RE: A rather large presumption

RE: A rather large presumption (Full Version)

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

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 12:24:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Good luck getting any sort of civil discussion on this topic. And how often do I let that stop me, DS? [;)] Always. Take that one time in the discussion of... er... um... hey! Squirrel! [:D]

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 12:25:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Why, exactly, is individual healthcare the responsibility of the U.S. government in the first place? I would ask why, exactly, do you assume it is "individual" healthcare as opposed to collective healthcare? I'm sure that is colouring your perception... and also the question. Where has the family, social, and community spirit gone in the US? It's all about money and personal gains these days. No thought if your neighbour is ok, or other members of the family, or "the people" of the nation in general. It has slowly dissolved into a "I'm alright Jack" way of thinking. And look where it's gotten you. Everyone is chasing personal goals and don't give a shit about anyone else. That train of thought is so intensely entrenched into the US way of thinking that most cannot think beyond their own personal limits. The whole philosophy and ideaology is even entrenched into how the law system works - individualism right to the core. We even see that by the questions being asked on these boards and responses given by other Americans. Things like "why should I pay for maternity insurance if I'm a male and won't ever need it?" type crap. And stuff like "why should I subsidize sick people if I'm healthy?" shit. And that's how you now have a fucked-up, individually governed, profit-based system run by a handful of business people with no other goal but lining their own pockets. They don't give a shit about people's health... only profits for themselves and the shareholders. And that's the root core of the problem. It's a profit-making business, not health "care" per se. Most Americans cannot think outside of the localism and therefore cannot envisage anything else but some further twists in an already corrupted and all-to-expensive insurance system. Heck, even the police cannot chase a fucking criminal across the state line without permission or cooperation from the next state as if it were another country. How stupid is that? The only cure is for some things to be done, and funded, at the national level. You do it for the military, but not much else. That thinking needs to be extended to a national police force and healthcare and also quite a few laws too. This whole individualism shit is almost unique to the US. You aren't a united country except in name - just about everything else is done at the local state level, including taxes and many laws. Until America and it's people can think beyond localism, there is no real cure. And yes, even O'Bummercare, is a clusterfuck because even he cannot think beyond localism and an individual insurance-based system. Think about it. It makes sense (well, to everyone outside of the US it does). ETA: At the other end of the spectrum you have China, where virtually everything is governed at the national level with virtually no individualism at all. Most western societies have found a middle ground.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 1:14:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 This whole individualism shit is almost unique to the US. Some might even say that because of this, the US is the exception to the norm, eh? You know, the real meaning of "American Exceptionalism?" quote: You aren't a united country except in name - just about everything else is done at the local state level, including taxes and many laws. Until America and it's people can think beyond localism, there is no real cure. That's the way it was set up, though. The majority of decisions pertaining to the individual were supposed to happen closer to the individual. My health isn't a National concern, and shouldn't be. The Federal Government, according to the arguments supporting it's ratification, was to be concerned with things that impact the USA as one unit, and to intervene in situations where one State was pit against another State (at the State level). Concerns within the State that pertained only to that State and it's people, were left to the individual States and individuals. That's the way it was set up, to keep the Federal Government less powerful and to prevent tyranny from a National government.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 1:25:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 This whole individualism shit is almost unique to the US. Some might even say that because of this, the US is the exception to the norm, eh? You know, the real meaning of "American Exceptionalism?" And that is also why the US is uniquely in the shit that it's in right now. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: You aren't a united country except in name - just about everything else is done at the local state level, including taxes and many laws. Until America and it's people can think beyond localism, there is no real cure. That's the way it was set up, though. The majority of decisions pertaining to the individual were supposed to happen closer to the individual. My health isn't a National concern, and shouldn't be. But if the US want you to partake in defending the country, you need to be fit and healthy, either physically or mentally. And that is of national concern. Or at least it should be. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The Federal Government, according to the arguments supporting it's ratification, was to be concerned with things that impact the USA as one unit, and to intervene in situations where one State was pit against another State (at the State level). Concerns within the State that pertained only to that State and it's people, were left to the individual States and individuals. That's the way it was set up, to keep the Federal Government less powerful and to prevent tyranny from a National government. Apart from individual countries like those in Africa and Islamics, there is no "tyranny" from the state. Why Americans fear this is beyond my comprehension. The fact that 'the state' is the individual localism is the very heart of the problem. That organisation, though practical in its day 200 years ago, is sooo old-hat for a modern society that it actually hinders just about every aspect of it. And that is why the US is in the trouble it is.

TheHeretic -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 1:42:38 PM)
As I pointed out in the first post, Freedomdwarf, this question is related to establishing governmental responsibilty as we do things in the US, not how places with a fundamentally different understanding of the relationship between citizen/government works justify it. If you wish to discuss why the US should become more like Europe, so people who don't speak German as a first language can rationalize away their inadequacies, another thread would be your venue. I likely wouldn't participate, but have fun.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 1:43:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 This whole individualism shit is almost unique to the US. Some might even say that because of this, the US is the exception to the norm, eh? You know, the real meaning of "American Exceptionalism?" And that is also why the US is uniquely in the shit that it's in right now. We are unique in the level of cost within our health care system, but not that health care costs are rising. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: You aren't a united country except in name - just about everything else is done at the local state level, including taxes and many laws. Until America and it's people can think beyond localism, there is no real cure. That's the way it was set up, though. The majority of decisions pertaining to the individual were supposed to happen closer to the individual. My health isn't a National concern, and shouldn't be. But if the US want you to partake in defending the country, you need to be fit and healthy, either physically or mentally. And that is of national concern. Or at least it should be. Nope. We have a volunteer military, and once one volunteers, fitness is taken care of. Thus, my fitness isn't a concern to the Nation at all. I would say that only President Obama's fitness is of National concern, and, to a lesser extent, VP Biden (it becomes a bigger National concern if President Obama's health starts to wane). quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The Federal Government, according to the arguments supporting it's ratification, was to be concerned with things that impact the USA as one unit, and to intervene in situations where one State was pit against another State (at the State level). Concerns within the State that pertained only to that State and it's people, were left to the individual States and individuals. That's the way it was set up, to keep the Federal Government less powerful and to prevent tyranny from a National government. Apart from individual countries like those in Africa and Islamics, there is no "tyranny" from the state. Why Americans fear this is beyond my comprehension. The fact that 'the state' is the individual localism is the very heart of the problem. That organisation, though practical in its day 200 years ago, is sooo old-hat for a modern society that it actually hinders just about every aspect of it. And that is why the US is in the trouble it is. There is no tyranny from the Federal government? Really? Nothing the NSA does regarding domestic spying? Nothing where US Citizens could, possibly, be the target of a drone strike from our own military? Nooooo, nothing tyrannical at all. Localism is the heart of good governance, imo. The further away from the individual you get, the further erosion of control the individual can actually assert on government. Local government should be the form of government that individuals come in contact with and that impacts their daily lives. The further away you get, the less impact on the individual there should be. Who knows better about what situations someone is going to face and what help will be needed than the unit of government closest to the individual?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 1:57:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic As I pointed out in the first post, Freedomdwarf, this question is related to establishing governmental responsibilty as we do things in the US, not how places with a fundamentally different understanding of the relationship between citizen/government works justify it. And as I pointed out, the fundamental question doesn't fit with how the US works. That's why it's an oxymoron and you can't fit an answer to the question. To establish any sort of governmental responsibility, you have to step away from the individualism that is inherent in the US system. Until you do that, your government cannot have any responsibility. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic ...so people who don't speak German as a first language can rationalize away their inadequacies... I don't speak German and most of us Brits don't. Neither does a lot of Europe - only the germans and maybe some Austrians. So I have no idea why you threw this spanner out there. It's irrelevant.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 2:09:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri We are unique in the level of cost within our health care system, but not that health care costs are rising. Try telling that to the many Americans that can no longer afford it due to rising costs. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Nope. We have a volunteer military, and once one volunteers, fitness is taken care of. Thus, my fitness isn't a concern to the Nation at all. I would say that only President Obama's fitness is of National concern, and, to a lesser extent, VP Biden (it becomes a bigger National concern if President Obama's health starts to wane). No different to any other country with a national policy. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri There is no tyranny from the Federal government? Really? Nothing the NSA does regarding domestic spying? Nothing where US Citizens could, possibly, be the target of a drone strike from our own military? Nooooo, nothing tyrannical at all. Again, only from the US. You don't see much of similar behaviour from anyone else. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Localism is the heart of good governance, imo. The further away from the individual you get, the further erosion of control the individual can actually assert on government. Local government should be the form of government that individuals come in contact with and that impacts their daily lives. The further away you get, the less impact on the individual there should be. Who knows better about what situations someone is going to face and what help will be needed than the unit of government closest to the individual? Why bother voting at all then? That's where we have our individualism and our voice is heard. When we had some trouble with a government official, our local MP came to the rescue and kicked butt big-time. That's where you have local control and localized power. That didn't dectract from overall centralized power where things get domne on a national scale. This is where your localised notion is inbred from your environment and why you cannot see the other side of the coin. That statement could also apply to me too. But having lived in both worlds, I have a better appreciation of how this side works and I know which I'd prefer.

epiphiny43 -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 2:12:27 PM)
Looking at the level of functional variation and the incredible levels of overt and covert corruption and incompetence, thinking States do a good job generally at Any task is drinking the Kool-Aid of ambitious politicians eager to feed at the public trough. And the puppet masters who own most of them. The major reason for 'local control' during Americas formative years was the weeks or more it took for information to travel from events and power centers to the public. All 'legislatures' suffer the same ills. Cities and neighborhoods are even less capable of general health care or any sort of 'safety net', that extended families and local geographically stable populations attempted to provide in the past. with little real success. Corruption at the National level exists no matter what the responsibilities of States. We can no longer afford systemic paralysis as a designed check and balance on a system whose real ills are mostly the disengagement of the citizen from public life. Both from disillusionment and the huge competing resources thrown into the 'circus of the plebs', modern mass entertainment, which has largely consumed the Fifth Estate and perverted it's functions. The economic enfranchisement of corporations as 'individuals' in the public political/electoral process has moved the imbalance of citizen vs money even further. Thinking health care isn't a national concern shows the all but total economic illiteracy of the American citizen generally. Ill-cared for people cost far more over a life span, produce far less and don't participate meaningfully during much of their life. Look at any of the African countries with short lifespans, rampant STDs, up to 90% of adults suffering from chronic debilitating diseases (Egypt with it's snail vectored Schistosomiasis being the best known) and think where the US would be with our approaching semi-tropical climate over much of the country. Dengue Fever is already endemic in most Southern states and spreading. Unhealthy children not only are a drag on the education system generally but become at best service economy bottom feeders when the useful and rewarding jobs all require even more education then previous generations. Our end loaded system costs 3 times what the better performing GB system does, returning to a front loaded system (Adequate pre- and post-natal care being primary) would cut huge costs lifetime and improve both mortality and general health.

TheHeretic -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 2:13:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Heretic, I understand your question, and as for an answer, I dont think there is a good one. Many Americans cannot afford adequate health care insurance, so they dont have any, they use the emergency rooms as family doctors since the law says that the ER has to provide treatment. When the bills go unpaid, then the costs go up to cover the losses. But I am sure you already knew that. I agree with your theory about single payer health care will go down the toilet, so in my opinion that is not the answer. If we go to a truly nationalized system, personal taxes will go up to pay for it, which is going to make everyone mad. As I understand the problem with American Health care, Doctors have high rates to pay off student loans that covered their education. Hospitals charge high rates to cover losses in the poor using the ER's and not paying, not to mention the cost of keeping current in technology. Bottom line, I do not have the slightest clue other than the "promote general welfare" in the Constitution, but if you take that as the reason the government should get involved in health care, then it would also mean everyone would have jobs, adequate housing, etc. I am sorry, but at some point the people need to take responsibility for themselves. Thanks, Jlf. I think there is a lot more we could do to improve access and quality of care under General welfare, without crossing into the realm of mandates and government takeover. How much load could we take off emergency rooms, if public health free clinics operated 24 hour urgent care offices?

vincentML -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 2:23:01 PM)
Who would operate and pay for these public health free clinics, Rich?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 2:23:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Heretic, I understand your question, and as for an answer, I dont think there is a good one. Many Americans cannot afford adequate health care insurance, so they dont have any, they use the emergency rooms as family doctors since the law says that the ER has to provide treatment. When the bills go unpaid, then the costs go up to cover the losses. But I am sure you already knew that. I agree with your theory about single payer health care will go down the toilet, so in my opinion that is not the answer. If we go to a truly nationalized system, personal taxes will go up to pay for it, which is going to make everyone mad. As I understand the problem with American Health care, Doctors have high rates to pay off student loans that covered their education. Hospitals charge high rates to cover losses in the poor using the ER's and not paying, not to mention the cost of keeping current in technology. Bottom line, I do not have the slightest clue other than the "promote general welfare" in the Constitution, but if you take that as the reason the government should get involved in health care, then it would also mean everyone would have jobs, adequate housing, etc. I am sorry, but at some point the people need to take responsibility for themselves. Thanks, Jlf. I think there is a lot more we could do to improve access and quality of care under General welfare, without crossing into the realm of mandates and government takeover. How much load could we take off emergency rooms, if public health free clinics operated 24 hour urgent care offices? And where do these public free health clinics get their funding?? jlf makes some good points though. But, would you prefer to pay 9% for healthcare in taxes rather than 35% (for many, even more than that) for health insurance from your wages as a separate item? If you paid additional 9% tax but saved 35% or more by not having to buy health insurance, wouldn't you be better off - even as a healthy person? Not to mention that it would eliminate exclusion clauses, and cap costs across the board.

TheHeretic -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 2:36:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Who would operate and pay for these public health free clinics, Rich? That would be the same government entities, partially grant-funded NGO's, and public/private partnerships that operate free public health clinics as they currently exist, Vince. Your spoutings of shit about libertarianism don't have any relationship to my position in the issue. Are you thinking you'll trap me into an admission that it would require tax money? Well fucking DUH. Don't be an asshat.

DomKen -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 3:03:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Why, exactly, is individual healthcare the responsibility of the U.S. government in the first place? Because our out of control health care costs are hurting US companies on the international market. Because our out of control health insurance rates are keeping many people, including many children, out of health care entirely which results in too much lost work, too much preventable illness and too much early death.

deathtothepixies -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 4:36:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 If we go to a truly nationalized system, personal taxes will go up to pay for it, which is going to make everyone mad. I am sorry, but at some point the people need to take responsibility for themselves. That pretty much covers it doesn't it? The refusal to pay any more taxes and the "look after your damn self buddy" attitude. The rich will look after themselves and the poor and less fortunate are fucked, great system

DesideriScuri -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 5:07:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri We are unique in the level of cost within our health care system, but not that health care costs are rising. Try telling that to the many Americans that can no longer afford it due to rising costs. And, costs will continue to rise. There is nothing that is going to reduce the costs of individual services or procedures. So, insurance will be forever required to afford health care. That's fucking ridiculous, imo. Until the individual cost of care is reduced, people still won't be able to afford to purchase care without insurance, and, insurance won't be affordable (because it's based, to some degree, on the individual costs of care). quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Nope. We have a volunteer military, and once one volunteers, fitness is taken care of. Thus, my fitness isn't a concern to the Nation at all. I would say that only President Obama's fitness is of National concern, and, to a lesser extent, VP Biden (it becomes a bigger National concern if President Obama's health starts to wane). No different to any other country with a national policy. I'm not sure how that helps your side of the discussion. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri There is no tyranny from the Federal government? Really? Nothing the NSA does regarding domestic spying? Nothing where US Citizens could, possibly, be the target of a drone strike from our own military? Nooooo, nothing tyrannical at all. Again, only from the US. You don't see much of similar behaviour from anyone else. I know we don't see that behavior from anyone else. Yet, we do see it from the US government. If they aren't controlling our health care and they are overbearing to this degree, how much more overbearing are they going to be when they are controlling our health care, too? Do you trust the US Government? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Localism is the heart of good governance, imo. The further away from the individual you get, the further erosion of control the individual can actually assert on government. Local government should be the form of government that individuals come in contact with and that impacts their daily lives. The further away you get, the less impact on the individual there should be. Who knows better about what situations someone is going to face and what help will be needed than the unit of government closest to the individual? Why bother voting at all then? That's where we have our individualism and our voice is heard. When we had some trouble with a government official, our local MP came to the rescue and kicked butt big-time. That's where you have local control and localized power. That didn't dectract from overall centralized power where things get domne on a national scale. This is where your localised notion is inbred from your environment and why you cannot see the other side of the coin. That statement could also apply to me too. But having lived in both worlds, I have a better appreciation of how this side works and I know which I'd prefer. What I don't think you understand is that all authority emanates from the individual. All of it. There is no authority that doesn't come from the individual. The US Military doesn't come to my house when I'm robbed. That's the job of the local LEO's. The further away from the individual, the less control over government we have, as individuals. That's how the US has been set up. That's how the US Constitution was written. If we want to change that, we have channels we have to go through to change that.

deathtothepixies -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 5:27:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri how much more overbearing are they going to be when they are controlling our health care, too? Do you trust the US Government? Lets imagine you actually had some kind of national health care, basically run by the government, like we do here. In the UK it is a massive vote winner/loser so it is not in the interest of either party to fuck it up. Now I don't trust the gov. whichever party, or coalition is in charge, and I don't believe much of the shit and statistics they tell us about the health service, but all the parties know that they will lose the next election if they demonstrably make a mess of our health service. Maybe, just maybe if you had one, both parties would be forced to look after it, otherwise they don't get elected which is all they really care about

DesideriScuri -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 5:56:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri how much more overbearing are they going to be when they are controlling our health care, too? Do you trust the US Government? Lets imagine you actually had some kind of national health care, basically run by the government, like we do here. In the UK it is a massive vote winner/loser so it is not in the interest of either party to fuck it up. Now I don't trust the gov. whichever party, or coalition is in charge, and I don't believe much of the shit and statistics they tell us about the health service, but all the parties know that they will lose the next election if they demonstrably make a mess of our health service. Maybe, just maybe if you had one, both parties would be forced to look after it, otherwise they don't get elected which is all they really care about There is a conflict of beliefs here that providing for national health care is within the purview of the Federal Government. If it isn't, then it doesn't matter how great an idea is, the Federal Government isn't allowed to do it. And, if something is within the Federal Government's purview doesn't mean it should do it. The Federal Government could raise taxes to 100% on all income, whatever the source or quantity. Doesn't mean it should, though. I've long thought that there may be a place for a national care network, free for the user, no less. DAFUQ (lol)? Did DS really write that? Sho' nuff. Completely Gub'mint run. But, that's where Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc. go for care. Go to a private hospital, and you're bound to pay whatever is negotiated, according to the insurance you hold. Medical students can choose to do their residencies in a government clinic, where they'll get a moderate wage and their loans will be deferred. After residency, they'll have the option of continuing to work at the clinic for a specified period, at the end of which their student loans will be forgiven. Even under that idea, there has to be a determination that individual health care is within the authority of the Federal Government, or an Amendment to the US Constitution granting that authority passed and ratified.

graceadieu -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 6:09:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Why, exactly, is individual healthcare the responsibility of the U.S. government in the first place? It's quite a presumption, for those on the left seeking to distract from the blistering, glaring, failure of the Obama administration on this law, to sneeringly ask, "well what is your solution," without ever establishing that this is the job of our government in the first place. Shouldn't the question of whether we should be doing it at all be resolved, before we try to get into the nuts and bolts of doing it? Though it is widely ignored by liberals here, and our foreign participants can't wrap their heads around the concept at all, we are not subjects of the government to be cared for in this country. Government responsibilty for individual healthcare is not a given. Appeals to emotion don't make the cut, and attempts to demonize the very question only establish that those trying the tactic don't have an answer. Our government was established to promote the general welfare. We all accept that that means the government ensures universal access to police, fire protection, disaster response and primary and secondary schooling - because we know that there things are both essential to the general welfare of our country and are not something the private sector will provide adequately/fairly/universally. You do ask a good question, that is - does medical care fall into the same category as these other things? I would argue, strongly, that it does. Medical care is essential to the general welfare of every person, but on the private market, it's out of reach for many. There is no private-sector solution that will ensure universal access to medical care.

graceadieu -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 6:22:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri My health isn't a National concern, and shouldn't be. The Federal Government, according to the arguments supporting it's ratification, was to be concerned with things that impact the USA as one unit, and to intervene in situations where one State was pit against another State (at the State level). Concerns within the State that pertained only to that State and it's people, were left to the individual States and individuals. That's the way it was set up, to keep the Federal Government less powerful and to prevent tyranny from a National government. Hence the way the ACA was set up to be run at the state level. Unfortunately, some states decided they didn't feel like acting for themselves, and would rather have the federal government tell them what to do.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.736328E-02