Actually the Constitution doesn't allow for it. The Federal Government has enumerated powers, and can only exercise those powers. The rest of the powers are delegated to the State and or the People.
The tenth amendment has not traditionally been interpreted to forbid federal services similar to universal healthcare. There are far more obtrusive and less beneficial federal laws/institutions/regulations in place that are not judged to violate the tenth amendment.
On August 16 2009 10:59 Aegraen wrote: Let me posit, that the European systems are not successful. Why do you think European nations GDP growth has all but halted, or if they do grow, its at an excrutiatingly slow pace. This is what socialism does, and when you nationalize a fifth of the economy when you all ready control the other fourth/fifth of the Economy your asking for trouble. As for the healthcare system itself, rationing of care =/= providing care.
Are you seriously blaming socialism or universal health care to Europe's growth?
What good is a big growth rate if the benefits don't reach the average joe?
"But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all and the security of a given standard of life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others. There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision. It is planning for security of the second kind which has such an insidious effect on liberty. It is planning designed to protect individuals or groups against diminutions of their incomes."
On August 16 2009 10:59 Aegraen wrote: Let me posit, that the European systems are not successful. Why do you think European nations GDP growth has all but halted, or if they do grow, its at an excrutiatingly slow pace. This is what socialism does, and when you nationalize a fifth of the economy when you all ready control the other fourth/fifth of the Economy your asking for trouble. As for the healthcare system itself, rationing of care =/= providing care.
Are you seriously blaming socialism or universal health care to Europe's growth?
What good is a big growth rate if the benefits don't reach the average joe?
Yeah, that growth rate has nothing to do with Americans having the best standard of living in the world.
cob.jmu.edu/rossermv/caldwell.pdf
READ IT.
UHC and socialism at its heart means excruciating taxes, regulation, and other Government control/intervention. This provides a de-incentive to produce. This is why there is hardly any growth in European economies and why Eastern Europe which has embraced Austrian/Chicago school of Economics (Mizes, Hayek, Friedman, etc.) has seen EXPLOSIVE growth in the past 10 years. Increasing standard of living and providing a bulwark safeguard to personal liberties and freedoms, is the epitome of the free-market.
On August 16 2009 10:59 Aegraen wrote: Let me posit, that the European systems are not successful. Why do you think European nations GDP growth has all but halted, or if they do grow, its at an excrutiatingly slow pace. This is what socialism does, and when you nationalize a fifth of the economy when you all ready control the other fourth/fifth of the Economy your asking for trouble. As for the healthcare system itself, rationing of care =/= providing care.
Are you seriously blaming socialism or universal health care to Europe's growth?
What good is a big growth rate if the benefits don't reach the average joe?
Yeah, that growth rate has nothing to do with Americans having the best standard of living in the world.
cob.jmu.edu/rossermv/caldwell.pdf
READ IT.
UHC and socialism at its heart means excruciating taxes, regulation, and other Government control/intervention. This provides a de-incentive to produce. This is why there is hardly any growth in European economies and why Eastern Europe which has embraced Austrian/Chicago school of Economics (Mizes, Hayek, Friedman, etc.) has seen EXPLOSIVE growth in the past 10 years. Increasing standard of living and providing a bulwark safeguard to personal liberties and freedoms, is the epitome of the free-market.
If you believe americans have the best standard of living in the world, then you are as naive. I'm not sure if you understand what Americas GDP per capita is. And I'm pretty sure if you looked up how they measure 'standard of living' you'd know they measure real income per capita, poverty rate, access and quality of health care, income growth inequality, life expectancy and national education levels.
Now I'm pretty sure nobody is disputing the 'quality' of private health care. But 'access' is obviously very limited, since only the rich/those with health insurance can get it. Your GDP per capita isn't the highest ether. Your poverty rates are increasing, with the increase of illegal immigrants which are pushing down your minimum and average wages. Its been quite obvious for a very long time that income growth inequality has been increasing for quite a while now, and while your life expectancy might be relativity quite high now, others are catching up.
If you want to know how much universal health care SHOULD cost. Then perhaps you should check out Rwanda, who (despite an amazingly low GDP) can STILL manage to cover over 90% of the country for 8% of GDP.
Further, I'm sick of your crappy articles from right wing commentators: and will give you a video, from a past president, that deals in facts, things that have changed, and what is possible.
If you still think cheap national health care is impossible despite being proven possible in THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES, then you are living with your head in the sand.
On August 16 2009 10:59 Aegraen wrote: Let me posit, that the European systems are not successful. Why do you think European nations GDP growth has all but halted, or if they do grow, its at an excrutiatingly slow pace. This is what socialism does, and when you nationalize a fifth of the economy when you all ready control the other fourth/fifth of the Economy your asking for trouble. As for the healthcare system itself, rationing of care =/= providing care.
Are you seriously blaming socialism or universal health care to Europe's growth?
What good is a big growth rate if the benefits don't reach the average joe?
Yeah, that growth rate has nothing to do with Americans having the best standard of living in the world.
cob.jmu.edu/rossermv/caldwell.pdf
READ IT.
UHC and socialism at its heart means excruciating taxes, regulation, and other Government control/intervention. This provides a de-incentive to produce. This is why there is hardly any growth in European economies and why Eastern Europe which has embraced Austrian/Chicago school of Economics (Mizes, Hayek, Friedman, etc.) has seen EXPLOSIVE growth in the past 10 years. Increasing standard of living and providing a bulwark safeguard to personal liberties and freedoms, is the epitome of the free-market.
Oh boy.
First your living standard argument has already been addressed by other posters.
Second, that article: lol. I only got to page 8 and the amount of phobia for state owned business (which is not even socialism, I don't know where you get the idea that socialism is being heavily applied in Europe) was astounding.
On August 16 2009 10:59 Aegraen wrote: Let me posit, that the European systems are not successful. Why do you think European nations GDP growth has all but halted, or if they do grow, its at an excrutiatingly slow pace. This is what socialism does, and when you nationalize a fifth of the economy when you all ready control the other fourth/fifth of the Economy your asking for trouble. As for the healthcare system itself, rationing of care =/= providing care.
Are you seriously blaming socialism or universal health care to Europe's growth?
What good is a big growth rate if the benefits don't reach the average joe?
Yeah, that growth rate has nothing to do with Americans having the best standard of living in the world.
cob.jmu.edu/rossermv/caldwell.pdf
READ IT.
UHC and socialism at its heart means excruciating taxes, regulation, and other Government control/intervention. This provides a de-incentive to produce. This is why there is hardly any growth in European economies and why Eastern Europe which has embraced Austrian/Chicago school of Economics (Mizes, Hayek, Friedman, etc.) has seen EXPLOSIVE growth in the past 10 years. Increasing standard of living and providing a bulwark safeguard to personal liberties and freedoms, is the epitome of the free-market.
If you believe americans have the best standard of living in the world, then you are as naive. I'm not sure if you understand what Americas GDP per capita is. And I'm pretty sure if you looked up how they measure 'standard of living' you'd know they measure real income per capita, poverty rate, access and quality of health care, income growth inequality, life expectancy and national education levels.
Now I'm pretty sure nobody is disputing the 'quality' of private health care. But 'access' is obviously very limited, since only the rich/those with health insurance can get it. Your GDP per capita isn't the highest ether. Your poverty rates are increasing, with the increase of illegal immigrants which are pushing down your minimum and average wages. Its been quite obvious for a very long time that income growth inequality has been increasing for quite a while now, and while your life expectancy might be relativity quite high now, others are catching up.
If you want to know how much universal health care SHOULD cost. Then perhaps you should check out Rwanda, who (despite an amazingly low GDP) can STILL manage to cover over 90% of the country for 8% of GDP.
Further, I'm sick of your crappy articles from right wing commentators: and will give you a video, from a past president, that deals in facts, things that have changed, and what is possible.
If you still think cheap national health care is impossible despite being proven possible in THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES, then you are living with your head in the sand.
Oh, I forgot that F.A. Hayek is a "right wing commentator". Silly me. I guess Cicero and Montisqiue are also "right wing commentators" right?
Edit: Of course cheap national healthcare is possible, but the quality and access of care would be on the order of magnitudes 50 worse than what we currently have. Isn't the goal to improve the system, not to take 10 steps backwards?
In case you didn't know, what we consider poverty in the US is a household with a car, tv, and computer. Those under the poverty line all ready receive free healthcare, which is in fact bankrupting the country. So, if medicare and medicaid (poor / old) is all ready bankrupting the country, what do you suppose encompassing every person in America whether illegal or legal (as this bill does) will do to our financial situation? You can argue whether that what is will happen with this bill, but in any case this bill will pave the way for ever more intrusive UHC systems at least.
I'm still wondering why people seem to only think a Government run UHC system is the only way to reform the system.
On August 16 2009 10:59 Aegraen wrote: Let me posit, that the European systems are not successful. Why do you think European nations GDP growth has all but halted, or if they do grow, its at an excrutiatingly slow pace. This is what socialism does, and when you nationalize a fifth of the economy when you all ready control the other fourth/fifth of the Economy your asking for trouble. As for the healthcare system itself, rationing of care =/= providing care.
Are you seriously blaming socialism or universal health care to Europe's growth?
What good is a big growth rate if the benefits don't reach the average joe?
Yeah, that growth rate has nothing to do with Americans having the best standard of living in the world.
cob.jmu.edu/rossermv/caldwell.pdf
READ IT.
UHC and socialism at its heart means excruciating taxes, regulation, and other Government control/intervention. This provides a de-incentive to produce. This is why there is hardly any growth in European economies and why Eastern Europe which has embraced Austrian/Chicago school of Economics (Mizes, Hayek, Friedman, etc.) has seen EXPLOSIVE growth in the past 10 years. Increasing standard of living and providing a bulwark safeguard to personal liberties and freedoms, is the epitome of the free-market.
If you believe americans have the best standard of living in the world, then you are as naive. I'm not sure if you understand what Americas GDP per capita is. And I'm pretty sure if you looked up how they measure 'standard of living' you'd know they measure real income per capita, poverty rate, access and quality of health care, income growth inequality, life expectancy and national education levels.
Now I'm pretty sure nobody is disputing the 'quality' of private health care. But 'access' is obviously very limited, since only the rich/those with health insurance can get it. Your GDP per capita isn't the highest ether. Your poverty rates are increasing, with the increase of illegal immigrants which are pushing down your minimum and average wages. Its been quite obvious for a very long time that income growth inequality has been increasing for quite a while now, and while your life expectancy might be relativity quite high now, others are catching up.
If you want to know how much universal health care SHOULD cost. Then perhaps you should check out Rwanda, who (despite an amazingly low GDP) can STILL manage to cover over 90% of the country for 8% of GDP.
Further, I'm sick of your crappy articles from right wing commentators: and will give you a video, from a past president, that deals in facts, things that have changed, and what is possible.
If you still think cheap national health care is impossible despite being proven possible in THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES, then you are living with your head in the sand.
Oh, I forgot that F.A. Hayek is a "right wing commentator". Silly me.
Edit: Of course cheap national healthcare is possible, but the quality and access of care would be on the order of magnitudes 50 worse than what we currently have. Isn't the goal to improve the system, not to take 10 steps backwards?
Your right. I think I've found out what i detest about conservatives. Your all selfish dicks. You argue that you shouldn't have to pay to SAVE SOMEONES LIFE, so you can instead afford to buy more shares on the stock market or a new flat screen tv.
I can totally understand why you made that comment now. You value 'quality' over 'access'. If you had the choice to improve quality OR access, you would undoubtedly choose quality. I can see how putting money into increasing access would seem like "ten steps back" to you, because you could be spending that money on quality instead.
Your wrong about access of Rwanda being 50 times worse than the US by the way. Its almost better than yours. And in terms of quality: its almost becoming as good as well. Wanna know why? Its because they aren't all fat, eat horribly and have to exercise because they're not educated enough to have office jobs and don't have enough to buy cars.
If you really cared about this: then you'd realize its the unhealthy Americans that are as much the problem of the health care system as the system itself. But then again: we wouldn't want to take away your 'liberty' and 'freedom' to become a fat slob now would we?
edit: A note to Aegraen: I will not reply to any more of your posts until you watch that video. I've read every article from you, and taken note of every detail they've chosen to miss out. At least Bill Clinton isn't just spouting words, he's there DOING it. Unlike the authors of your articles, we don't all have the luxury to ponder if charging people who earn less than $1 a day for medicine which they need to survive is a good idea or not.
On August 16 2009 12:14 Aegraen wrote: Edit: Of course cheap national healthcare is possible, but the quality and access of care would be on the order of magnitudes 50 worse than what we currently have. Isn't the goal to improve the system, not to take 10 steps backwards?
three things: a) America is hella diverse. b) Americans live ridiculously unhealthy lifestyles. c) Canada is fairly heterogenous and not that unhealthy compared to the U.S. Ditto most European countries and Japan, which have universal healthcare. d) It is a fairly obvious statement that people that live unhealthy lifestyles cost more money. With regions such as the south that have large amounts of obese persons and smokers, it's relatively unfair for people that live healthier lifestyles, such as the northeast. Why should I, who lives relatively healthy and exercises a lot, be forced to pay (no matter how small the costs may appear to be or may not appear to be) for others irresponsibility? e) there is no tort reform, a condition which isn't in Europe/Japan, which is an absolutely huge medical cost from malpractice/insurance that is passed on to the consumer. It's very easy to blame doctors for charging high costs when one can also sue them/their insurance company for 300k + punitives. f) Fun fact: the healthcare bill is being debated by lawyers and ex-lawyers, the same group that would be hurt the most from tort reform. g) the current US Healthcare system is a piece of crap.
If I wanted to fix the healthcare system, I would do the following:
A) Deregulate large parts of the pharmaceutical regulatory system that force high costs on smaller research companies. While regulations are necessary, much of these regulations hurt small companies and discourage new approaches to medical treatment, rather than treatments from large groups like Pfizer and Merck to develop constant treatments to things rather than the actual cures to them. B) Massive amounts of Tort Reform. Reduce the maximum malpractice benefits and punitive suits, and also reduce medical liability. One reason medical costs are so high are because doctors are spazzing out in case this miss something and get sued: as a result, they often order excess tests and medication that may not be necessary, just so they can avoid a lawsuit. C) New sources of clients and patient information-this could come through the internet. Most new doctors are forced to sign up for insurance company lists in order to gain patients as they are new and do not have word of mouth to assist them. Since the insurance companies force a certain price on the doctors, the doctors have no choice but to screw the uninsured and force them to pay more in order to compensate for their costs. With more information available regarding doctors, freer market conditions would assist these doctors in getting patients based on their ability, not how many insurance companies they signed up for. D) Reduce the overreliance on HMOs and PPOs and the like. HMOs were originally designed to be nonprofit organizations. The fact that healthcare prices started steadily increasing with the increasing privatization and subsidization of new health insurance providers is not coincidental. By no means abolish them, but no insurance should be a viable alternative for individuals who feel that they live very healthily and do not need health care. E) Fix Medicare. Medicare is also responsible for the runaway of healthcare prices. I would go into more detail about this, but I'm a lazy shit and am about to pass out.
Syntax Lost made some really good points in the other thread advocating for a public system, and while that would certainly be an improvement over what we have now it's not the best thing to do.
On August 16 2009 12:14 Aegraen wrote: Edit: Of course cheap national healthcare is possible, but the quality and access of care would be on the order of magnitudes 50 worse than what we currently have. Isn't the goal to improve the system, not to take 10 steps backwards?
Summation: We have 50+ Trillion UNFUNDED liabilities covering Medicaid, Medicare. Medicaid and Medicare accounts for approximately 1/3 of the countries 300+ million people. Now, you want to increase that, at least doubling it according to Cato at least 88 million will be shifted onto the socialized medical plan.
If you think doubling the amount of people on the Government dole is economically feasible when the numbers do not support this thesis, and that by adding more people onto the Government plan that coverage will suddenly become more accessible (This means, not having longer waiting lines, access to current medical technology, no cost benefit:analysis ratio, etc. even though Obama's top healthcare advisor Ezekial Emmanuel is a proponent of the worst of worst things in UHC).
Furthermore, its highly documentated how horrendous the VA system is, which is a UHC system. It doesn't take much googling or asking veterans what they think about the VA to find this out. You are in for far worse with this bill, or any incarnation that places Government solutions at the forefront.
The complete lives system discriminates against older people. Age-based allocation is ageism. Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through diff erent life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.16 Treating 65-yearolds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.
Yes, who wouldn't want such a benevolent person heading the push for nationalized healthcare? This is the man who is the top advisor to Obama regarding this "healthcare reformation" and is why I said all people 45-50+ should be against this insidious plan.
On August 16 2009 12:14 Aegraen wrote: encompassing every person in America whether illegal or legal (as this bill does)
Source? The list on page 1 has already proven untrustworthy.
i can tell you from a congressperson's mouth (i interned for one this summer), and from legislative directors that have read the bill that illegal aliens are not covered under the current version of the obama health care plan -- this is from an office that is going to vote "no" on it too, just so you don't think its a sponsor or anything. our staff read every page of the 1000+ page bill -- illegals are not covered under it.
you can cite all the ridiculous sources and links you want, but i literally had a copy of that huge ass bill sitting on my desk a week ago.
EPT
