party want to cut spending? Maybe they should calculate how much we would save in tax dollars by bringing in core care programs. Now that would be a real grass roots movement.  
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:55 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 150):
I claim B is true.

You claimed Federal laws don't apply in California. If unconstitutional, then certainly you are right. I guess we can leave it at that.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

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

Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:02 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 151):
but there is no doubt that states are beholden to the Supremacy Clause.

Only within the limits proscribed by the Constitution. Witness the ongoing struggle over the interstate commerce clause, with the federal government arguing that they may regulate anything that might affect interstate commerce, and states arguing that commerce entirely within a state is outside the scope of the Constitution. The states assert (rightly in my opinion) that they are not bound by federal laws and regulations seeking to govern intrastate commerce. I know at least 1 airline that owes its existence to this interpretation.

Quoting D L X (Reply 151):
The US government draws its authority from the constitution, not any ongoing consent from the states.

And from where did the Constitution arise? From 13 sovereign states giving limited powers to a central body. At no point did they give up their sovereignty. Witness the 10th Amendment.

Quoting D L X (Reply 151):
Jefferson, Madison, and "others" are not the constitution.

No, but they might have some insights into the intent and meaning of the document.

Quoting D L X (Reply 151):
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court." Article III.

Of course, that power being defined and limited by the Constitution and acts outside that scope being void and without effect.

Quoting D L X (Reply 151):
That's why you appeal the constitutionality decisions of the state supreme courts to the United States Supreme Court.

In questions concerning the US Constitution, that is a court with jurisdiction. That jurisdiction has limits though. The Supreme Court was not meant to be a government body without any limits on its power. That is why they (again rightly, I think) decline to hear far more cases than they admit.

Quoting D L X (Reply 151):
l let you have the last word.

Thanks, and you are right. I do think the discussion over the proper scope and powers of various levels of government is a very important one, especially since we see a growing consolidation of power by the federal government and the tendency to try to make the tool of federal power fit all situations and problems. There are solutions to our health care problems that do not require this, but I don't understand why some believe it has to be a homogeneous, monolithic, top down solution.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:54 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 154):
The states assert (rightly in my opinion) that they are not bound by federal laws and regulations seeking to govern intrastate commerce.

This goes back to the "Unite or Die" slogan. We are one nation and it is IMO unAmerican to have more loyalty to a state than to the Nation.

If we didn't have an interstate commerce our business sector would be total chaos and the business community would be severely impacted.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 154):
At no point did they give up their sovereignty.

Is that why some states fought against ending segregation so vigorously?
 
gatorfan
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:43 pm

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

Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:57 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 84):
That's how insurance works now. Doctors can't just run that test you want if your insurance isn't going to pay for it.
The idea that switching to universal care means introducing rationing is misguided.

No, the rationing occurs by price. The consumer determines how much care they want and pays according for it. Someone can get a Cadillac Plan if they are willing to pay more up front. If they don't want all the bells and whistles (for example, why would a single male want pregnancy coverage?) then they pick a plan that doesn't cover it. That the role of price in a free market.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

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

Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:19 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 155):
This goes back to the "Unite or Die" slogan. We are one nation and it is IMO unAmerican to have more loyalty to a state than to the Nation.

"Unite" does not require giving up all rights, sovereignty, or authority. To suggest that the states ceded all meaningful self determination in the Constitution is absurd and no where supported. If this opinion causes me to be called unAmerican by your standard, then so be it. I think it is more unAmerican (less American?) to ignore a government that transgresses its limits.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 155):
If we didn't have an interstate commerce our business sector would be total chaos and the business community would be severely impacted.

No one has suggested otherwise. However the federal government trying to regulate intrastate commerce in the basis that it might have some impact on interstate commerce is just the type of over reach that I am referring to.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 155):
Is that why some states fought against ending segregation so vigorously?

Perhaps. The motives were as varied and convoluted as the players involved. Some had good intentions, others not. You would have to be more specific.
 
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 7:03 pm

Quoting gatorfan (Reply 156):
No, the rationing occurs by price. The consumer determines how much care they want and pays according for it. Someone can get a Cadillac Plan if they are willing to pay more up front. If they don't want all the bells and whistles (for example, why would a single male want pregnancy coverage?) then they pick a plan that doesn't cover it. That the role of price in a free market.

There is no such thing as an insurance plan that does not ration care. There is simply no such thing! You can recharacterize it as "rationing by price" if you choose, but ALL plans, even cadillac plans, will tell you "no we won't pay for that" at times.

Otherwise, it's just an annuity.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 157):
"Unite" does not require giving up all rights, sovereignty, or authority.

I would beg to differ.

Dammit, I said i'd let you have the last word... but you gave me so much good stuff to refute!      
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

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

Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:53 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 158):
I would beg to differ.

Ok, but then you would force me to point out numerous examples that support my statement, how the Constitution was an agreement among equals, not a surrender treaty, and ask why the states would bother reserving rights to themselves.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:01 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 157):
However the federal government trying to regulate intrastate commerce in the basis that it might have some impact on interstate commerce is just the type of over reach that I am referring to.

A company in an individual state can develop a device or drug for use only within the state. If that new drug is presented to only the state medical system, with no exports out of the state, would you believe that the Federal Government should stay out of any review on its safety or efficacy?

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 157):
You would have to be more specific.

OK:

Quote:
To stop desegregation by the enrollment of black students Vivian Malone and James Hood, he stood in front of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963. This became known as the "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door". After being confronted by federal marshals, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, and the Alabama National Guard, he stood aside.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace

That's pretty specific and also points to the concept of equal protection under the law, which goes against state rights from time to time.

Without the force of the Federal Government this country would be in pretty sorry shape.
 
gatorfan
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:43 pm

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

Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:08 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 158):
There is no such thing as an insurance plan that does not ration care. There is simply no such thing! You can recharacterize it as "rationing by price" if you choose, but ALL plans, even cadillac plans, will tell you "no we won't pay for that" at times.

But there's a world of difference when the private sector in a private transaction determines what will and won't be paid for and when the government does it.

In any case, this Administration repeatedly said that universal health care won't lead to rationing. Now you're arguing (and agreeing with me) that rationing will occur. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
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 9:56 pm

Quoting gatorfan (Reply 161):
In any case, this Administration repeatedly said that universal health care won't lead to rationing. Now you're arguing (and agreeing with me) that rationing will occur. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

*I'M* not trying to eat cake. I don't like the new health care plan. I'm in the group that thinks it does not go far enough.

My name is not Barack.  

Rationing occurs in the new plan in the exact same way that it is currently occuring. (Which should be intuitively obvious, since the new plan requires people to use the insurance supplied by current market players.)


For what it's worth, I don't recall the people or instances where they said there is not *rationing*. I do recall people saying there are no *death panels,* with which surely you agree. In fact, I recall people in the administration saying that rationing is what goes on today, and they're right. If they said that there would not be rationing in the new system, they were wrong: they do not understand the nature of insurance.

Quoting gatorfan (Reply 161):
But there's a world of difference when the private sector in a private transaction determines what will and won't be paid for and when the government does it.

Gatorfan, the government isn't going to be the one doing the rationing -- the public option was scrapped. There's simply no way around the issue because it is the same private companies that used to ration that will be rationing under the new plan.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

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

Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:07 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 160):
would you believe that the Federal Government should stay out of any review on its safety or efficacy?

Yes.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 160):
That's pretty specific and also points to the concept of equal protection under the law, which goes against state rights from time to time.

It is specific, but I don't know enough about the man to come to a conclusion over whether his beliefs originated from racism, or states rights, or somewhere else. I did note that he ran against a KKK candidate, and tried to reconcile with civil rights leaders.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 160):
Without the force of the Federal Government this country would be in pretty sorry shape.

Except for instances where that force is abused.
 
windy95
Posts: 2801
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

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

Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:39 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 160):
, would you believe that the Federal Government should stay out of any review on its safety or efficacy?



Yes

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 160):
Without the force of the Federal Government this country would be in pretty sorry shape



I believe we are in a sorry state because of the Federal Government venturing into areas it does not belong.
 
cargolex
Posts: 1245
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

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

Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:50 pm

Quote:
I believe we are in a sorry state because of the Federal Government venturing into areas it does not belong.

I believe we are in a sorry state because some people hate the government with such unreasoning, blind fury as to suggest that prescription drugs should not be safety tested.
 
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 11:42 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 165):

I believe we are in a sorry state because some people hate the government with such unreasoning, blind fury as to suggest that prescription drugs should not be safety tested.

Source?
 
cargolex
Posts: 1245
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:28 am

I was responding to an earlier post.
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:05 am

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 167):
I was responding to an earlier post.

That doesn't get you off the hook. You said there are people who hate government so much they don't want drugs tested. Where did you hear (or read, or see) that?
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:10 am

Quoting gatorfan (Reply 161):
But there's a world of difference when the private sector in a private transaction determines what will and won't be paid for and when the government does it.

The difference is that the private sector would have to deny more treatments than the government because they have to add in their nice, plump profit margins.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 163):
It is specific, but I don't know enough about the man to come to a conclusion over whether his beliefs originated from racism, or states rights, or somewhere else. I did note that he ran against a KKK candidate, and tried to reconcile with civil rights leaders.

Wallace was one of a lot of Southern politicians that did not believe in, or support the concept of equal protection under the law.

People talk about improving health care in this country as "unconstitutional" where it was common in my youth for segregation to prevail. I can remember grocery stores in Houston that had two water fountains, side by side. One was marked "Whites" and the other "Colored" That standard was considered "state rights" and it took the Federal Government to clean up that ugly mess.

(And that ugly mess is still around in the minds of many. Look at Rand Paul. That pathetic "Senator" couldn't even say that he fully supported Civil Rights.)

Quoting Arrow (Reply 168):
Where did you hear (or read, or see) that?

Reply 163.

Reply 164.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15866
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:15 am

Several factors seem to limit the possibility of 'Universal' health care in the USA. In large part is a lack of trust in and fear of government.

Many don't want the government to know so much about them, that it is violation of constitutional protections as to 'privacy' as well as could be used against them personally, in getting a job, being able to make personal choices.

Many fear that the government, based on costs, will tell the doctor how much care you can get rather than based on your moral beliefs. They also have heard of the horror stories of delays in non-emergency procedures in other government run schemes, fearful of having to suffer in pain longer while in our system - if you have sufficient insurance - you will be promptly cared for.

Many don't want to pay for the sickest or poorest who if they can't take care of themselves or are drug users or alcohol abusers.

Many don't want the government telling you how to spend your money, mandating you spend some on health care insurance, instead on what you want or need, maybe taking money away from other basic needs, from food, a safe car, a decent home or apartment rent, paying utility bills or back debt as well as taking away from money for general or retirement savings.

Many don't want the government using the IRS to make sure of or penalizing you for not having health care insurance.

Then again, ask the people like me having to spend 1/3rd of my take home income for health care insurance and deductibles, or worse, those who cannot afford insurance or make too much to get into Medicaid or not old enough for Medicare. We would all like a system that cares about the persons health needs first, then worry about how to pay for it. Sometimes that may mean compromises and that is something we all need to talk about, not just shout at each other over.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:54 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 169):
(And that ugly mess is still around in the minds of many. Look at Rand Paul. That pathetic "Senator" couldn't even say that he fully supported Civil Rights.)

There is a big difference between supporting Civil Rights and supporting the Civil Rights Act, Just like I support health care reform but not Obamacare.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:59 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 171):
There is a big difference between supporting Civil Rights and supporting the Civil Rights Act

I stand corrected. The Senator (who I consider to be a pathetic wimp) would not stand up for the CIvil Rights Act. He had to hedge when asked about that part of the law that focused on the Walgreen's Lunch Counter issue. That is like the two water fountains I mentioned above. I find it pathetic that a U.S. Senator can't man up on such a basic human right in this country.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:00 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 169):
People talk about improving health care in this country as "unconstitutional" where it was common in my youth for segregation to prevail.

Segregation and health care reform have nothing in common. One wrong does not justify the another. To attempt to tie the two together does not even rise to the level of cheap emotional appeal.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 169):
Reply 163.

You completely, and perhaps to deliberately, misconstrue my answer. I don't hate or fear the government. It has the potential to be dangerous, but when restrained by the boundaries put in place at its founding, it can be a useful tool. Let loose, it can be the proverbial bull in a china shop.

You asked if I was fine with having a drug approved by state authorities, if it was not going to be exported from or sold outside that state. Perhaps you would care to explain why the federal authorities should have jurisdiction in that case.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 169):
That standard was considered "state rights"

So every concept that has been abused or misused can never be again be used for a valid purpose because of bad memories? Hell of a way to run a country. Guess we should throw out the Supreme Court then; look at the rulings they have had to reverse. We should throw out the Presidency too. Power has been abused there. Same with Congress, the Constitution, most of the amendments, and just about every other vestige of power. That is why a central governing body needs to be checked by decentralized power.
 
D L X
Posts: 12726
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:02 am

Come on guys... Health care. Let's get back on that.
 
cargolex
Posts: 1245
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:42 am

Quote:
That doesn't get you off the hook. You said there are people who hate government so much they don't want drugs tested. Where did you hear (or read, or see) that?

Sure it does. As Ken777 pointed out, that opinion is expressed in the two previous replies to Ken777's question.

The premise there, and expressed later, is that the Federal Government should not have the authority to regulate a prescription drug if it is solely developed and marketed and sold in one single state. In the abstract that may be true, but such a situation could never arise.

There is a reason we have a federal government and that is, in this micro case, because there would not be sufficient capital to research, test, develop, market, and sell a drug in only one state - even if that state was California (our largest state economy) and - and - such a product could not be thoroughly tested in only one state, even if that state was California (one of our most diverse states).

This kind of industry cannot be done on a state scale. Nor can the regulation of such an industry be left up to individual states. If Washington State, my home state, for example, were in charge of all aviation regulation, then those regulations might strongly favor a certain airplane manufacturer who happens to have a strong presence in Washington state and a cozy relationship with the state's lawmakers. While aviation is very clearly "interstate commerce" - one might argue that many things that were not originally interstate commerce now are, and that the federal authorities are, to some extent, what keeps those participating in that commerce in line.

Let's go into more specific examples relating to this micro-issue. In the early 20th century, there was a company called Locomobile which made cars in Bridgeport Connecticut. High quality cars, Locos, and they made all their own parts in house. No outside suppliers except for tires.

Now imagine that situation existed today and that Locomobile was still making cars, with all their own parts. Theoretically, then, if you held that states had overarching authority over everything that was not specifically delineated as interstate commerce, Locomobile could turn out cars that did not conform to safety and environmental regulations. Good for Locomobile, bad for consumers, the environment, and pedestrians. But Auto safety and environmental standards fall under two federal agencies (DOT and EPA). Because those standards cannot be enforced by states alone, and because 50 different sets of rules create a chaotic situation where it becomes easy to circumvent the law and do things that make for dangerous products.

Let's do another example. Guns. Here's a case where the Federal government has basically allowed the States to run things themselves. The result is a mish-mash of gun laws that has some states heavily regulate guns so that even the people who want them for legit purposes are given a hard time, while guns are regulated in very lax ways in other states, so people who want them for nefarious purposes can easily obtain them. The result is that the problem of the bad apples spoils the entire cart and a mish-mash of policies becomes an untenable situation where people's lives are lost as a result.

It is amazing to me that people want no regulation or want the federal government to not regulate anything and leave it all up to the states. The idea that business will police itself, that the private sector will always be right, and that regulations are universally bad - these ideas are as nuts and unfounded as the ones on the other side of the spectrum - that we should all share, that everything must be buttoned down with regulation. We do not live in a world of absolutes, and we know for a fact - because we have overwhelming evidence of what life was like before them that regulations work. Now, there is certainly a case to be made that some things are too heavily regulated or that not all regulations work, but the majority of them do. Regulations that work are things you never think about.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - do you take prescription drugs without overwhelming fear that the drugs will kill you? Do you get in your car and drive without worrying that the car will explode? Do you eat meat without fear of poisoning? Do you fly on airplanes without worrying about the plane falling apart around you? Do you trust that your money is reasonably safe in the bank? Do you ever worry about your boss locking you into your office for 20 hours a day seven days a week?

Regulations. Now say "thank you."

[Edited 2011-02-15 21:45:53]
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:00 am

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 175):
Sure it does. As Ken777 pointed out, that opinion is expressed in the two previous replies to Ken777's question.

I had to read it a couple of times, but you're right. Apologies offered. You don't have to convince me of the importance of the FDA, although their rulings are off-base from time to time. Interestingly -- the chemo drugs I've had for my leukemia have been approved for my ailment in Canada for about 7 years now. Apparently the FDA approved them for use in the US only a year ago. That would have made a big difference in my life if I had been a US resident. I guess you can argue over who's right.
 
tu204
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:21 am

Not and American, but I have an answer here: Because Universal healthcare = Socialism.

They showed on the news here like half a year ago when Obamacare was passing or something like that, and they interviewed a couple people at a rally that were opposed. This one lady says that her husband is ill and Obamacare would really help them out, but she is opposed because "that is socialist and un-american". I was dumbfounded.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:19 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 175):
In the abstract that may be true, but such a situation could never arise.

But it already has. Witness California's medical marijuana.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 175):
were in charge of all aviation regulation,

If you could build and profitable market an aircraft that would not leave the confines of the state of Washington, why not? Otherwise the free market would take care of that example, and your Locomobile one as well.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 175):
Here's a case where the Federal government has basically allowed the States to run things themselves.

But they haven't. There are hundreds of pages of Federal Gun laws. Some are enforces, some aren't. Some are knee jerk reactions.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 175):
The result is that the problem of the bad apples spoils the entire cart and a mish-mash of policies becomes an untenable situation where people's lives are lost as a result.

But thankfully that has never happened with your car or drug examples, right?

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 175):
because we have overwhelming evidence of what life was like before them that regulations work.

Actually we don't. You have to go back pretty far to find a time where no laws or regulations were in effect. Something prior to Hammurabi, perhaps? In any case, no one has proposed a complete lack of regulations, only that there are limits to the scope of what the federal government can regulate. Some things should be regulated on the federal level. Do you think the federal government should have the authority to rule any aspect of you life that it sees fit? I don't. I think it should be bound by some restrictions, and that is all anyone is arguing for. I want them to respect the limits in place. If those limits are to be changed, then that is a separate discussion. All your hyperbolic examples try to do is obscure that.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:06 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 173):
Segregation and health care reform have nothing in common.

Both are issues that the states want to control, but that have presented problems, and inequality, in the past. Both need a responsible Federal Government to resolve the problems.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 173):
Perhaps you would care to explain why the federal authorities should have jurisdiction in that case.

Because the Federal Government has the infrastructure to ensure some level of safety in testing and manufacturing.

Otherwise the infamous "cancer cure" clinics can start up in, say, Texas and sell their worthless crap.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 173):
It has the potential to be dangerous

I believe that the states have more potential of being dangerous than the Federal Government. Politicians are easier to motivate with "campaign contributions" and the good old boy systems are easier to operate. Segregation is simply one example of state rights and the need for a Federal Government.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 173):
You asked if I was fine with having a drug approved by state authorities, if it was not going to be exported from or sold outside that state.

That would be an intrastate commerce issue. But, in reality, even that example won't fly because those engaging in the activity have to pay federal taxes, meet OSHA standards, and other Federally mandated standards.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 173):
Perhaps you would care to explain why the federal authorities should have jurisdiction in that case.

Note the "cancer cure" above.

And, in reality, are you happy paying more in taxes to have your state set up their own FDA? Or would you be happy letting the good old boy system and campaign contributions take care of the issue?

Is it really intelligent for us to have 50 state level FDA's, with all the increased costs at the state level?

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 173):
So every concept that has been abused or misused can never be again be used for a valid purpose because of bad memories?

If you're talking about segregation, and the unspeakable abuses that went with it. then the answer is yes.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 176):
Interestingly -- the chemo drugs I've had for my leukemia have been approved for my ailment in Canada for about 7 years now.

Not uncommon. When my wife first worked in the US (after training and working in Australia) a Doc asked her what the standard treatment was for CF. When she told him he got rather pissed because that medication had just been approved in the US while the Aussies had been using it for years.

Quoting Tu204 (Reply 177):
Because Universal healthcare = Socialism.

ANd Private Health Care in the US = Hidden, Overpriced and LEss Effective Socialism.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 178):
Some things should be regulated on the federal level. Do you think the federal government should have the authority to rule any aspect of you life that it sees fit? I don't.

The Federal Government doesn't care what brand of toothpaste you use. The government has gotten involved in state level issues where the states are themselves abusive towards their citizens (and segregation is a classic example) and where the states want Federal participation (and the Interstate System is a good example of that). The Federal Government has a dight and a Duty to protect all of their citizens and ensure equal protection under the law.

Sometimes states initially want some Federal programs, like Medicaid. Now it is pretty clear that Medicaid would be better organized and managed at a Federal level as citizens are not provided equal protection under the current system.

And, because this country is far more mobile than the Founding Fathers ever anticipated we need Federal standards in some areas, like Education and Public Health.
 
cargolex
Posts: 1245
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:35 pm

Quote:
But it already has. Witness California's medical marijuana.

So you are suggesting that Marijuana was invented in a lab, tested, and marketed solely in California? Marijuana is a plant. Zocor and Xanax do not grow on trees. The FDA and federal regulations exist to make sure that things like Zocor and Xanax are safe, and no single state would be able to evaluate that wholly on it's own, similarly, no Pharmaceutical company would invest in creating a drug that could only be sold in, say, Delaware and nowhere else. So false equivalency number 1.

Quote:
If you could build and profitable market an aircraft that would not leave the confines of the state of Washington, why not?

Because you could not do this - hence the word abstract. And even if you could - in a deeply theoretical example - having fifty sets of standards means more work for business and less profit, not to mention more chances for error and less safety.

Quote:
Otherwise the free market would take care of that example, and your Locomobile one as well.

Erm, no. The free market did take care of Locomobile - it failed in 1929. But We're not talking about that, we're talking about an economic example for argument's sake. If a company could turn out cars and only market them in one state with no federal oversight, what would stop them from including no safety or environmental features? Doing away with these features would allow you to spend less on development and production and therefore make more money, while simultaneously offering customers a cheaper car. But that would be at the expense of safety and clean air - directly at the expense of those things, in fact.

You would probably say "well, the free market wouldn't build unsafe things because people wouldn't buy them." People bought plenty of cars prior to the enacting of even moderate safety standards in the 1950's and further standards in the late 1960s.

Now, you got into a discussion of laws in your post and here we have a divergence that centers on this example. A seat belt law, such as enacted in 1967, is a law that pertains to individual action. But the DOT mandating three-point seatbelts, which are much safer than lap-only belts, is a regulatory law. Seat belts became available at first because people were complaining about the high injury and death rates in the fifties - but improved safety regulations came about later to further reduce the chance of injury.

In the fifties, your car had a metal dash, a non-collapsing steering wheel, and if you were very lucky, a lap belt. But by the 1970s, padded dashboards, collapsable columns, and three point belts were all mandated. And the injury rate went down as a result. This even spurred the free market to experiment with further developments like Air bags - which GM made available in 1971 on select models.

The Free Market, however, did not really want Air bags. They did not sell well and were dropped after four seasons. It took a long time before the free market offered them again - from Mercedes and Chrysler in the late 1980s, and even then the acceptance rate was slow to pick up.

Now we'll get deeper into a regulatory discussion by talking about how a snap decision to regulate something can, in fact, have bad consequences.

We know that Air bags make cars safer and that they save lives (when seat belts are worn). But we also know that early air bags were dangerous for children and people of small stature. One of my least favorite people in the world is Joan Claybrook - a former NHTSA administrator and an over-regulator if there ever was one. It was Claybrook who pushed for an Air bag mandate over the objections of the auto manufacturers. She got her way - but if she had allowed them to study the issue and phase in for an additional four years, the issue with the child-safety problem might have been avoided.

But ultimately, the decision to mandate air bags worked - it made cars safer. It wasn't well administered at first, but it did work. Only the federal government would have the authority to do something like that - a state could not compel a manufacturer to do something it didn't want to do. For example, when some states made their laws on particulate emissions from diesels much stronger, manufacturers just stopped selling diesel cars in those states. In the end though, they adapted to those regulations and made better diesels. That's what regulations are designed to do - make things better and make them work better. They don't always work, but they often do.

Now to get back to the Locomobile example, if you only had to play in one state, you could circumvent all of these standards and make more money on your limited production, but then, you'd never be able to grow beyond that state and you'd also be offering people something without the protections of those national standards. This would, ultimately, be bad for both the consumer and for the business producing the item. That's the thing about the free market. For it to work, it can't play only in a confined space with no rules. It has to find a balance between growth and rules.

Quote:
There are hundreds of pages of Federal Gun laws.

You're absolutely right. But who controls the sale of saturday night specials? Local gun stores in localities that conform to state rules. Sure, you need permission from ATF to get a howitzer for your back yard. But you only need to conform to state laws to buy a .22, and because of the gun show loophole, in some cases, you don't have to conform to any laws at all.

Quote:
But thankfully that has never happened with your car or drug examples, right?

Actually, my point is that it has happened in all three cases and would happen more often with less regulation.

It amazes me, after watching the deregulation of the financial industry and the consequences that this wrought, that some people think we should have still further deregulation.

The free market is in business to make money. Not to self-police.

Quote:
Actually we don't. You have to go back pretty far to find a time where no laws or regulations were in effect.

But of course, we are not talking about "all laws." We're talking about primarily 20th century regulatory laws and government programs like FDIC.

We know what it was like if there was a bank panic before FDIC. You lost all your deposits and that was it. Start from scratch. The invention of things like FDIC helped make America's standard of living what it ultimately became. There's really good historical data on what the world was like before things like the Clean Air Act, Medicare, FDIC, Unemployment Insurance, the Veterans' Administration. Maybe you and I were not around to see WW1 Veterans camped out on the Washington Mall because they were too poor to go anywhere else and the government had stopped paying their pensions, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and that there was no lesson in that unfortunate affair.

Quote:
Do you think the federal government should have the authority to rule any aspect of you life that it sees fit? I don't.

I don't think the Federal Government should enact things like the Defense of Marriage Act, no. But I do think that it is the government's job to ensure the well-being of it's citizens. And to get back to the original topic, we are one of the very last major industrialized countries that does not provide a system of basic healthcare coverage for it's citizens. The Individual Mandate may be objectionable to some but ensures lower costs for all - and part of living in a democracy is putting up with some things you may not like so that the society as a whole can prosper. I'm perfectly willing to put up with, say, Michelle Bachmann's insane rantings - because if she can do that, that means that I can say what I want to say without fear of restriction. I don't think what she does is healthy, but that's part of living in a democracy.
 
AustinAllison
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:30 pm

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:13 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 180):
I don't think the Federal Government should enact things like the Defense of Marriage Act, no. But I do think that it is the government's job to ensure the well-being of it's citizens. And to get back to the original topic, we are one of the very last major industrialized countries that does not provide a system of basic healthcare coverage for it's citizens.

That's incredibly hypocritical. The government has almost no place in personal affairs; be it marriage, or health care. You can't say 'I don't think the Federal government should enact things like the Defense of Marriage Act,' then come around in the next sentence and say, 'I do think that it is the government's job to ensure the well-being of it's citizens. And to get back to the original topic, we are one of the very last major industrialized countries that does not provide a system of basic healthcare coverage for it's citizens.' While it is the responsibility of the state to 'promote the general welfare' of its citizens, that DOES NOT mean the institution of health care.
 
gatorfan
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:43 pm

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:16 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 180):
I don't think the Federal Government should enact things like the Defense of Marriage Act, no.

Perhaps you should first understand what the DOMA says. It's primary aspect empowers state by saying that they don't HAVE to recognize a marriage in another state. In fact, it's not prohibiting the state from recognizing or telling it that it can't recognize it. It's perhaps the worst example of recent high profile federal legislation you could use to support your premise that the Federal government shouldn't tell states or people what to do.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:24 pm

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 181):
The government has almost no place in personal affairs; be it marriage, or health care.

The government does need to stay out of marriage, except when under age kids are involved. Then there needs to be a structure.

Governments do, however, have a right to require blood tests for STDs in order to get a license.

And they have a right to require the license and the recording of the marriage in order to maintain public records.

As for health issues, Government have the right to address various medical conditions (smallpox, polio and TB are great examples) in order to provide some level of protection for the community.

There is also a valid argument that the Government has the right to provide care for those who cannot afford it, and to establish a tax for those who do not pay for care, with cash or with insurance. The mandate we have under our current reform simply brings in the insurance industry to ensure they get their share. I much prefer to see the tax for core care.

And, especially important with our current deficit, the government clearly has to power to end the free tax ride on employer provided nanny care. There has been no need for that free ride for decades. Today we simply cannot afford it.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 181):
You can't say 'I don't think the Federal government should enact things like the Defense of Marriage Act,' then come around in the next sentence and say, 'I do think that it is the government's job to ensure the well-being of it's citizens.


Marriage is a totally different situation than health care. Even though some states made it illegal for non-whites to marry whites I think the Constitutional issues have been cleared up in that area.

Health is an ongoing problem because we prefer to keep the health insurance companies healthy instead of the people in this country.

[Edited 2011-02-16 10:27:12]
 
User avatar
Dano1977
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:49 pm

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:41 pm

Quoting gatorfan (Reply 70):
I'm certainly no expert on the UK's NHS but this article makes it appear that if you go outside the system you lose all your benefits.

Its not the normal way things are done.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/...cuments/digitalasset/dh_093442.pdf

The NHS has it's flaws, but if you are in seriously ill, then it acts (IMHO) like a well oiled machine, yes you do hear of mistakes made or how the system failed, but what you don't read in the paper, is the thousands/hundreds of thousands that received world class health care.

Yes we do have to pay for prescription medication (£6.25) per prescription (unless you are old,out of work or low income) and for that you could get anti-biotics which cost pence or long term medication which would run into £1000's

and for the record. I also have private medical insurance
 
cargolex
Posts: 1245
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:47 pm

Quote:
The government has almost no place in personal affairs; be it marriage, or health care.

What happens between you and your spouse or you and your doctor, you're absolutely right.

But in making healthcare available to you and a price that you can actually pay? Different story. I hear alot from the anti-healthcare people that there will be things like "Death Panels" and the Government will interfere in the in-patient room with the doctor. Not only is this not the case, but right now we already have things like Death Panels - they're called insurance companies. And they decide who is and who isn't economical to treat. We let the free market do it - the Health Insurance industry even had anti-trust exemption! That's as free as it gets in the 21st century. They failed at it - and now we have to fix it. I'd have been much happier with a Universal Care system than what we got, but that's what compromise is.

Quote:
While it is the responsibility of the state to 'promote the general welfare' of its citizens, that DOES NOT mean the institution of health care.

Nothing in the constitution about Fire Departments either. Should be get rid of those? What if I don't want my tax dollars spent on preventing your house from burning down? Well, I'm S.o.L. The fire department will come and put out the fire and I trust they'd come and do the same for me. And I pay for that in my taxes and it's my duty as a citizen to do so. Healthcare may once have been viewed as a luxury but it isn't now. We pay more for it than everybody else and we get less out of it. The ACA will make that better, and all the ranting in the world about how small government is always better won't change that.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:55 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 185):
Nothing in the constitution about Fire Departments either. Should be get rid of those?

It used to be that you bought Fire insurance and got a plaque for the front door. If you had a fire the firemen would come and look for the plaque. If you weren't paying you didn't get the service.

At least we became more civilized with Fire Departments. Now we need finish taking care of core medical care the same way we took care of the Fire Department systems.
 
windy95
Posts: 2801
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:37 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 185):
Nothing in the constitution about Fire Departments either. Should be get rid of those? What if I don't want my tax dollars spent on preventing your house from burning down

That is local and not federal tax dollars. Different story.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 185):
The ACA will make that better

Your opinion

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 183):
There is also a valid argument that the Government has the right to provide care for those who cannot afford it,

Nothing valid at all about this argument.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16487
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:46 pm

Quoting windy95 (Reply 187):
Nothing valid at all about this argument.

Then who will? Just wondering...
 
san747
Posts: 4366
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:58 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 188):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 187):
Nothing valid at all about this argument.

Then who will? Just wondering...

I guess Windy just volunteered! Because it doesn't sound like he wants anyone else to take care of the 50 million Americans who can't afford their own health care (and whom he and the rest of us are already paying for anyway)!
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:01 pm

Quoting windy95 (Reply 187):

Nothing valid at all about this argument.

Sure there is.

Start with small pox. How many Americans haven't got their vaccine? Start counting with those who are at the bottom of our financial structure. You don't think that we, as a Nation, need to get to new cases fast and take the situation before it spreads?

Now extend that to all contagious medical conditions. TB is making a comeback. You don't want to get in an elevator with a new, undiagnosed patient.

And even a "simple flu" kills people and it is in out community interests to take care of the patients to minimize the spread of the flu.

I guess we also need to take care of food handlers, especially the ones with the really nasty stuff.

That's simple examples where we need something besides unequal state governments playing the good old boy game.

And, because we need financing (even from those who don't want to pay for insurance) we need a tax based source of funds for a universal core care. That's not difficult to understand.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:10 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 179):
but that have presented problems,

I have seen nothing that leads me to belief that less, instead of more, local control will fix any of the health care problems. Back to my original point, I have also seen nothing that leads me to conclude the federal government has any jurisdiction in the matter.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 179):
Because the Federal Government has the infrastructure to ensure some level of safety in testing and manufacturing.

The same labs that conduct testing for the federal government can be contracted by state agencies. They are not re-inventing the wheel. Much of the cost is already borne by the drug companies anyway, so there is a significant disincentive for them to go through multiple certifications when they can do just one.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 179):
Otherwise the infamous "cancer cure" clinics can start up in, say, Texas and sell their worthless crap.

If people want to pursue alternative, non-proven treatment, who are we to really stop them? Freedom to chose includes freedom to make bad choices too. With the volume of information available to the average person today, I doubt any any snake oil clinic would stay around long, but if it provides some comfort or hope to an otherwise terminal patient, I don't think we should deny them that.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 179):
But, in reality, even that example won't fly because those engaging in the activity have to pay federal taxes, meet OSHA standards, and other Federally mandated standards.

None of those constitute interstate commerce.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 179):
If you're talking about segregation

But we are not, so perhaps we can stop beating that horse.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 180):
So you are suggesting that Marijuana was invented in a lab, tested, and marketed solely in California

No. Only that the medical marijuana in question was produced, certified, prescribed, sold, and consumed within California.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 180):
Local gun stores in localities that conform to state rules.

Not true. I bought a .22 rifle last month at a local gun store. I still had to comply with the ATF check and paperwork. All gun shops have to comply with these rules. Gun dealers at gun shows do as well. The only ones that don't are private individuals transferring private property. So when my grandfather gave me a rifle, I did not do any paperwork on that.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 180):
The invention of things like FDIC helped make America's standard of living what it ultimately became.

It also helped prop up banks and ultimately create some of the financial problems we suffered. Knowing that the FDIC would insure deposits, the banks had less incentive to be cautious how they invested depositors' money. Depositors also have little incentive to withdraw their money. This ultimately leaves the banks with pools of money they do not have to be accountable for. I think deposit insurance should be offered to the individual, not the banks.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 185):
Nothing in the constitution about Fire Departments either.

Those are state and local level. An entirely different matter from the federal government.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 180):
Now to get back to the Locomobile example, if you only had to play in one state, you could circumvent all of these standards and make more money on your limited production, but then, you'd never be able to grow beyond that state and you'd also be offering people something without the protections of those national standards. This would, ultimately, be bad for both the consumer and for the business producing the item.

If that is what the consumer in Connecticut wants, I say let them have it. Sure it would be excluded from operating outside the sate, and possible on any interstates, but if a person wants to assume that level of risk, let them. Connecticut already has its own EPA, DOT, and Revenue department to deal with emissions, certification, and taxation. Let the auto insurance companies price policies accordingly, and have at it. Same with the aircraft example, by the time you have complied with all the restrictions to keep it out of federal jurisdiction, you basically have an ultralight. The vast majority of people have no interest in vehicles of such limited usefulness, but that doesn't mean we should stop people from owning them. In the long run, it could be beneficial, as in a vehicle manufacture that gains a toe-hold in one state, eventually complies with federal standards, and goes nationwide.
 
cargolex
Posts: 1245
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:32 pm

Quote:
It also helped prop up banks and ultimately create some of the financial problems we suffered.

There aren't any more of them, because those that remained converted to commercial banks in 2009, but the FDIC did not insure investment banks like Goldman-Sachs and Bear-Stearns. It insures commercial bank depositors. It also functions to insure depositors, not banks themselves, hence the name Federal Desposit Insurance Corporation. FDIC does have extraordinary powers to essentially put banks into receivership and spin them off so that depositors are covered and their money does not disappear, but in a worst-case scenario the FDIC functions to aid the depositor, not the institution.

The issue of over-leveraging is also not the FDIC's fault. An investment bank leveraged 40-to-1 like Bear Stearns would have no expectation of the FDIC coming to the rescue, and even a commercial bank with that kind of leveraging would not ever have any real expectation of anything beyond the "1" being saved. A commercial bank leveraged to that degree would probably be taken over by FDIC long before it reached the point of a Bear-sterns/Lehman style collapse.

You can look directly to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act to find the deregulatory action that set up the 2008 crisis. The immediate cause was over-leveraging into Home Equity securitizations - the long term cause was setting up an environment in which that leveraging and the financial vehicles for that investing were basically devoid of oversight.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:53 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 191):
I have seen nothing that leads me to belief that less, instead of more, local control will fix any of the health care problems.

So you like the idea of paying for 50 different systems/infrastructures instead of one?

You love paying unnecessary taxes that would be significantly less efficient?

Of course you can reduce taxes by denying treatment to the "lower classes".

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 191):
Back to my original point, I have also seen nothing that leads me to conclude the federal government has any jurisdiction in the matter.

At a core legal level, the Federal Government provides providers with payments and grants in every state. Medicare, Medicaid, BIA, Military, VA, Government Employment, Research Grants, School Based Care for Special Needs Children, etc. It's a pretty extensive list. If Doctors don't want to take federal payments they don't have to treat the patients. The question then is if they should be granted rights to admit "private" patients to hospitals that have government funding.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 191):
The same labs that conduct testing for the federal government can be contracted by state agencies.

At what cost?

And how efficient would it be?

Do your really believe that the levels of communication would be at the same standards between the 50 states and the pharmaceutical companies as it is with the FDA?

Or interaction with international studies?

And are you ready for the tax increases? You had better be because there is no reason for the Federal Government to pay for states playing their own games with people's health.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 191):
They are not re-inventing the wheel. Much of the cost is already borne by the drug companies anyway,

But it might not be if we have state level approvals with the FDA not operational. Big Duh Factor there, and probably some major campaign contributions.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 191):
If people want to pursue alternative, non-proven treatment, who are we to really stop them?

Or, on the other side, if some companies started running pure Scams why would your "Freedom States" want to interfere? As long as they paid some taxes and made some nice campaign contributions then why bother - let the citizens be taken for a ride.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 191):
But we are not, so perhaps we can stop beating that horse.

We're talking about the idea of state rights as opposed to Federal obligations, be they legal and/or moral. Sometimes it takes the moral force of the Nation to override state "rights" that ensure there is no equal protection under the law.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 191):
It also helped prop up banks and ultimately create some of the financial problems we suffered.

Well, I remember reading about the FDIC taking over a lot of banks during the Bush/Cheney Great Recession. If we had just allowed those banks to crash without the insurance a lot of people would have lost a lot of money. Could have pushed the Great Recession into the Great Depression II.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 191):
Those are state and local level. An entirely different matter from the federal government.

But it IS an issue of private insurance -v- government provided services. On the fire side, it should be noted that private insurance CONTINUES to make nice profits on a more limited environment. They no longer provide the fire fighters, but they still sell fire insurance at a nice profit.

That same concept can be translated to a health care environment. Core care via taxes with lots of room for insurance company profits. And less out of pocket costs for the individuals.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3555
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

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

Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:59 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 190):
Start with small pox. How many Americans haven't got their vaccine? Start counting with those who are at the bottom of our financial structure. You don't think that we, as a Nation, need to get to new cases fast and take the situation before it spreads?

What are you talking about with smallpox? You do realize we no longer immunize against smallpox, do you not?

-DiamondFlyer
 
AustinAllison
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:30 pm

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

Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:00 am

It's not the responsibility of one group of Americans to pay for the health care of another group. Never has been, and never will be. Taxing the rich at downright wrong percentages to pay for health care for those who can't afford it is borderline unconstitutional.
 
flymia
Posts: 7137
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

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

Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:10 am

Have not been reading this thread much but will add this and I do wonder is it the same in France or Canada so anet members from there please let me know.

I got to see a specialist doctor today with about 10 minutes notice. No questions asked. I called said what I wanted to see the doctor for and they send ok you might wait a hour but you can see the doctor. Had two doctors examine me. Not an E.R. doctor these where specialist. I called while I was walking over to the doctors office. I know my father pays for insurance since he owns his own busisness but that is good healthcare right there.
 
cargolex
Posts: 1245
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

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

Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:22 am



Quote:
It's not the responsibility of one group of Americans to pay for the health care of another group.

The whole point of insurance is lowering the cost by raising the volume. If more people pay premiums, then the cost of treating individual patients is spread among more people. The healthier people subsidize the care of the sicker people. That's not the future of Healthcare insurance under the new ACA, that's how it is now. It's all about pooling the risk.

Quote:
Taxing the rich at downright wrong percentages to pay for health care for those who can't afford it is borderline unconstitutional.

Right now we have some of the lowest tax rates for the rich in the post-ww2 period. They were only lower for a short time in the late eighties/early nineties (a time when, not coincidentally, our debt grew by leaps and bounds). Seriously. During Reagan's first term, the tax rates for the wealthiest Americans were almost 150% higher than they are now (and that's after Reagan's tax cut), and during the Eisenhower administration, they were almost 275% higher. Under Richard Nixon, double what they are now.

You can cut taxes for awhile, and lower taxes and lower taxes, but at some point, you have to raise taxes. People don't want to give up anything, but they don't want to pay for the services and society that allows them to function the way they do. Nobody likes paying taxes, but anarchy and insolvency is much, much worse.

The math is simply not there to fix our fiscal problems through cuts alone.

[Edited 2011-02-16 16:23:42]

[Edited 2011-02-16 16:31:44]
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16487
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

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

Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:27 am

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 195):
It's not the responsibility of one group of Americans to pay for the health care of another group. Never has been, and never will be.

Then why do we pay higher premiums and suffer inflated ER and imaging costs to cover the under and uninsured?

In any case I ask again - if we don't treat people in such categories, where do they go? Do we simply allow them to sit around in public bleeding all over and subjected the rest of us to infection?

Quoting flymia (Reply 196):
I got to see a specialist doctor today with about 10 minutes notice. No questions asked. I called said what I wanted to see the doctor for and they send ok you might wait a hour but you can see the doctor. Had two doctors examine me. Not an E.R. doctor these where specialist. I called while I was walking over to the doctors office. I know my father pays for insurance since he owns his own busisness but that is good healthcare right there.

Under national health insurance in Japan same thing. I had a terrible infection in my toe once, so bad that I couldn't go out the door to work in the morning. Called a dermatologist, got an appointment for later the same morning, and had it taken care of lickity-split. My mother-in-law had several days of dizzy episodes with heart palpitations and we called on a Saturday morning and took her to see a cardiologist at the local hospital. She had to wait a couple hours but she saw him and had a full run of tests done because the technicians worked through lunch hour. The whole thing cost less than $100.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

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

Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:44 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 193):
So you like the idea of paying for 50 different systems/infrastructures instead of one?

I pay for the one in the state I pay taxes to. Why would someone in Maine pay taxes for Kansas services?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 193):
You love paying unnecessary taxes that would be significantly less efficient?

There is no data to suggest that.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 193):
Medicare, Medicaid

Should be done away with

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 193):
Military, VA, Government Employment,

Covered by terms of employment. Could be modified with new hires, but covered. But is basically employer/employee relationship

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 193):
Research Grants,

Depends on the grant. For every research grant that is in a valid government concern, I will probably find one that isn't, and it becomes a google tennis match.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 193):
School Based Care for Special Needs Children, etc.

Should be handled not higher than the state level.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 193):
But it might not be if we have state level approvals with the FDA not operational. Big Duh Factor there, and probably some major campaign contributions.

And it might. It would be in the states interest to have a reasonable approval process. Those without access to a reasonable stock of drugs will have a hard time attracting residents.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 193):
We're talking about the idea of state rights as opposed to Federal obligations, be they legal and/or moral.
http://www.usconstitution.net/ Please let me know when you find the part that obligates the federal government to provide heathcare to all. Funny how you want to define this as a moral issue the government should force, but other moral issues are off limits. How about you skip the moral argument and stick to enumerated powers?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 193):
On the fire side, it should be noted that private insurance CONTINUES to make nice profits on a more limited environment.

Fire insurance is actually sold bundled in with hazard insurance. Most banks require it as part of the terms of a mortgage. That is almost a guaranteed market. If it wasn't more people would probably go without it. I probably would. The odds of a fire are so remote that, if I bank the premium, I will probably come out ahead.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 193):
Core care via taxes with lots of room for insurance company profits.

Except that the federal government lacks the authority. If you want a system similar to MassCare at your state level, have at it. But without amending the Constitution there still remains no power delegated to the federal government to do anything with healthcare at the national level. I would prefer to see a variety of reforms tried at the state level, and see which yields the best results.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: akiss20, Kiwiandrew, lentokone, NIKV69, T18 and 23 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