quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

If we set a figure of what is considered a fair profit then what they spend or do not spend becomes less important. Since the figure sets a relationship based on investment and profit.
So again lets take a wild stab at what is a fair profit.
I am convinced from many of your previous posts that you do not feel that anyone may assume what is a fair profit in a free enterprise system. 
If on the other hand we consider state monopolies like the power company then the state determines what is a fair profit.
My statement was in response to your substantiating the profit margins of the drug companies based on what they spend on research as if what they spent on research was a huge number and consequently requiring corresponding profits...I was simply pointing out that the drug companies spend much more on advertising and lobbying than they do on research.  Would you like to justify profit margins based on how much they spend on lobbying?
Advertising and lobbying are recognized expenses, unless you want to change those rules for all business concerns.



Three examples of LOCAL government functions by and large.
Police Fire and Education are pretty much local matters so apples and oranges compared to a nationwide healthcare system.
Hardly apples and oranges since police fire and education are nationwide and all local jurisdictions are subject to the federal government.  The local police department the town of Adelanto, California was recently disbanded by the department of justice and replaced by the county sherrif because of its criminal behaviour.

Exactly Apples and Oranges both fruits but different enough. Unless the federal laws are being broken, local jurisdictions generally only get funding from Federal government for various programs the Federal government generally stays out of the day to day operations. They may set a required standard for matching funds but that's generally it.


As to the Constitution's General Welfare clause it says Promote the general welfare not provide for it. Removal of obsticles to opportunity is a far cry from giving away someone elses money.

Just how would one  remove the obsticals to access to health care by the poor.
You like to keep using the phrase "giving away someone elses money"  The government does not do anything to earn money.  The government  taxes the citizens in order to get money to do what government does. 
Government funds libraries,education,fire protection,police protection and on and on ...health care would be just one more in a long list of things the government can and should do.  If you feel that government should not do this one need only look at what governments lack of action in this area has accomplished.
If you choose to buy a home the government subsidizes you by allowing you to deduct from your taxable income the amount that you pay in interest on your mortgage.  Why do they do this?  Because it is felt that home ownership is a good thing for our society.  Why does the government provide public education?  Because it is felt the an educated  citizen is good for society.  So also are healthy citizens good for society, consequently it would follow that the government would tax us to pay for it just as they tax us to pay for the other services that are deemed to be in the best interest of our society.
thompson

Thank you for the party line of socialistic/ progressive/ liberal interpritation of the general welfare clause. It's about a 6th grade government class level lesson.
You can spout the opinion all day long as I can spout the libertarian or conservative argument that it means removal of obsticles to people getting the nessesities of life for themselves so long as they are not doing so by infringing on the rights of someone else by force or theft including through fraud. The arguments are well past the point of simply stating them. Rather it is more usefull to discuss the values/ ideas that get one to the possition. or to p[ropose ideas for solving the problems according to our respective camps. (grin)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

As I have posted before, when a system is  created and its users "see" that someone else is going to pay, then there is no doubt, IMO, that that system will be abused.

Without any doubt, as I see it, that is the problem with a "universal" supply of anything.
That difficulty needs a solution. NO?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

If we set a figure of what is considered a fair profit then what they spend or do not spend becomes less important. Since the figure sets a relationship based on investment and profit.
So again lets take a wild stab at what is a fair profit.
I am convinced from many of your previous posts that you do not feel that anyone may assume what is a fair profit in a free enterprise system. 
If on the other hand we consider state monopolies like the power company then the state determines what is a fair profit.
My statement was in response to your substantiating the profit margins of the drug companies based on what they spend on research as if what they spent on research was a huge number and consequently requiring corresponding profits...I was simply pointing out that the drug companies spend much more on advertising and lobbying than they do on research.  Would you like to justify profit margins based on how much they spend on lobbying?
Advertising and lobbying are recognized expenses, unless you want to change those rules for all business concerns.
I am glad you acknowledge and agree with my point.


Three examples of LOCAL government functions by and large.
Police Fire and Education are pretty much local matters so apples and oranges compared to a nationwide healthcare system.
Hardly apples and oranges since police fire and education are nationwide and all local jurisdictions are subject to the federal government.  The local police department the town of Adelanto, California was recently disbanded by the department of justice and replaced by the county sherrif because of its criminal behaviour.

Exactly Apples and Oranges both fruits but different enough. Unless the federal laws are being broken, local jurisdictions generally only get funding from Federal government for various programs the Federal government generally stays out of the day to day operations. They may set a required standard for matching funds but that's generally it.
Thank you again for agreeing with my point that federal oversight covers local institutions.

As to the Constitution's General Welfare clause it says Promote the general welfare not provide for it. Removal of obsticles to opportunity is a far cry from giving away someone elses money.

Just how would one  remove the obsticals to access to health care by the poor.
You like to keep using the phrase "giving away someone elses money"  The government does not do anything to earn money.  The government  taxes the citizens in order to get money to do what government does. 
Government funds libraries,education,fire protection,police protection and on and on ...health care would be just one more in a long list of things the government can and should do.  If you feel that government should not do this one need only look at what governments lack of action in this area has accomplished.
If you choose to buy a home the government subsidizes you by allowing you to deduct from your taxable income the amount that you pay in interest on your mortgage.  Why do they do this?  Because it is felt that home ownership is a good thing for our society.  Why does the government provide public education?  Because it is felt the an educated  citizen is good for society.  So also are healthy citizens good for society, consequently it would follow that the government would tax us to pay for it just as they tax us to pay for the other services that are deemed to be in the best interest of our society.
thompson

Thank you for the party line of socialistic/ progressive/ liberal interpritation of the general welfare clause. It's about a 6th grade government class level lesson.
I fail to see where I have offered a party line on anything.  What I have done is ask you a question which you have chosen to answer with rhetoric.
 
 

You can spout the opinion all day long as I can spout the libertarian or conservative argument
This is not a left right conservative liberal discussion...so please do not try to make it one.


that it means removal of obsticles to people getting the nessesities of life for themselves so long as they are not doing so by infringing on the rights of someone else by force or theft including through fraud
The only ones infringing on the rights of others by force,theft and fraud are medical and pharmaceutical establishment.

The arguments are well past the point of simply stating them. Rather it is more usefull to discuss the values/ ideas that get one to the possition. or to p[ropose ideas for solving the problems according to our respective camps. (grin)
As long as you choose to state the problem in terms of the greedy loafers trying to suck the life blood out of the productive members of society we have not clearly stated the problem.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: SubmissiveSissie

If you're a bum who collect welfare checks every month, pay for your own stuff.

That's how I look at it.

A right to people who deserve it. A priviledge to those who don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Without any doubt, as I see it, that is the problem with a "universal" supply of anything.
That difficulty needs a solution. NO?

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Thompson: your post 221 raises some  good points which are IMO impossible to disagree with.. In fact I am in favour of the UK NHS and I do not have private insurance. I have over the years paid plenty of tax into the system tho' Still do.
All of my points are irrefragable that is why I post them.



However the NHS was set up to provide needed basic medical care, not to make people happy per se, not to spend more and more on bureacrats , managers, image consultants etc etc.
We both agree that the scum who skim should be replaced with non scum that don't skim.


An example of excessive medical care is that accorded to pregnant women. Simply millions are spent on ante natal care which for the most part produces no worthwhile benefit. To find say 10 abnormalities when regularly testing 50 thousand women, and spend large amounts doing it, is not good business sense. That money could  either be not spent at all or diverted to say geriatric care.
Similarly with IVF treatment. Counselling of various kinds etc etc
While I would agree that money should be spent first where it is most needed I do not feel that you or I are in a position to deny someone treatment for those things that do not affect us directly.  It is clear that me and thee will need geriatic care sooner than later and will never need IVF.  On the other hand I am sure that some on these boards would recomend both of us for counselling.  My thoughts are that who among us could not benifit from counsel.  It is common to be dismissive of those who woud seek intelectual or emotional medication.  It is a well understood axiom in medicine that a healthy mind leads inexorably to a healthy body .

It is that lack of discipline that causes NHS costs, and welfare costs in general to spiral out of control when the organisations, ultimately, are controlled by "accountable" politicians and management delegated to state funded empire builders.
Is it really a lack of discipline or the fact that there are some greedy people who behave in a reprehensible manner for their own selfish ends.  Then instead of the populace grabbing the offenders by the scruff of the neck and tossing them in jail  for their fraudulant behaviour we castigate the recipients of the system as being the problem.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Without any doubt, as I see it, that is the problem with a "universal" supply of anything.
That difficulty needs a solution. NO?

If people have a problem with paying for universal healhcare, I have a problem with paying for the roads people drive their fucking SUVs on since I don't own a car. It would be much cheaper for me if there was only bus lanes and tramlines in the town. Why the fuck should people pay for other people's luxury if they can't be arsed to contribute a little something so eveyone can have healthcare? While we are at it, why the fuck should people pay for a military to go and fight wars for corporate America?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
Hell lets just have the government feed us house us and raise us all to mediocrity.