|
DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/9/2014 5:11:01 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: eulero83
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Either that, or to set up a way for individual rights are protected. Since the latter is the reason we declared our independence from England (*From the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"), it would seem that "pursuing the public interest" isn't really the reason for government.
so now it's no more the costitution but the declaration of independence... that by the way is the reason you declared a war to your former governament, not the reason you built another one, the revolution could have lead to creating 13 new nations with their own governament and costitution, so I just reject this.
You can reject the truth all you want. The Declaration of Independence spelled out the reasoning behind why the colonies were separating from England. The Declaration spelled out why governments are instituted. The US Constitution spells out the authorities granted to the Federal Government of the USA.
Could there have been 13 individual "nation states?" Absolutely. Apparently, they thought there may be a bit more strength in numbers, though. Hell, it could have been one large "nation state" with 13 counties, if that's what they decided.
But, they didn't.
After signing Articles of Confederation and dealing with that form of government, they wanted a Federal government with more authorities than were granted by the Articles of Confederation. The States and the People were still leery of an all-powerful central government, thus the authorities were limited.
quote:
quote:
I've stated before that there is no authority granted by the US Constitution for it to provide for the health care of the Citizens. And, since it's not there, the Federal Government hasn't the authority. I've stated before that it's been left to the States or the People. This is also one of the reasons why I didn't have a problem with Romneycare.
That providing a public service means imposing something on the population and that goes against individual rights is kind of a strange concept, I don't know if you came out with that or if you heard it from some lobbyist or politician, but I and the rest of the world, do not agree with this concept.
I don't give a fuck what's strange to other countries. The idea of a Republican form of government was pretty strange back in the late 1700's, too. Perhaps you trust your government more than we do over here. You may have good reason for that, too.
quote:
quote:
If it's not an authorized function of the Federal Government, there isn't the authority to raise money for it. Why shouldn't everyone pay a tax, if it's a public good? Why shouldn't those who make less still pay in? Look at the NI. Once you get above taxable income levels, you pay the full 8.x%NI. It's not relegated to just "the rich." Everyone pays in (except those who don't make enough to pay any income taxes). Targeting "the rich" only keeps the majority of people outside of that tax scheme for election purposes. There's zero fairness about it.
How do they tax for health care in Italy? Do only the rich pay for it, or does nearly everyone pay for it?
In Italy income taxes do not have a labels, it's not that you are taxed some % for this or that service, you are just taxed by the state, the region, the province or the municipality. For health care there is a small fee you have to pay for some services called "ticket", there are no fees for GP or ER, but it's mainly paid with public expenditure. Now I used public expediture and not taxes because this is a concept not all understand, I already explined that before in this thread, since currency is not directly connected to a metal like gold or silver, money have no real value untill they are not spent by the governament, through public expenditure the governament invest creating value with those serices it organized, than those money are spent again and again creating more added value, at the end of the year the governament collects part of those money to control the economy (in terms of inflation, public debt and that capital will be invested in the economy again). So saying taxes pay services is an old concept that in the usa was no more true after nixon presidency. This is also the reason why you start a war on something (or even on someone) everytime you are in an economical crisis, defeating an enemy is the only way public expenditure can be accepted by all the parties.
p.s. I don't think paying health care mainly through fees is a good idea, so I do not agree with obamacare nor romnaycare, but it pictures a slightly improvement on the precedent situation.
Were taxes increased when they initially started the public care in Italy? Most of what has been discussed on these boards has been the NIH, and that is a separate category.
A big problem with Romneycare and Obamacare is that it isn't going to reduce the cost of care. It might cut down on the aggregate amount we spend, but only by reducing the amount of care given (no, not a claim of "Death Panels," but preventive medicine - which I have always been in favor of - will tend to reduce the amount of reactive medicine needed; follows the adage, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"). So, if I get the exact same amount/type of care this year as I did last year, I'll still be spending a godawful amount of money compared to those exact same services in other countries.
Capping the reimbursement rates will have a deleterious effect on the supply of care.
I don't think there is any way a NIH system would be workable in the US unless the government took over the hospital system (like the NIH, and Italy's national health system), making those workers government employees. There would be a lot of cost savings due to reductions in management salaries and advertising.
But, I do believe there would need to be a Constitutional Amendment for the Federal Government to have the authority to do that.
|
|
|
|
