Healthcare Bill Notes

[lhopp77]

THIS IS A MUST READ for all no matter what your political leanings are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lee

[demonsvx]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

THIS IS A MUST READ for all no matter what your political leanings are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lee

So true this "health" bill is essentially socialism at its best. These damn politicians dont care about America anymore. They silp these little items into a bigger bill and it becomes law and we find out about it AFTER its passed. Thanks Obama and Congress for sinking this country

[benebob]

Funny how the truth comes out. It is the seniors who like Lee are currently using their socialist medical benefits that are the least supportive of health care for others.

Didn't I bring that up a while ago?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/26027

For all those who fear socialism, remember where you got your free education, remember where you got your electric, cable, water and sewer (unless you live in a big city where it might have been cost effective to actually install it 100 years ago) and of course don't forget about that road you drove on to get to your capitalistic job this morning (or in Lee's case pick up your medicare and social security check). Socialism at its best!

[BoxerFanatic]

The government exists for a minimum of public infrastructure, and to prosecute the representative-passed criminal and reasonable tort civil laws.

IF the government didn't charge us the tax money anyway, private school is more effective than the abysmal status of most public schools, and they pay teachers better, usually.

Electric, Cable, Water and Sewer are municipal infrastructure, and a valid function of municipal government, as passed by local representatives. It is also highly sensitive to be standardized, rather than having multiple incompatible systems installed under the ground. Establishment of standards and measures are also a valid function of a representative government.

Roads are also public infrastructure, unlike rail-roads that are exclusive property, and carriers own the road beds and the vehicles, and operate them. Unless you want every square inch of pavement to be toll-roads...

The government still takes YOUR money through taxes, and gas taxes, to maintain them... usually poorly.

Establishment of public use infrastructure, by representative servants of the people is not socialistic. It is municipal, and a necessary cost to avoid problems with proprietary systems in a public setting.

Other systems, like private businesses that sell goods and services, and compete in a market, are capitalistic. Goods and services that can be market based, should be market based, and only the special cases that municipalities serve more consistently should be codified as enumerated powers of government.

Government never competes... it flouts markets, and seizes wealth, it never earns a dime, let alone a profit. Government CANNOT, by it's definition be capitalistic.

That is why Economic free capitalism, AND POLITICAL FREEDOM, both inherently rely on minimal, limited, federalist government that only does what the people decide is not feasible in the marketplace, where the government serves the interest of the people. The government is subject to the people through a democratic republican (not capitalized on purpose, I am talking about political science, not partisanship) processes, and the representatives behave accountably, and are held accountable to the people they serve.

The government like that is not supposed to treat the people as subjects to their will, as they are now. Watch the reps and senators marginalizing their own constituents... the current President has done so the whole time. They do not serve the people, they marginalize and treat the people as subjects. This country's founders struggled against being subjects of an unaccountable ruler, and it eventually boiled down to war. We have fought wars against that sort of tyranny, on behalf of others, as well.

READ the Declaration of Independence, and see if the complaints against the british crown don't sound familiar today... they do, and people are still struggling against over-arching, subjective rule by our own government that has over-grown it's enumerated powers.

This country is supposed to abide by the rule of law, not by the rule of certain people making law.

Cars
Banking
Health services and supplies
Housing
Groceries
durable goods
consumeable goods
service providers of any number of services
capital production equipment
labor
Education included.
Insurance, including health insurance, and life insurance, and all other forms
Retirement savings programs.

ANYTHING like that should be market based, and competitive, because more than one option helps competition and refinement.

Municipalities are only those things that multiple redundant options are prohibitive, like pipes underground, or roads, that should be relatively uniform, and non-proprietary, and ONLY those things.

SOCIALISM is the politico-economic method of the state managing the illusion of private means of production for the market-based items I list above. State management isn't FREEDOM.

Socialism in the form of a nanny-state, that takes care of everyone, operates on a premise that people can't, and shouldn't be expected to take care of themselves, and that government can make people better, by making their lives more controlled. I do not hold to that.

That sort of nanny state necessitates a police state to follow close behind, to protect the "scarce public resources", and how they are applied. If you aren't usefull, you don't get resources, and someone has to enforce that distribution, and keep people in line.

THAT is not economic, NOR political freedom, and without one of those, the other fails. BOTH are absolutely required, and even working freedom requires eternal vigilance to maintain and protect that balance, even from the government that decides that it knows more than the people who participate in the market do.

[JaySVX]

It's not going to go through. There's just no way. I wonder how thigns are going in ireland or switzerland. Might be time to go puddle jumping if things continue in this direction.

[dcarrb]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

THIS IS A MUST READ for all no matter what your political leanings are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lee

It should be noted that the "findings" attached are not quotes or excerpts, but political commentary.

dcb

[benebob]

Originally Posted by BoxerFanatic

The government exists for a minimum of public infrastructure, and to prosecute the representative-passed criminal and reasonable tort civil laws.

IF the government didn't charge us the tax money anyway, private school is more effective than the abysmal status of most public schools, and they pay teachers better, usually.

Electric, Cable, Water and Sewer are municipal infrastructure, and a valid function of municipal government, as passed by local representatives. It is also highly sensitive to be standardized, rather than having multiple incompatible systems installed under the ground. Establishment of standards and measures are also a valid function of a representative government.

Roads are also public infrastructure, unlike rail-roads that are exclusive property, and carriers own the road beds and the vehicles, and operate them. Unless you want every square inch of pavement to be toll-roads...

The government still takes YOUR money through taxes, and gas taxes, to maintain them... usually poorly.

Establishment of public use infrastructure, by representative servants of the people is not socialistic. It is municipal, and a necessary cost to avoid problems with proprietary systems in a public setting.

Other systems, like private businesses that sell goods and services, and compete in a market, are capitalistic. Goods and services that can be market based, should be market based, and only the special cases that municipalities serve more consistently should be codified as enumerated powers of government.

Government never competes... it flouts markets, and seizes wealth, it never earns a dime, let alone a profit. Government CANNOT, by it's definition be capitalistic.

That is why Economic free capitalism, AND POLITICAL FREEDOM, both inherently rely on minimal, limited, federalist government that only does what the people decide is not feasible in the marketplace, where the government serves the interest of the people. The government is subject to the people through a democratic republican (not capitalized on purpose, I am talking about political science, not partisanship) processes, and the representatives behave accountably, and are held accountable to the people they serve.

The government like that is not supposed to treat the people as subjects to their will, as they are now. Watch the reps and senators marginalizing their own constituents... the current President has done so the whole time. They do not serve the people, they marginalize and treat the people as subjects. This country's founders struggled against being subjects of an unaccountable ruler, and it eventually boiled down to war. We have fought wars against that sort of tyranny, on behalf of others, as well.

READ the Declaration of Independence, and see if the complaints against the british crown don't sound familiar today... they do, and people are still struggling against over-arching, subjective rule by our own government that has over-grown it's enumerated powers.

This country is supposed to abide by the rule of law, not by the rule of certain people making law.

Cars
Banking
Health services and supplies
Housing
Groceries
durable goods
consumeable goods
service providers of any number of services
capital production equipment
labor
Education included.
Insurance, including health insurance, and life insurance, and all other forms
Retirement savings programs.

ANYTHING like that should be market based, and competitive, because more than one option helps competition and refinement.

Municipalities are only those things that multiple redundant options are prohibitive, like pipes underground, or roads, that should be relatively uniform, and non-proprietary, and ONLY those things.

SOCIALISM is the politico-economic method of the state managing the illusion of private means of production for the market-based items I list above. State management isn't FREEDOM.

Socialism in the form of a nanny-state, that takes care of everyone, operates on a premise that people can't, and shouldn't be expected to take care of themselves, and that government can make people better, by making their lives more controlled. I do not hold to that.

That sort of nanny state necessitates a police state to follow close behind, to protect the "scarce public resources", and how they are applied. If you aren't usefull, you don't get resources, and someone has to enforce that distribution, and keep people in line.

THAT is not economic, NOR political freedom, and without one of those, the other fails. BOTH are absolutely required, and even working freedom requires eternal vigilance to maintain and protect that balance, even from the government that decides that it knows more than the people who participate in the market do.

Somebody didn't pay attention in his history classes. No infastructure isn't part of the Constitution nor was it intended to be a gov't responsiblity. It was when private companies failed to deliver that it became necessary for the gov't to overtake it. Maybe you should read up on how public water came into being and why, the same arguement can be made for health care as our population is quickly becoming overweight and unhealth to serve thus justifying the need for the defense of the nation to provide min. health care to ensure that we can fit in tanks and drive them without having a heart attack.

Your interstate system, again was a national defense measure as a country which can't move its tanks to where they are needed is a country that would loose an invasion.

These were looked at by the founders as a private enterprise, just as river crossings etc. Just look around most of the East. Ever wonder why there are so many roads named Toll Rd?

Even public education wasn't in the minds of most of our founders. Interestingly by nearly every measure nationwide if you compare public vs. private schools the public schools come out on top for educating kids. This includes standarized test scores, cost effectiveness, percentage of the students finishing a higher level of education after high school etc.

[BoxerFanatic]

Originally Posted by benebob

Somebody didn't pay attention in his history classes. No infastructure isn't part of the Constitution nor was it intended to be a gov't responsiblity.

It isn't a federal government responsibility. that is why I called it MUNICIPAL, as in LOCAL, maybe perhaps STATE-wide in scope. It isn't constitutional, nor have I claimed it should be. The US Constitution defines the federal government, not the state or city governments. The 10th ammendment places things like infrastructure in the purview of those entities, and ultimately the people.

"All politics is local politics", because that is what it comes down to.

But there arent three different private toll roads coming to your private property driveway, and your car only is compatible with one of them, based on who's toll you agree to pay.

There aren't three separate waterworks to connect your house to, based on which water company to pay.

there aren't three proprietary electric grids in your town, that each offer different electrical formats, that your house has to adapt to.

It was when private companies failed to deliver that it became necessary for the gov't to overtake it. Maybe you should read up on how public water came into being and why, the same arguement can be made for health care as our population is quickly becoming overweight and unhealth to serve thus justifying the need for the defense of the nation to provide min. health care to ensure that we can fit in tanks and drive them without having a heart attack.

Public water infrastructure and the denial of private health insurance are in no way similar.

One has technical implications for city infrastructure, as I said, it isn't very feasible to have 3 or however-many companies running redundant water supply lines, sewers, treatment, collection, water towers, and such... That becomes municipal for technical feasibility reasons. It doesn't deny people the ability to drill their own wells. It doesn't impinge people's freedom to buy water in containers. It doesn't impinge on life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, it is a technical structure.

That is DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT than government influencing people's lives, and denying their freedom in the realm of health care, by dictating government destruction of private health insurance.

It does impact life, by government funded abortions under Roe (THAT IS REALLY NOT in the Contstitution...), and public healthcare, rationing care to the very young, and over retirement age, rationing by existing health status, or some bureaucrat's estimation.

It impacts Liberty, by dis-incentivizing, and ultimately destroying the competitiveness of private insurance. They cannot compete with a government that can dictate, and can print money, seize taxes, and pass law. Businesses cannot afford to compete to pay for health insurance, if the government is taxing it out of people anyway, and other businesses shed that cost.

It impacts the pursuit of happiness.
Rationing healthcare denies treatment to restore quality of life, based on government dictate.
Taxes will increase, as this plan is never free, and costs spiral out of control every time it is tried. THAT IS STEALING THE VALUE OF PEOPLE'S LIVELYHOODS!!!!
It saps value out of the private markets through waste, and lack of competitiveness. The dollars that get taxed to go into this program will be used FAR less efficiently than a profit driven company.

There is no technical reason for universal coverage. Everyone is elligible to buy private insurance in any color of the rainbow, and if the government allowed interstate commerce, (which their interstate commerce clause doesn't give them the right to shut it down entirely, but to ensure it's operation) then private insurance would be MORE Competitive, with better availability and pricing.

It is the people's responsibility to provide for their own care. It is not a right.

The right to life is a guarantee that the government will not come in and dictate who lives and who dies. THIS CRAP DOES THAT!!!!!!!

If anything this health-care stuff is unconstitutional on it's face.

Your interstate system, again was a national defense measure as a country which can't move its tanks to where they are needed is a country that would lose an invasion.

That is true. But other than eminent domain seizure of some property, which has proscription in the law on how to do properly, before the government started abusing it... it doesn't have impact on freedom, and actually might increase people's freedom of mobility.

These were looked at by the founders as a private enterprise, just as river crossings etc. Just look around most of the East. Ever wonder why there are so many roads named Toll Rd?

That is fine... that is up to the states, whether they want to provide state maintained roads, or leave that to private enterprises... but most city streets and non-limited-access roads are still public, and again, it is a technical infrastructure, not a fundamental intrusion into people's direct freedoms.

Even public education wasn't in the minds of most of our founders. Interestingly by nearly every measure nationwide if you compare public vs. private schools the public schools come out on top for educating kids. This includes standarized test scores, cost effectiveness, percentage of the students finishing a higher level of education after high school etc.

Agreed. Most of the advances of western civilization in the renaissance, and most academics before the 20th century, were done through the church organizations, not government run schools.

Public schools suffer the same way public healthcare will suffer, and healthcare will suffer more, and faster.

ARE YOU KIDDING??? Public school graduation rates are plummeting, and often even lied about. Literacy rates and standardized testing demonstrably favor private and home-school educations.

Some city school systems spend more than ten thousand dollars per student per year, and they still have abysmal achievement rates... Most private schools have lower tuition unless they are prestigious ivy-league-prep... not all private schools are like that.

And most areas that have private schools, most do not have voucher programs, where paid property taxes can be applied to private school tuition. Most of those areas, people pay twice to send their kids to private schools, while still paying their property taxes to the public schools.

[benebob]

Originally Posted by BoxerFanatic

It isn't a federal government responsibility. that is why I called it MUNICIPAL, as in LOCAL, maybe perhaps STATE-wide in scope. It isn't constitutional, nor have I claimed it should be. The US Constitution defines the federal government, not the state or city governments. The 10th ammendment places things like infrastructure in the purview of those entities, and ultimately the people.

"All politics is local politics", because that is what it comes down to.

But there arent three different private toll roads coming to your private property driveway, and your car only is compatible with one of them, based on who's toll you agree to pay.

There aren't three separate waterworks to connect your house to, based on which water company to pay.

there aren't three proprietary electric grids in your town, that each offer different electrical formats, that your house has to adapt to.





Public water infrastructure and the denial of private health insurance are in no way similar.

One has technical implications for city infrastructure, as I said, it isn't very feasible to have 3 or however-many companies running redundant water supply lines, sewers, treatment, collection, water towers, and such... That becomes municipal for technical feasibility reasons. It doesn't deny people the ability to drill their own wells. It doesn't impinge people's freedom to buy water in containers. It doesn't impinge on life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, it is a technical structure.

That is DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT than government influencing people's lives, and denying their freedom in the realm of health care, by dictating government destruction of private health insurance.

It does impact life, by government funded abortions under Roe (THAT IS REALLY NOT in the Contstitution...), and public healthcare, rationing care to the very young, and over retirement age, rationing by existing health status, or some bureaucrat's estimation.

It impacts Liberty, by dis-incentivizing, and ultimately destroying the competitiveness of private insurance. They cannot compete with a government that can dictate, and can print money, seize taxes, and pass law. Businesses cannot afford to compete to pay for health insurance, if the government is taxing it out of people anyway, and other businesses shed that cost.

It impacts the pursuit of happiness.
Rationing healthcare denies treatment to restore quality of life, based on government dictate.
Taxes will increase, as this plan is never free, and costs spiral out of control every time it is tried. THAT IS STEALING THE VALUE OF PEOPLE'S LIVELYHOODS!!!!
It saps value out of the private markets through waste, and lack of competitiveness. The dollars that get taxed to go into this program will be used FAR less efficiently than a profit driven company.

There is no technical reason for universal coverage. Everyone is elligible to buy private insurance in any color of the rainbow, and if the government allowed interstate commerce, (which their interstate commerce clause doesn't give them the right to shut it down entirely, but to ensure it's operation) then private insurance would be MORE Competitive, with better availability and pricing.

It is the people's responsibility to provide for their own care. It is not a right.

The right to life is a guarantee that the government will not come in and dictate who lives and who dies. THIS CRAP DOES THAT!!!!!!!

If anything this health-care stuff is unconstitutional on it's face.




That is true. But other than eminent domain seizure of some property, which has proscription in the law on how to do properly, before the government started abusing it... it doesn't have impact on freedom, and actually might increase people's freedom of mobility.



That is fine... that is up to the states, whether they want to provide state maintained roads, or leave that to private enterprises... but most city streets and non-limited-access roads are still public, and again, it is a technical infrastructure, not a fundamental intrusion into people's direct freedoms.



Agreed. Most of the advances of western civilization in the renaissance, and most academics before the 20th century, were done through the church organizations, not government run schools.

Public schools suffer the same way public healthcare will suffer, and healthcare will suffer more, and faster.

ARE YOU KIDDING??? Public school graduation rates are plummeting, and often even lied about. Literacy rates and standardized testing demonstrably favor private and home-school educations.

Some city school systems spend more than ten thousand dollars per student per year, and they still have abysmal achievement rates... Most private schools have lower tuition unless they are prestigious ivy-league-prep... not all private schools are like that.

And most areas that have private schools, most do not have voucher programs, where paid property taxes can be applied to private school tuition. Most of those areas, people pay twice to send their kids to private schools, while still paying their property taxes to the public schools.

Statistics don't lie. Public education is much more effective at producing well rounded, highly educated NATIONWIDE then your "mommy wants to be a teacher" or private schools NATIONWIDE. You need to compare apples to apples or else you're getting sour grapes.

Where's this freedom of movement in the constitution. I guess you added that one.

As for your infastructure issues, do you know where virtually the entire money came from to build the interstate system? Do you know where the money comes from for over 1/3 of local gov'ts to do road work?

Currently, the health care has its own infastructure of bloated bill payers and insurance handlers which last I checked was 2 to 1 for every single actual care giver. Not much different then your water hook up is it now?

You're abortion comment here cracks me up. First you argue that a doctor and the patient should decide their own choices, then you complain about abortions being legal. Last I checked abortions have been a medical reality for 2000 years or so. Don't worry though, I don't think you'll ever need to have one.

Where again is it in the Constitution that providing electric, water and sewer to the country is a right too? Where again is it in the Constitution that we should provide Medicare? Where again is it in the Constitution that we should be provided roads to gain mobility?

You must be reading the King James version.

[Green1995SVX]

Ben. I love you.

[demonsvx]

The problem is most of Congress and the past few administrations have FAILED to follow Consititional law. How would you like a SWAT team to break into your house without a warrant or reading your rights? Dont think its happening, it is. There are more than enough DOCUMENTED government abuses look them up yourself. Buy yourself a plane ticket to England and see the sights, Im sure there are more than enough CCTVs tracking your every move and if dont think it can happen here, think again. Ask a Brit how great it is having your government "take care of you" While you are at it read 1984 you might learn something. George Orwell was right.

[Hocrest]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

THIS IS A MUST READ for all no matter what your political leanings are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lee

Wow, slightly non objective??

And from that lists, many of the "bad" things are how Medicare and the private insurance companies has been running for years.

[demonsvx]

Im not opposed to healthcare reform in the form of being AFFORDABLE for everyone. The propsed healthcare plan has to many shady and strange ideas which has a lot of people in a uproar. Its hard to trust the government on anything. They screwed up SS, Medicare, the economy, wars in Iraq and Afganistan, veterans care, Katrina, protecting America, education, transportation, Nafta, unions, taxes, Constitution, Bill of Rights.....and a few hundred other things. This applies to both partiesand they cant be trusted anymore.

[benebob]

Originally Posted by demonsvx

Im not opposed to healthcare reform in the form of being AFFORDABLE for everyone. The propsed healthcare plan has to many shady and strange ideas which has a lot of people in a uproar. Its hard to trust the government on anything. They screwed up SS, Medicare, the economy, wars in Iraq and Afganistan, veterans care, Katrina, protecting America, education, transportation, Nafta, unions, taxes, Constitution, Bill of Rights.....and a few hundred other things. This applies to both partiesand they cant be trusted anymore.

Smartest thing I ever heard you say. I've yet to hear a Republican counter proposal for reforming a system where nearly 50 percent (increasing at about a percentage every year too) of the citizens do not have health care or are currently relying on gov't assistance for their health care. You'd have to be under a rock not to understand there are some major issues that need resolved.

If you don't like what is on the table where is your counter proposal?

[demonsvx]

I would like to have a choice of keeping my private healthcare and a government plan both of which need to be affordable and create competetion between the two. Keep in mind this healthcare plan came out of nowhere much like the Patriot Act which took a lot of our rights away.