RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/7/2012 6:51:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
I am sorry you missed it all over the national news.

But you can click here and read up on what you missed.


Now, see? Your linked URL even contains the very key part you missed, which I bolded to point it out. Passing HCR and implementing HCR are two separate things. Health care isn't going to be fully implemented until 2014, right? So, the exodus may not happen until 2014.

quote:


quote:

The same way they sued over wrongful deaths when the AIDS scare was in its heyday. Did the insurance companies cause their aids? Nope. They denied them care. There wasnt a single person at those insurance companies who caused their disease, wasnt a single person who could have cured their disease, yet they were held accountable for denying care to those who needed it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/17/us-insurers-idUSTRE62G2DO20100317
Note the date... 2010
http://www.mendeley.com/research/mason-tenders-agrees-pay-1-million-end-ada-litigation/
1995


They got sued for wrongful insurance dropping. Not the same. They didn't die because they lacked insurance. If they died, it was because they didn't get treatment. It was still the HIV/AIDS that killed them.

quote:


quote:

Yes, in totally free Free Market Capitalism, there is no regulation at all, and monopolies can exist. However, what I have said time and time again, is that there is a necessity for government regulation, to a certain degree, but that we are already well past that point. Prevention of monopolies is one of those necessary government regulations. See, now? If you would have actually given me credit for what I state, and asked me about it, you wouldn't be making these mistakes, over and over.


But it did have governmental oversight... bare minimum.. as your definition of what you were seeking in your free market stated.


You used "bare minimum" and equated what I push for and the (obviously) not enough amount of regulation at that time. "Bare minimum" is one of those interpretation quantities. Unless you know that my "bare minimum" doesn't include anti-monopoly regulations, equating my "bare minimum" to the "bare minimum" of that time is not mired in fact.

quote:


quote:

Because Capitalism is what has driven the US's rise to the economic leadership position we are still in. Interesting to note: China's current economic expansion was created by their government reducing their stranglehold and adopting more capitalistic measures. Of course, that probably has nothing to do with it, right?


It wouldnt have anything to do with cheap labor and unregulated control over that, now would it? Nor the fact that they run sweat shops? Nor that building is cheap and the tax benefits plentiful?


Building was cheap before, too. They ran sweat shops before, too. Their environmental regulations (which is what I'm assuming you're alluding to) weren't there before, either. How would tax benefits factor in? I thought it was obvious that lowering taxes on business didn't help. China is actually loosening their grip on State ownership of production, which gives the owners of production an incentive to be profitable. That is what has changed. Away from State ownership towards Private ownership.

quote:

You mean, like when it was run by religious and other charitable institutions? But, wait...wasn't that what I've been saying is the solution...? Huh. Interesting.


Ah yes, religions institutions.. so they can tell me, a nonreligious person (in their eyes) what care I can or cannot have? I dont know any nonsecular charitable institutions. Mind hooking me up with links? I did provide you with the ones you asked for.


Was there an incredible uproar over care refusal when hospitals and other care providers were run by religious institutions?



Edwynn -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/7/2012 9:34:05 AM)


Here's the quick and easy on tax dollars to oil companies, light weight as it is:

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

but understand that the $5+ billion towards corn ethanol is counted to 'green' or 'alternative' energy even as agro-chem gets the boost from subsidized GMO corn and oil refineries get 45 cents per total gallon which the 10% constituent of ethanol goes into. Of course you didn't know that.

So then we get to the more troublesome issue. Every large scale industrial farmer is well aware of the farm subsidies, the price supports, but you propose to inveigh on any of this while being totally unaware of this very basic fact of US farms? Or even more, that you are not aware that it is impossible to get any of these subsidies if not using Monsanto or Con Agra or Archer Daniels Midland fertilizers, pesticides, and GMO seeds? Or getting milk price supports if not using rGBH? The farmers are simply the bag men for agro-chem, which anybody in the industry knows. There's a clue.

Do your own home work. Don't expect others to do it for you.





DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/7/2012 1:06:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Here's the quick and easy on tax dollars to oil companies, light weight as it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
but understand that the $5+ billion towards corn ethanol is counted to 'green' or 'alternative' energy even as agro-chem gets the boost from subsidized GMO corn and oil refineries get 45 cents per total gallon which the 10% constituent of ethanol goes into. Of course you didn't know that.
So then we get to the more troublesome issue. Every large scale industrial farmer is well aware of the farm subsidies, the price supports, but you propose to inveigh on any of this while being totally unaware of this very basic fact of US farms? Or even more, that you are not aware that it is impossible to get any of these subsidies if not using Monsanto or Con Agra or Archer Daniels Midland fertilizers, pesticides, and GMO seeds? Or getting milk price supports if not using rGBH? The farmers are simply the bag men for agro-chem, which anybody in the industry knows. There's a clue.
Do your own home work. Don't expect others to do it for you.


I did not know of the source requirements for farm subsidies. Thank you for that

Oh, and I've done my homework, btw. I can only assume you don't know the difference between a subsidy and a tax credit. A tax credit is where they reduce the amount of taxes you owe, so you pay less. A subsidy, is giving money to you that you didn't have before. You might argue they are one and the same, but you would be wrong. Receiving money that you did not earn is not the same as keeping more of the money you earned.

Allow me to offer another example to make the explanation clear. George Bush handed out a $400/child "tax credit" to all tax filers. One of the complaints (I heard it from Libertarians so I can't speak to what the Republicans or Democrats were saying) was that all tax filers were eligible. Even if you hadn't paid more than $400/child in taxes, you were eligible for $400/child. That changed that tax credit into a subsidy for whatever amount a tax filer received less what was paid in. So, if you have 3 kids and paid $900 in taxes, you received $1200 in tax "credits" according to the President (and probably most of the R's). In truth, you received a $900 tax credit and a $300 subsidy.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/about_those_oil_subsidies.html

I have done my homework, thank you. So, you have listed out "subsidies" that you want ended. You actually want to discriminate against oil companies? I would have no problem supporting the reduction of all oil tax breaks as long as those tax breaks are reduced across the board, and all true subsidies are reduce, too. That would be the "fair" thing to do.



Edwynn -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/7/2012 1:50:20 PM)


Two very good books on the subject; Internal Combustion by Edwin Black, and The Tyranny of Oil by Antonia Juhasz.

I got them from the library. If not at your local, a library loan from another system is usually available.

Highly recommended.





tazzygirl -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/7/2012 3:53:13 PM)

quote:

Now, see? Your linked URL even contains the very key part you missed, which I bolded to point it out. Passing HCR and implementing HCR are two separate things. Health care isn't going to be fully implemented until 2014, right? So, the exodus may not happen until 2014.


Its being implemented as we speak... and has been since it was passed.

You did know that yes?

And, I must point out the error of your argument.

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub.L. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029) is a law that was enacted by the 111th United States Congress, by means of the reconciliation process, in order to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub.L. 111-148). It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 30, 2010.

Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010. The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 was passed by the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 220–211, and on March 25, after having two minor provisions stricken under the Byrd Rule, passed the Senate by a vote of 56-43

quote:

At no point did I ever state that anything was "partially passed." Since the bill they originally pass in October had been changed, the vote on the bill was no longer complete.

I have absolutely no problem admitting my errors. I just have to be in error.


http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4052796

Your post. The PPACA was already law by the time the HCR bill was finally voted upon in the Senate. The October date was a date pulled out of thin air.

Now, admit you were in error before we continue. You did say you had no problem doing so.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/7/2012 5:56:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Its being implemented as we speak... and has been since it was passed.
You did know that yes?


Is it fully implemented? That answer is, no. Just like I said. You even posted that "It is being implemented..." And that means, it isn't fully implemented yet. Just like I said.

quote:


And, I must point out the error of your argument.
On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub.L. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029) is a law that was enacted by the 111th United States Congress, by means of the reconciliation process, in order to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub.L. 111-148). It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 30, 2010.
Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010. The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 was passed by the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 220–211, and on March 25, after having two minor provisions stricken under the Byrd Rule, passed the Senate by a vote of 56-43
quote:

At no point did I ever state that anything was "partially passed." Since the bill they originally pass in October had been changed, the vote on the bill was no longer complete.
I have absolutely no problem admitting my errors. I just have to be in error.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4052796
Your post. The PPACA was already law by the time the HCR bill was finally voted upon in the Senate. The October date was a date pulled out of thin air.
Now, admit you were in error before we continue. You did say you had no problem doing so.


Ooooooh, ya got me. And, ya got me because I used your posted timeline. Damn. Fool me once, shame on you....

{Steps up on Soapbox} <tap, tap, tap> Is this thing on?

Hear ye! Hear ye! Let it be known that this day, at 8:52 pm Eastern (7:52 Central) that Desideri Scuri admits to being wrong regarding passage of the PPACA legislation through the US House of Representatives.

Thank you. You may not go back to your regularly scheduled programming.
{Steps off Soapbox}

Feel better now?



tazzygirl -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/7/2012 7:42:44 PM)

Much. And after your attitude here, we have nothing left to discuss.

Well wishes



tweakabelle -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/7/2012 8:37:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Much. And after your attitude here, we have nothing left to discuss.

Well wishes

Welcome to the club, tazzy!. [:D]

I reached a similar point of exasperation a while ago following this exchange:

DS:" How do we lower costs?"

tweakabelle: "Very simple. Establish a universal health scheme asap.
They cost about half the cost of the system that operates in the USA currently. "

DS: "How is it we are going to halve our costs? That is why I ignore those things."

What is the point of answering questions if someone chooses to ignore informative answers - it's effectively choosing to wallow in ignorance isn't it? It's pointless trying to communicate with people with such preferences, particularly so when the blinkers are adopted for ideological reasons.






Edwynn -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/7/2012 9:42:09 PM)


Since the Constitution of the US has been invoked on several occasions, dredged up as in support of various and sundry ill-conceptualized self-serving ideological fancy, let's put a scare into people, then.

The preamble:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


There we have justice and the domestic tranquility and promotion of the general welfare at the outset as primary concerns, the rest being in service to that. We don't have a common defense for its own sake, it is there as in service to the rest.

Some self-described adamant constitutional proponents run like a bunny at the words 'justice' or 'the general welfare,' but let them run, as far away as possible.

While being in 'constitution shopping' mode, I like the very first line, and the next two, in the  deutsche Grundgesetz (German fundamental/basic law) too:

I. Die Grundrechte Artikel 1
(1) Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt.
(2) Das Deutsche Volk bekennt sich darum zu unverletzlichen und unveräußerlichen Menschenrechten als Grundlage jeder menschlichen Gemeinschaft, des Friedens und der Gerechtigkeit in der Welt.
(3) Die nachfolgenden Grundrechte binden Gesetzgebung, vollziehende Gewalt und Rechtsprechung als unmittelbar geltendes Recht.

(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law.




Now there's a good start. There is not much selfishness in the US Constitution, much as some like to think otherwise. But the German Verfassung (constitution) leaves no doubt as to the priorities of a good and modern society.

No wonder so many of their citizens are so prepared for the world.





DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/7/2012 11:02:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Since the Constitution of the US has been invoked on several occasions, dredged up as in support of various and sundry ill-conceptualized self-serving ideological fancy, let's put a scare into people, then.
The preamble:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
There we have justice and the domestic tranquility and promotion of the general welfare at the outset as primary concerns, the rest being in service to that. We don't have a common defense for its own sake, it is there as in service to the rest.


Huh? How did you arrive at your list of "primary" concerns? How is "common defense" not a "primary concern?"

The aims of the Constitution are, in order:


  • Establish Justice
  • Insure Domestic Tranquility
  • Provide for the Common Defense
  • Promote the General Welfare
  • Secure the Blessings of Liberty


Certainly, there is a difference between providing something and promoting something, right?

quote:


Some self-described adamant constitutional proponents run like a bunny at the words 'justice' or 'the general welfare,' but let them run, as far away as possible.

While being in 'constitution shopping' mode, I like the very first line, and the next two, in the  deutsche Grundgesetz (German fundamental/basic law) too:

I. Die Grundrechte Artikel 1
(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law.

Now there's a good start. There is not much selfishness in the US Constitution, much as some like to think otherwise. But the German Verfassung (constitution) leaves no doubt as to the priorities of a good and modern society.

No wonder so many of their citizens are so prepared for the world.


Ah, yes, "no doubt as to the priorities..."

What is "Human Dignity?" What are the "inviolable and inalienable human rights" that are to form the basis of every community? Yes, no doubts. Except, well, specifically what is meant.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/7/2012 11:08:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Much. And after your attitude here, we have nothing left to discuss.
Well wishes

Welcome to the club, tazzy!. [:D]
I reached a similar point of exasperation a while ago following this exchange:
DS:" How do we lower costs?"
tweakabelle: "Very simple. Establish a universal health scheme asap.
They cost about half the cost of the system that operates in the USA currently. "
DS: "How is it we are going to halve our costs? That is why I ignore those things."
What is the point of answering questions if someone chooses to ignore informative answers - it's effectively choosing to wallow in ignorance isn't it? It's pointless trying to communicate with people with such preferences, particularly so when the blinkers are adopted for ideological reasons.


I was wondering what had happened to you, tweakabelle. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my continued line of questioning. By what manner would establishing universal health care halve our costs? It isn't going to be a magic >poof< and costs are going to halve. How would establishing universal health care cut our costs in half?

If that's an unreasonable question, I'd love to hear why. I follow what I wrote, but I already had intimate knowledge of what I was asking. I can see how it might come off as a dunderheaded question. I assure you, it was not. Do you understand what information I was asking for since I changed the wording of my question?



DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/7/2012 11:09:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Much. And after your attitude here, we have nothing left to discuss.
Well wishes


You wanted me to admit that I was wrong. I did. Am I now to understand that I admitted I was wrong in the wrong way?



tweakabelle -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/8/2012 12:35:26 AM)

quote:

How would establishing universal health care cut our costs in half?


Universal health schemes typically cost about half the US cost (measured as % of GDP).
I'd look first at the Canadian and Australian healthcare systems as these are probably the closest to US conditions. European models such as the UK Germany and Scandinavian models are well worth checking out.

I'd be greatly surprised if there weren't detailed proposals already prepared and costed by US health think tanks and academics. Google is your friend.



Edwynn -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/8/2012 3:30:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Huh? How did you arrive at your list of "primary" concerns? How is "common defense" not a "primary concern?"

The aims of the Constitution are, in order:
  • Establish Justice
  • Insure Domestic Tranquility
  • Provide for the Common Defense
  • Promote the General Welfare
  • Secure the Blessings of Liberty

As pointed out in the post, the common defense is in service to the rest. Otherwise, just what is being defended? Think about it. The enumeration of the intentions of the Constitution are not presented in order of prioritization, rather in a sequence that served the needs of both logic and sentence structure as existed at the time. 


quote:

Certainly, there is a difference between providing something and promoting something, right?


The point being? The Congress is instructed to pass laws to install all the above.

quote:

Now there's a good start. There is not much selfishness in the US Constitution, much as some like to think otherwise. But the German Verfassung (constitution) leaves no doubt as to the priorities of a good and modern society.

No wonder so many of their citizens are so prepared for the world.


quote:

Ah, yes, "no doubt as to the priorities..."

What is "Human Dignity?"



You need it explained? Really? It might be a good exercise for you to contemplate for yourself the meaning of human dignity and the repercussions of having it foremost in a constitution.

quote:

What are the "inviolable and inalienable human rights" that are to form the basis of every community? Yes, no doubts. Except, well, specifically what is meant.


They are spelled out in further articles of that constitution. But gauging by your comprehension difficulties to this point, I'm not sure if any of the rest of it would actually provide further sufficient explanation for you. You might be better served by reading more rudimentary material first, then work your way up to the basic law itself. In fact, it would be helpful to the cause if you were to obtain a better grasp of basic rights and various goals of modern society in general before reading any constitution.

Here's the entirety of it in any case:

http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#1


In any venture into the understanding of what is meant by human dignity in many other countries, it might be helpful to understand that this and many other concepts of a general sense of dignity or rights does not start and end with the question "what's in it for me?" It is understood that ensuring the rights and dignity of all ensures the rights and dignity of the individual. If there exists the situation of some sector of society being denied basic rights and dignity, then there is no assurance of your own. This is a different approach than starting with the individual, as some propose the US Constitution to be based on. The US Constitution is in fact explicit in applying whatever tenets contained within as applying to all, but many engage in the sport of opportunistic cherry picking to extract the most individualistic aspects of it.

And again, "for the common defense" on its own makes no sense. Read the rest of the preamble and the rest of the constitution and understand that the tenets contained therein constitute a body of what is to be defended. Regardless of the order in which the common defense is listed, that direction is always intended as being in service to the ideals that are expressed and as made manifest in the law. The idea of human dignity is prevalent in both the preamble and in the body of the US Constitution even without those specific words being invoked for the task.

If taken as the prescription for a society that it is intended to be, that constitution might be one place to start in your quest for understanding the meaning of human dignity. There are also many other treatments of the subject in various UN proclamations, records of war crime trials or tribunals, books and articles on the subject, etc.

I wish you success in your venture.






MrBukani -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/8/2012 3:45:00 AM)

To commercialize a basic need in general means it will get more expensive, not cheaper.
There are many examples outside of healthcare to support my statement.



Edwynn -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/8/2012 4:04:17 AM)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D0W7H1Uca0&feature=related



Real0ne -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/8/2012 7:06:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

To commercialize a basic need in general means it will get more expensive, not cheaper.
There are many examples outside of healthcare to support my statement.



that is what governments do! The US was intended NOT to commercialize the water you drink the land and the roof over your head that you require as a necessity to live but they have and they will continue until they are taxing the blood pumping through your veins.

People do not realize it but you can pretty much wipe your ass with any governments constitution and propaganda. The reason why is an established "Sovereign" is as much God today as it was when the idiots revered the King as God.

The Sovereign declares the law, we have 50 of them, and 1 extra called the fed. They all declare the law. You do not get to vote on that law any more than you as a worker bee get to vote on microsoft or ibm board of directors meeting. If there were no sovereign there would be no need for a constitution since "sovereign" by design means there are subjects unless specifically expressed to the contrary. The constitution and use of [e]states creates the deMOBcracy[,s] and presumes everyone is willing to join it and serve UNDER the sovereigns rules. The sovereigns rules contract around the old common law and are outside of law though they statutize and try to make them compatible with the common law which istechnically impossible to do.

The only possible way that a[n] [e]state can rightfully claim jurisdiction over anyone is if they contractually and knowingly joined under the sovereign, or if the sovereign acts as a 3rd party to resolve some sort of injury to one of its members. Of course the fact that one has no obligation to performance under anything less than a fully disclosed contract is conveniently overlooked as the sovereigns "government" necessity.

They turned the law around on the people to terrorize them to join "their" club.

they can have 40 trillion statutes and when the shit hits the fan it will go to court based on the law itself to determine if the statute is first constitutional, (another statute) and then able to squeak past the common law which today is also an abortion, and when all else fails goes back to the english common law UNDER the King for final determination!

So all that constitution does is slows that "soveriegn king" known as "state", or properly known historically as [e]state down a bit.

Its shocking that people in this modern age of information exchange have not figgered the foundations of this shit out yet.

Government is the cause of these problems not the solution. If things were left strictly to "JURY" courts and all decisions made in accord with merits of the matter rather than statute we would be free of the greater majority of this shit mess. Yet: "everyone continues to elect the rich cocksukers that dont give a fuck about you......they dont give a fuck about YOU at all...at all" ~George carlin

and the only way they can pay for this is by taxing, not invoicing, taxing, which is nothing more than redistribution, with government and its employees taking their cut right off the top, now that the necesities of life are considered "wealth" for tax purposes. We wont even mention the bankrupt idiots that think their medical services are "free".

The more the government contracts with people the greater their claim is that they have jurisdiction since you did after all take a BENEFIT from the governemnt.

The fact they drove the economy into the ground gave away our jobs and created the wealth gap in the first place not with standing.

Its a stacked deck folks and the people will ALWAYS lose.





DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/8/2012 7:09:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:

How would establishing universal health care cut our costs in half?

Universal health schemes typically cost about half the US cost (measured as % of GDP).
I'd look first at the Canadian and Australian healthcare systems as these are probably the closest to US conditions. European models such as the UK Germany and Scandinavian models are well worth checking out.
I'd be greatly surprised if there weren't detailed proposals already prepared and costed by US health think tanks and academics. Google is your friend.


It doesn't matter what the typical "schemes" outside the US cost. That doesn't necessarily translate into the same level of savings here.

Detailed proposals are also not necessarily worth reading since it's obvious our Government officials generally have no idea how much anything is actually going to cost. Remember that the income tax was only to be levied on a particular segment of the population and would never be more than 2%? Or, the "if we pass this, unemployment won't go above 8%?" Or, any of Bush's quick, cheap wars? Or Clinton's Medicare Overhaul that has yet to show the savings it was supposed to show (Medicare Reimbursements were supposed to effect that change, but we keep passing the Doc Fix Bill.

It is plainly evident our politicians don't really know how much something is going to cost.

What I do find interesting is that you proffer the 50% cost of other plans compared to ours and, at the very least, imply that we'd see those same savings, but don't understand how the savings would come about. As far as google being "my friend," how is it that I'm supposed to look up supporting evidence for your statements?



SoftBonds -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/8/2012 7:31:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Want to know the truth? I agree with you that CEO's make a ridiculous amount of money. But, why do they make that much? There has to be some economic benefit the CEO is providing over and above his/her salary. Same goes for upper management. While we agree they get paid more than handsomely, we don't know why they garner those salaries.

Why do CEO's get such handsome salaries? Look at "executive compensation boards."
Generally formed of CEO's and former CEO's who have a mandate to ensure that the CEO of the company at question is paid "above the average," or "in the top quarter," of CEO pay in their industry or for similar size companies.
If you are a CEO and want a raise, ask the executive compensation board to meet. You will get a raise.
It has nothing to do with the quality of your work. It is cronyism. Bad luck for shareholders, but great for the CEO's


Didn't I say we agree on CEO compensation being too much? If there is no economic benefit, then shareholders need to take control and replace the exec compensation board. If the can't, they need to change the rules so they can.

quote:

Not sure why bringing this up helps your point, but hey, you still haven't explained why you defend me paying for your health care since I pay for insurance and you don't...
Wait, maybe it is just selfishness???


At what point in time did I ever say that I don't have insurance? You aren't paying for my health care.


Regarding the executive compensation boards, shareholders don't have the power to change the system. Maybe the government could though. How about a law saying that to increase compensation for anyone if they would then be paid more than the President of the US will require a vote of the shareholders on that specific issue.
Regarding your statement a few days ago that you were young and healthy and didn't see why you should need to pay for insurance... If you don't pay for insurance I have to pay for you. Nuff said?



DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/8/2012 8:01:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Huh? How did you arrive at your list of "primary" concerns? How is "common defense" not a "primary concern?"
The aims of the Constitution are, in order:
  • Establish Justice
  • Insure Domestic Tranquility
  • Provide for the Common Defense
  • Promote the General Welfare
  • Secure the Blessings of Liberty

As pointed out in the post, the common defense is in service to the rest. Otherwise, just what is being defended? Think about it. The enumeration of the intentions of the Constitution are not presented in order of prioritization, rather in a sequence that served the needs of both logic and sentence structure as existed at the time. 


You pointed out in the post that the common defense is in service to the rest. I questioned how it was determined to be in service to the rest. If order was dictated by logic, wouldn't it have been more logical to list "promote the general welfare" prior to "provide the common defense" since the latter is in service to the former?

The preamble set the reasons for creating a Federal Government via the Constitution. The Federal Government was to make sure the ideas set out in the preamble were reached within its jurisdiction (the United States of America). The Constitution is how that Federal Government was going to make sure the ideas set out in the preamble were reached within the USA.

Provide for the Common Defense of what? Of the United States of America. That's what. It wasn't defense of General Welfare of the USA. It was provide for the Common Defense of the USA. Common to whom? Common to the country as one unit. The Articles of Confederation were extremely weak in this area. If NH was invaded, why would NC ride to their rescue, leaving themselves also exposed? The Federal Government would provide the Common Defense so each individual State wouldn't have to provide for themselves individually. Very different situation than what you have presented.

quote:

quote:

Certainly, there is a difference between providing something and promoting something, right?

The point being? The Congress is instructed to pass laws to install all the above.


Why didn't they choose to use the word "install" as the verb for every phrase, then? I submit it is because each verb was chosen according to the phrase. "Install the Common Defense" isn't nearly the same in meaning as "Provide for the Common Defense." Installation is a one-time deal with maintenance following. You don't install a smoke detector when you change the battery. You are installing the battery (different item since the smoke detector has already been installed) as maintenance of the detector. We aren't installing Domestic Tranquility. We are working towards ensuring Domestic Tranquility (regardless of what some may argue; and, yes, there is a difference between insure and ensure, and I am of the belief that before you can insure it, it has to be ensured).

quote:

quote:

Now there's a good start. There is not much selfishness in the US Constitution, much as some like to think otherwise. But the German Verfassung (constitution) leaves no doubt as to the priorities of a good and modern society.
No wonder so many of their citizens are so prepared for the world.

quote:

Ah, yes, "no doubt as to the priorities..."
What is "Human Dignity?"


You need it explained? Really? It might be a good exercise for you to contemplate for yourself the meaning of human dignity and the repercussions of having it foremost in a constitution.


Is "Human Dignity" a straight down the line objective descriptor? I would say not. It is subjective. Wouldn't Human Dignity include the right to choose to end your life in order to end a life of either drugged stupor or pain? To some, it would include that. To others, it does not. Look at the BDSM lifestyle. Is it human dignity to caned, whipped, beaten, tied up, spanked, humiliated, etc.? Again, it is fine to some and not fine to others. My whole point was that "Human Dignity" is not an easily defined, objective descriptor.

quote:

quote:

What are the "inviolable and inalienable human rights" that are to form the basis of every community? Yes, no doubts. Except, well, specifically what is meant.

They are spelled out in further articles of that constitution. But gauging by your comprehension difficulties to this point, I'm not sure if any of the rest of it would actually provide further sufficient explanation for you. You might be better served by reading more rudimentary material first, then work your way up to the basic law itself. In fact, it would be helpful to the cause if you were to obtain a better grasp of basic rights and various goals of modern society in general before reading any constitution.


There you go again, assuming I don't know what "basic rights" are. Simply because we disagree on what constitute basic rights does not mean I don't know what they are. Do you cull your list of basic rights from the UN's Declaration of Human Rights? Or, do you use that document in its entirety? How did you come by your personal list of "basic rights?"

quote:

Here's the entirety of it in any case:
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#1

In any venture into the understanding of what is meant by human dignity in many other countries, it might be helpful to understand that this and many other concepts of a general sense of dignity or rights does not start and end with the question "what's in it for me?" It is understood that ensuring the rights and dignity of all ensures the rights and dignity of the individual.


What happens when the rights of the many reduce the rights of the few? What happens when ensuring my rights infringes on your rights? Does Government, for instance, have the right to strip search a toddler before he/she boards a plane, as a policy to insure my safety on that same flight? Ostensibly, the strip search is done to insure the passenger doesn't blow the plane up, which would seriously hamper my safety on the flight. But, where do the passenger's rights start and the rights of the passengers end?

quote:

If there exists the situation of some sector of society being denied basic rights and dignity, then there is no assurance of your own. This is a different approach than starting with the individual, as some propose the US Constitution to be based on. The US Constitution is in fact explicit in applying whatever tenets contained within as applying to all, but many engage in the sport of opportunistic cherry picking to extract the most individualistic aspects of it.

Completely agree with the bolded section. Completely. However, that argument doesn't really seem to align with your other statements.

quote:

And again, "for the common defense" on its own makes no sense. Read the rest of the preamble and the rest of the constitution and understand that the tenets contained therein constitute a body of what is to be defended. Regardless of the order in which the common defense is listed, that direction is always intended as being in service to the ideals that are expressed and as made manifest in the law. The idea of human dignity is prevalent in both the preamble and in the body of the US Constitution even without those specific words being invoked for the task.


Or, it is the How to the preamble's What. Preamble = What the Federal Government's end goals are. The US Constitution = How the Federal Government is going to strive for those goals.

quote:


I wish you success in your venture.


No you don't. But, only because success of me in my venture would necessitate failure of you in yours in some respects, unless your assumption is that I'll come to the same conclusions as you.



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625