Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Will the united states ever have universal healthcare? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=389870)

  • Oct 13, 2009, 04:57 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    You have finally got to the nub of the debate on health care in the US; paranoia about communism.

    Geez I'm so glad you guys know so much about us. I really haven't seen any paranoia about communism lately. On the other hand, Elliot, tom and myself have followed what the left has said for years now and we are quite familiar with their stated goals. It's really easy to know what they want when they say so.

    But just FYI, the Ap has a story that explains much of the feeling in America now, Obama is ever-present.

    Quote:

    Put aside for a moment the question of whether government is actually intruding into people's lives more than before. The point is that many people feel like it is — in part because Obama doesn't stop talking about his goals. If President George W. Bush got slapped around for being inarticulate, is Obama obnoxiously articulate?

    "Obama's omnipresence refracts as big government to some degree," says Eric Dezenhall, an image consultant who has worked with celebrities and business leaders. "For those who like him, it reinforces their support for him. But for others, every time he appears, he conjures up the whole whiff of overreaching government and causes resentment."
    Maybe it's about time the guy shuts up for a while.

    Quote:

    Let's face it the US doesn't spend many dollars for a kid in Africa to have health care because they believe that kid should pay its own way the same way they expect their own people to pay their own way.
    That's bullsh*t, Clete.
  • Oct 13, 2009, 04:59 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    You realize that Canada and the US are so incredibly similar - that must mean that you are already socialist - welcome!

    I posted one just for you NK, take a look.
  • Oct 13, 2009, 07:04 PM
    paraclete
    Cut and shut
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Geez I'm so glad you guys know so much about us. I really haven't seen any paranoia about communism lately. /ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_face_of_government"]Obama is ever-present[/URL].

    Maybe it's about time the guy shuts up for a while. .

    Now it would be nice if we could convince not only Obama but all politicians and the media along with them to shut up for a while, but then we would be infringing on some of those wonderful freedoms wouldn't we, the freedom to bullsh*t:D


    Quote:

    That's bullsh*t, Clete.
    No more so than the bullsh*t that the US actually cares about the rest of the world, that it is a caring and sharing nation. In a pig's eye. :D
  • Oct 13, 2009, 11:17 PM
    Synnen
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    You have finally got to the nub of the debate on health care in the US; paranoia about communism.

    The right in the US equates socialism as being communism and therefore un-american as if being un-american is necessarily a bad thing. These guys are more brainwashed than the Russian communists used to be.

    Let's face it the US doesn't spend many dollars for a kid in Africa to have health care because they believe that kid should pay its own way the same way they expect their own people to pay their own way. The Darwinian anthem of survival of the fittest is sung in the US every day and being fit equates to having money. Even if all the money they spend on foreign aid were diverted to paying for health care in the US it would make no difference at all, because it is the system and the thinking behind the system that needs reform and it starts with the premise that the rights they so fervently espouse include a right to health care


    Excuse me?

    I'm absolutely not paranoid about communism.

    While I'm absolutely against the Marxist idea of "pay according to your ability, receive according to your need", I've stated over and over that I don't mind paying for the things that actually DO improve our society as a whole. The fire department, the police department, the road crews, the education system, the MILLIONS of tax dollars that go in grants towards medical research, the National Parks system, and what have you.

    What I *am* against is having to pay for someone else's bad choices. I've been adamantly against Welfare for years now, and I'm adamantly against paying for someone else's health care because they made choices that made it so that they cannot afford it on their own.

    That's not anti-communism. That's anti-laziness, anti-idiocy, amd anti-selfishness.

    Once again--show me an adult in this country that can't afford health insurance through no fault of their own.

    The ONLY people you're going to be able to come up with are the ones who are currently "uninsurable" due to a pre-existing condition. So... let's get rid of THAT problem, and make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage or charge over x amount more for those with pre-existing conditions.

    Problem solved!
  • Oct 13, 2009, 11:23 PM
    Synnen
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Now it would be nice if we could convince not only Obama but all politicians and the media along with them to shut up for a while, but then we would be infringing on some of those wonderfull freedoms wouldn't we, the freedom to bullsh*t:D




    No more so than the bullsh*t that the US actually cares about the rest of the world, that it is a caring and sharing nation. In a pig's eye. :D

    Yeah... and HOW much international aid came to the US when Katrina hit?

    I'd say that the US *Government* doesn't care about the rest of the world--in fact, I'd say our government has exploited far too many countries in the last 30 years--but the US *people* give to the plight of other countries pretty consistently, really.

    Let's put it this way:

    Would YOU want the U.S. Government to be running YOUR health care system, based on your opinion of the US in general, and its government in particular? I'm not talking just UHC here--I'm asking you if you'd want OUR government to set up YOUR UHC.
  • Oct 14, 2009, 12:04 AM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Synnen View Post
    Yeah....and HOW much international aid came to the US when Katrina hit?

    I'd say that the US *Government* doesn't care about the rest of the world--in fact, I'd say our government has exploited far too many countries in the last 30 years--but the US *people* give to the plight of other countries pretty consistantly, really.

    Let's put it this way:

    Would YOU want the U.S. Government to be running YOUR health care system, based on your opinion of the US in general, and its government in particular? I'm not talking just UHC here--I'm asking you if you'd want OUR government to set up YOUR UHC.

    You didn't get aid for Katrina because you didn't ask for it

    No, I would not like your government in control of anything, in my opinion they couldn't control sex in a brothel :D let alone develop partisan policies that really benefit everyone, but they are your government elected by the people for the people, etc, etc, etc or is it that they have forgotten the purpose they exist. The US has the government it deserves because they are prepared to put up with the load of bull* their politicians put out. So the point is you don't want them in control of health care so it is time to change the government or change the population.

    There are basic fundamentals which should be part of any health care system
    Choice of health care provider
    Coverage for preexisting conditions
    Coverage for those whose circumstances might disadvantage them
    Adequate compensation for necessary procedures
    Reasonable cost

    That said such a scheme shouldn't cover elective procedures. You suggestion that wrong choices should exclude basic care is disengenerous and tainted by the Darwinian theorm since this requires a health provider or public servant to make judgments beyond their competancy

    We have the health care system we have because our system provides for rigorous debate and a mechanism which rarely gives absolute power to any government, so what is proposed ultimately has to be considered reasonable and not tagged with meaningless local spending provisions. Deals are done but they are done within the perspective of the budget and ministerial responsibility
  • Oct 14, 2009, 06:35 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    No more so than the bullsh*t that the US actually cares about the rest of the world, that it is a caring and sharing nation. In a pig's eye. :D

    I think Elliot pointed out that our people are more generous than any other nation, 143% more generous than Australians. Take those numbers and stick 'em in your pig's eye.
  • Oct 14, 2009, 07:25 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    I think Elliot pointed out that our people are more generous than any other nation, 143% more generous than Australians. Take those numbers and stick 'em in your pig's eye.

    Yep.

    We GREEDY AMERICANS who DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT ANYONE ELSE give privately to charity in the amount of 1.63% of GDP. (This doesn't include GOVERNMENT AID, only charitable giving by individuals.)

    Whereas, the great charitable Brits give 0.73% of their GDP to charity,
    Canadians give 0.72% of GDP to charity, and Australians give 0.69% of GDP to charity.

    Would you like to see that in terms of actual dollars given?

    The following are the GDPs of our 4 countries as per the CIA World Factbook.

    USA - $14.26 Trillion (2008 estimate)
    UK - $2.226 Trillion (2008 estimate)
    Canada - $1.3 Trillion (2008 estimate)
    Australia - $800.2 Billion (2008 estimate)

    That means that the USA gives $232.44 Billion in private charitable givings.

    Compared to $14.25 billion given privately by the UK, $9.36 billion given by Canada, and $5.52 billion given by Australia.

    In percentage of GDP terms, we Americans give 2.23 times what Brits give, 2.26 times what Canadians give, and 2.36 times what Aussies give.

    In actual dollars, we give 16.3 times what Brits give, 24.8 times what Canada gives and 42.1 times what Australia gives.

    But we just don't care, we're greedy, and we don't help other people. All we care about is ourselves. YOU GUYS are the charitable, open-handed types.

    >chuckle<

    Elliot
  • Oct 14, 2009, 07:39 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Yep.

    We GREEDY AMERICANS who DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT ANYONE ELSE give privately to charity in the amount of 1.63% of GDP. (This doesn't include GOVERNMENT AID, only charitable giving by individuals. >chuckle<

    Hello again, Elliot:

    While you guys are busy congratulating yourself on how wonderful you are, people are DYING right here at home because they don't have access to heath care.

    Deaths from No Health Insurance Under Clinton, Bush, Obama | Health Care Kali's Blog

    Based on the methodology of the Institute of Medicine, here are estimated numbers of American deaths due to lack of health insurance under three presidents.

    Clinton: (Two terms) 144,000 Americans
    Bush: (two terms) 176,000 Americans
    Obama: (Since Jan 20) 1,260 Americans

    -----------------

    >chuckle< (only because you're so wrong - not because so many have died)

    excon
  • Oct 14, 2009, 08:08 AM
    tomder55

    There will be at least as many who die under these proposed plans. The funny thing is that in unguarded moments of candor ,the Dems. All but admit the Palin charge is true.

    Here is former Labor Sec. Robert Reich ,currently a key advisor to the President .
    YouTube - Robert Reich: What An Honest President Would Say About Health Reform

    Quote:

    I'll actually give you a speech made up entirely, almost on the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:

    "Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that's true and what I'm going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people...you're going to have to pay more.

    "Thank you. And by the way, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive... so we're going to let you die."

    "Also I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid---we already have a lot of bargaining leverage---to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents. Thank you."
  • Oct 14, 2009, 08:08 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    While you guys are busy congratulating yourself on how wonderful you are, people are DYING right here at home because they don't have access to heath care.

    It's not self-congratulating to defend America's honor against false smears. Unlike the president I'd rather correct the record than apologize and grovel for acceptance.

    Quote:

    Based on the methodology of the Institute of Medicine, here are estimated numbers of American deaths due to lack of health insurance under three presidents.
    Again you're muddling things up, you said they're dying because "they don't have access to heath care." These muckrakers claim they're dying because the don't have health insurance. I say both are pretty darned difficult to prove. You might note also that according to their methodology somewhere around 37.5 million Americans died with health insurance during that time.
  • Oct 14, 2009, 08:10 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Here is former Labor Sec. Robert Reich ,currently a key advisor to the President

    Nice catch tom, I heard that speech yesterday. I loved how the crowd applauded him on each point.
  • Oct 14, 2009, 08:18 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Ah we have dragged out the great depression as an excuse for doing nothing. Self Inflicted injury.

    Huh? Where did you get that from anything I said.

    If you will read my post, you will find that what I said was that DESPITE the Great Depression WE, not the UK, became a Superpower, while the UK languished.

    Quote:

    Just like our current great financial crisis you (US) caused the great depression with your largess and over reliance on the "market". If you are an economist you should have learned the lessons, not sat on your pedistal and glowered down at the lesser mortals.
    I did learn from the errors of the past. As I have posted on a number of prior occasions, it was GOVERNMENT Interference that caused the Great Depression to last for a decade more than it had to, and it is the same government intervention that caused the current financial fiasco. In fact, it was the same government attempts as social engineering that caused both of the crises. The beliefe that everyone should be taken care of by the government, regardless of the cost, is what caused both problems.

    FDR did it because he mistakenly thought his New Deal would help get the country OUT of the Depression by giving people make-work jobs that didn't actually produce anything. The government paid for nothing to be produced... and the result was that nothing was produced. It was welfare, and it failed as welfare always has.

    In the current crisis, it was government's insistence that everyone "deserves" to own a home and should be given the ability to buy one, whether they could afford it or not. Another welfare program that failed.

    In the first case, the New Deal resulted in government spending that outstripped their ability to pay for that spending, a weakening of the currency, massive inflation, and higher unemployment.

    In the case of the second, we saw the creation of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act, which created an environment in which banks were FORCED to lend 60% of their loans to sub-prime borrowers that we KNEW wouldn't be able to pay us back, but were told to rely on the government's guarantees from Fannie and Freddie to make us whole. Well, the loans went bad, and Fannie and Freddie failed to make us whole because they couldn't keep up with the costs of their bad policies. Result: the government ended up spending more in guarantees of bad mortgages than they could pay for, ended up spending even more to bail the banks out, and now we have a $3 Trillion budget deficit, a $12 trillion official national debt, and are borrowing money that our grandkids will be paying back, printing money at an enormous rate, and are creating the very same conditions that existed during the Great Depression. And for exactly the same reason... social engineering by the government.

    So yes, some of us learned our lessons. But they don't work in the government.

    In fact, I just attended a seminar given by the Office of the Controller of The Currency (OCC) two weeks ago. The topic was "SBA lending", making government-guaranteed loans to small businesses. The SBA (Small Business Administration, a government agency) was rolling out a new program called the "ARC (America's Recovery Capital) Loan Program" (and ain't that name just a total lie). The program is designed to lend money to businesses that are having trouble paying their current loans. The loans are to be 100% guaranteed (compared to 50%, 75% or 90% guaranteed under other SBA programs). The SBA Administrator said that he EXPECTS THAT MANY OF THE ARC LOANS WILL FAIL, but that we should make the loans anyway.

    Let me repeat that... the government wants us to make loans that THEY KNOW BEFOREHAND are going to fail... but we should make the loans anyway and rely on the government guarantee to get us out of it when the loans go bad.

    Isn't that the type of lending that got us into this problem in the first place?

    Does the government not learn from its mistakes?

    It is their mandate to lend to people who couldn't afford the loans that created this mess. Now they are doing it again?


    Quote:

    But then that's what economists do rather than thinking up original solutions to the problems they create. You didn't invent capitalism but you certainly perverted it
    There are no "original solutions". All the solutions have been tried before. We know historically which ones worked and which ones didn't. Obama chose the ones that didn't. So did the creators of Fannie Mae (FDR, big shock there), Freddie Mac (LBJ created it to provide "competition" to Fannie Mae, even though they were owned by the same people--- the US Government), and CRA (Jimmy Carter in 1979, with Clinton increasing the mandate significantly in 1999). These solutions FAILED and caused the financial crisis we are in today. We even got a warning about it from the S&L crisis in the 80s, but the government ignored the warning about underwriting standards that we learned from that crisis and instead INCREASED the amount of Sub-Prime lending we were required to perform. The result was the current recession.

    And now the government is doing it again with this ARC Loan Program from the SBA.

    We learned from the mistakes of the past. The GOVERNMENT has FAILED to learn from those mistakes.

    So have all of you who push for MORE government intervention and social engineering in our economy.

    You want to look at people who have failed to learn from the errors of the past, Paraclete? Look to yourself first.

    Elliot
  • Oct 14, 2009, 08:41 AM
    phlanx

    So I see we are still with the communism dictate

    So Wolverine, what do you suggest then, all I have ever read is why this isn't working or that isn't working

    What would you think the perfect government would be?
  • Oct 14, 2009, 09:30 AM
    Synnen
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    you didn't get aid for Katrina because you didn't ask for it

    No, I would not like your government in control of anything, in my opinion they couldn't control sex in a brothel :D let alone develop partisan policies that really benefit everyone, but they are your government elected by the people for the people, etc, etc, etc or is it that they have forgotten the purpose they exist. The US has the government it deserves because they are prepared to put up with the load of bull* their politicians put out. So the point is you don't want them in control of health care so it is time to change the government or change the population.

    There are basic fundamentals which should be part of any health care system
    Choice of health care provider
    coverage for preexisting conditions
    coverage for those whose circumstances might disadvantage them
    adequate compensation for necessary procedures
    reasonable cost

    that said such a scheme shouldn't cover elective procedures. You suggestion that wrong choices should exclude basic care is disengenerous and tainted by the Darwinian theorm since this requires a health provider or public servant to make judgments beyond their competancy

    We have the health care system we have because our system provides for rigorous debate and a mechanism which rarely gives absolute power to any government, so what is proposed ultimately has to be considered reasonable and not tagged with meaningless local spending provisions. Deals are done but they are done within the perspective of the budget and ministerial responsibility

    I don't remember anyone ASKING me to give to the 2004 Tsunami victims. But I was down at the Red Cross that day making a $200 donation to help over there--which was all I could afford at the time. We then did a blanket and clothing drive in our neighborhood over the next couple of weeks, and brought THAT to the Red Cross. When my (then) 8 year old nephew heard that "kids like him" had no place to sleep and nothing to eat, he ran a lemonade stand for an entire weekend (which is a long time for a little kid--remember what YOUR attention span was then?) using his allowance to buy the ingredients, and gave the $150 he made to the Red Cross to help out the victims. No one ASKED him to. He saw people in need and gave to them. He did the same thing nine months later for the Katrina victims, because he thought that no one should have to be without food or a place to call home. He's 13 now, and volunteers at the YMCA and with his church to help out the local homeless. I'd like to point out--he learned that from family. ALL of us do what we can to help those in need, though it's usually those in need locally that we help. When I was a child, I *was* the family in need, and I've never forgotten the kindness of strangers.

    As far as elective procedures---who determines what's elective? I think that CHILDBIRTH is an elective procedure. You either chose to have the child or you didn't. That ALSO means that abortion is elective, fertility treatment is elective, and reconstructive surgery after a car accident or mastectomy is elective. All drugs given in the labor and delivery room would be elective--I mean, really, you can give birth with no painkillers! Women have been doing it for centuries! Ooooh... that brings up another point... Cialis, Viagra, and other ED medicine would be elective! Skin graft treatments and hair transferal after severe burns would be elective--because it's ONLY to look better, not required to live. Birth control is an elective (you choose whether to have sex), contact lenses are an elective (glasses work just fine!), hearing aids are an elective (there are millions of deaf people that do JUST FINE), smoking cessation products are an elective (you have the willpower! Just do it!)---the list goes on and on. ANYTHING that isn't *directly* linked to keeping you ALIVE is an elective.

    And thanks for making my point about NO ONE wanting our government in charge of ANYTHING. I didn't make our government what it is--I can blame Excon's generation for that, and just maybe Elliot's too (though I'm not sure on ages here). I've been able to vote for 16 years, and I've voted for all 16 of them. I have to admit I didn't get involved in local elections until the last 3 years, but part of that was because we moved fairly regularly, and I wasn't able to always understand what was going on locally. So... I've voted, and I've tried to change what I see are the problems in the government, and sometimes I feel hopeless that change will ever happen in my lifetime. The corruption and the money go too deep. THAT, however, is why I want Congress to be held to the same decisions they make for me. If this new health care plan isn't good enough for Congress to cancel their "All-Expenses-Paid" version of health care, well... why should it be good enough for me? Either way---why are YOU arguing that I should let idiots control my health if YOU wouldn't do it?
  • Oct 14, 2009, 09:53 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    So I see we are still with the communism dictate

    So Wolverine, what do you suggest then, all I have ever read is why this isnt working or that isnt working

    What would you think the perfect government would be?

    First of all, government CAN'T be perfect. It is made up of human beings and is therefore IMPERFECT by nature. But the Founding Fathers knew that and allowed for it when they created the Constitution.

    But if you are asking me what I think the role of government should be, that's easy.

    As I have posted in the past, government has only 3 duties.

    1) Protect the nation from enemies foreign and domestic,
    2) Maintain a system for travel and communication,
    3) Maintain, protect and preserve an economic environment that allows for the free transfer of goods and services and the accumulation of wealth by individuals and businesses.

    What that means is that government should maintain the military and police forces and any other agencies necessary to keep the nation safe from its enemies.

    It also means that the government has the responsibility to maintain roads, bridges and tunnels, as well as a postal system. It could also be argued that they should maintain the infrastructure for telephones and internet, though that is open for debate. And frankly, we would get better results if that infrastructure continues to be provided by private companies. But I'm (reluctantly) open to the idea of government being involved.

    Finally, it means that the government has the responsibility to enforce contract law, enforce enti-trust law, and enforce international trade law, and enforce laws regarding the safety of the products being produced and sold in the USA.

    Other than that, from a Constitutional standpoint, the role of the government is exactly nil, zippo, nada.

    They do NOT have the authority to spend tax dollars to bail out companies that they believe are "too big to fail". They do not have the authority to take over companies. They do not have the authority to cap executive pay. They do not have the authority to force companies to manufacture their goods or produce their services in a particular way. They do not have the authority to take control of those methods of production or methods of distribution. They do not have the authority to regulate any business with the exception of making sure that what the business produces is safe. And they do not have the authority to produce goods and services of their own for the open market. No matter how well-intentioned or ill-intentioned their ideas may be, they do not have the Constitutional authority to do it.

    Simply put, as Thomas Jefferson said, "The government that governs best governs least." THAT is what I believe government should be. That's also what the Founding Fathers meant for it to be.

    As for my specific ideas on health care reform with the minimum amount of government intervention possible, please read this post, which was a prior response to you.

    https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post2029047

    Elliot
  • Oct 14, 2009, 11:05 AM
    phlanx

    Mmm. Not a single thought on Foreign Policy and how the united states is seen and acts abroad
  • Oct 14, 2009, 12:10 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    mmm. not a single thought on Foreign Policy and how the united states is seen and acts abroad

    Yep, absolutely true.

    And also absolutely false.

    You will notice that I mentioned manitenance of a military.

    You will also notice that I mentioned both contract law (which includes treaties) and international trade law.

    That covers both the carrot and the stick of international diplomacy and international relations. Which is used when is a matter for the elected officials to decide, but only within the bounds of Constitutional Law.

    Elliot
  • Oct 14, 2009, 01:13 PM
    phlanx

    So influence shouldn't shape Foreign Policy?
  • Oct 14, 2009, 01:49 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    First of all, government CAN'T be perfect.

    Don't tell that to Neal Gabler, he thinks our government is "better than the American people." I guess that would explain our low opinion of Congress, we just don't know how damned good government is.
  • Oct 14, 2009, 02:16 PM
    paraclete
    Realistic
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Don't tell that to Neal Gabler, he thinks our government is "better than the American people." I guess that would explain our low opinion of Congress, we just don't know how damned good government is.

    Well that little piece certainly tells it like it is and it is good to know there are some americans who are realists. I was beginning to think you were all brainwashed.

    "We’ve been living in a fool’s paradise. The result may be a government that is as good as the American people, which is something that should concern everyone"

    but I think I would paraphrase that last sentence in your post
    "we just don't know what damned good government is."
  • Oct 14, 2009, 02:54 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    but I think I would paraphrase that last sentence in your post
    "we just don't know what damned good government is."

    NO rephrasing necessary, I meant it exactly as put.
  • Oct 14, 2009, 03:43 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    So influence shouldnt shape Foreign Policy?

    Sure it should. But only to the extent permitted by the Constitution. The government can't simply say that it wants to do something either domisticallly or in foreign policy, and therefore it is going to do it. That way lies tyranny... the sort of thing we fought a war with you guys to be free of.

    Here's an example... just as a President cannot declare war without the ratification of Congress, he also cannot sign and enforece treaties without Congress' ratification. Foreign policy (for war OR peace) is LIMITED by the powers granted by the Constitution. And nobody may violate the Constitution, no matter how good the cause.

    That addresses your question about foreign policy and the government. But the same thing applies on the domestic front.

    The Constitution outlines very clearly what the powers of the Federal government are. It also says that those power NOT SPECIFICALLY SO ENUMERATED are in the hands of the states and individuals, NOT in the hands of the government.

    The power to take over a business or an industry, or to start providing services to people that are outside their purview (like health care or retirement benefits, or anything else) is NOT enumerated in the Constitution. Therefore the Federal Government has no such power. EVEN if they think that doing such a thing would be the "humane thing to do" they cannot do it.

    Elliot
  • Oct 14, 2009, 03:57 PM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Sure it should. But only to the extent permitted by the Constitution..... Here's an example... just as a President cannot declare war without the ratification of Congress,

    Hello again, Elliot:

    Hate to break it to you, but the president can't declare war at all. Don't thank me. That's why I'm here.

    excon

    PS> Doncha think your discussion of the Constitution might be taken more seriously if you actually KNEW the Constitution?
  • Oct 14, 2009, 09:44 PM
    Synnen

    The president is commander in chief of the military, though.

    He doesn't have to "declare" war to start one.

    Just look at the Vietnam "war".

    And what the hell kind of fool congress declares war on "terror" anyway?

    I would like to say, by the way, that I don't necessarily agree with Elliot on all of his points about not wanting the government involved. I personally think that democratic socialism is the way to go. Problem is--we got to fix the corruption in our government before we can go that route.
  • Oct 15, 2009, 02:11 AM
    phlanx

    Morning Wolverine,

    I find with interest you consider all policies of the United States to be created in Government

    Strange statement I hear you saying, well, foreign policy is shaped by the people of a country just as much as it it is by its paper policies

    Why is it you consider that a reputation of a country is based solely at the door of its government?
  • Oct 15, 2009, 08:21 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    Morning Wolverine,

    I find with interest you consider all policies of the United States to be created in Government

    Stange statment I hear you saying, well, foreign policy is shaped by the people of a country just as much as it it is by its paper policies

    Why is it you consider that a reputation of a country is based solely at the door of its government?

    What makes you think it isn't.

    For instance... the reputation of the French (at least by many Americans) is that they are a bunch of effite, elitist racists who couldn't win a war with a wet paper bag without the help of the US military.

    Are most French elitist? Probably not. Are they racists? Probably not. Are they all effite? That one's still up for debate, but by and large I would say no. Are they all poor fighters? Again, probably not.

    But their government is ALL of those things. They haven't won a war since the late 1700s, they stockpile their immigrants in government housing projects so that they don't have to think about them too often, and they all come off as a bunch of wine-sniffing, cheese-tasting effites. And so, reputation follows what the government does.

    As for reputation following the individuals' actions, and not those of the government... I again point you to the fact that the individual citizens of the USA are the most charitable people in the world by a factor of 2:1. And yet, we have the reputation of being greedy, self-absorbed, and uncaring. Clearly the reputation of Americans does NOT follow the actions of the people, but rather the actions of the government... which has been greedy, uncaring and self-absorbed in many ways.

    But we have gotten off-topic. The topic we have been pursuing is the role of government, not the reputation of countries toward other countries. And as I have said, the role of government is spelled out in the Constitution. Reputation doesn't enter into the equation. The good intentions of those who wish to act in an extra-constitutional manner don't enter into the equation.

    Elliot
  • Oct 15, 2009, 11:25 AM
    phlanx

    Evening Wolverine,

    I think we are still on track, let me demonstrate

    The constitution has played a major part in you answering my simple question on foreign policy

    So, lets see what it says :

    Quote:

    The Preamble states:
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.
    So the basic ideology of the consitition includes general welfare, how can you argue against?

    Or were the Fathers of the Document wrong?
  • Oct 15, 2009, 11:30 AM
    tomder55
    phlanx that would require an understanding of what the founders meant by general welfare. Without getting into it ;they did not consider it the duty of a massive central nanny state to administer what the gvt. Thinks is good for the masses. They truly believed the role of the central government limited and they specifically enumerated what was permitted by the central government in the articles of the Constitution.
  • Oct 15, 2009, 11:32 AM
    Synnen

    Here's the problem with that line "promoting the general welfare":

    Who decides?

    Prohibition was "promoting the general welfare".

    The drinking age is "promoting the general welfare".

    Seat belt laws are "promoting the general welfare".

    Anti-gambling laws are "promoting the general welfare".

    Some see abolishing abortion, preventing gay marriage, or even the abolishment of the equal rights amendment as 'promoting the general welfare'.

    Does "promoting the general welfare" mean that the government can then do whatever it wants to CONTROL the general populace "for its own good"?

    Whose morals decide what the "general welfare" of the country is?
  • Oct 15, 2009, 11:38 AM
    phlanx

    Is Democracy seriously missing something in America

    What makes a Government decide what is good for the people - THE People DO! Or do we have a completely different explanation of democracy

    You allow your government to tell you at what age you can drink, where you can gamble, what you should wear in a car (this is a good thing!)

    And yet you think a simple reform to allow millions of americans to obtain health insurance is a bad thing and anti constitutional

    I am afraid I still don't get it!
  • Oct 15, 2009, 12:09 PM
    Synnen

    Have you ever heard of the electoral college, phlanx?

    And I'm not stopping millions of Americans from getting health insurance now! I'm just refusing to PAY for it.
  • Oct 15, 2009, 01:42 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    Evening Wolverine,

    I think we are still on track, let me demonstrate

    The constitution has played a major part in you answering my simple question on foreign policy

    So, lets see what it says :



    So the basic ideology of the consitition includes general welfare, how can you argue against?

    Or were the Fathers of the Document wrong?

    The Constitution DOES promote the general welfare of the people. But the Founders knew that promoting the general welfare meant, and gave the Federal Government specific instructions on how to do so by...

    1) protecting the citizens from enemies
    2) maintaining the ability of people to travel and communicate
    3) maintaining the ability of the people to conduct business, gain wealth, and pursue business opportunities unimpeded.

    It did NOT mean handing stuff out to the people.

    Nor did it mean taking money from one person to give to another.

    Nor did it mean taking money from the people at all for any purpose other than the three responsibilities that the Federal Government is supposed to take care of.

    In fact, the ability to do so is SPECIFICALLY prohibited by the 10th Amendment whioch states:

    Quote:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    That means that if it isn't enumerated in the Constitution as a power reserved to the Federal Government, the Federal Government can't do it.

    There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the power to give people health care or health insurance. That power is reserved for the states (who regulate insurance companies and medical practitioners) or for the people (who purchase health insurance or health care services). The Federal Government has no such legal power.

    Again, it may be a nice idea, and people may think it is the right thing to do (if they don't understand the economics of it), but it is ILLEGAL for the Federal Government to do so under the Constitution.

    But here's a question for you to answer.

    How do you define "promoting the general welfare"? Who determines what "general welfare" means? Does the definition change? How often? Under what circumstances does it change? Are there any limitations to what the government can do to promote the general welfare? Who determines those? Who ENFORCES those limitations, if any?

    If I think that one individual or business can do more with a piece of property than another individual or business, can the government arbitrarily take that property away from one and give it to another because it "promotes the general welfare"? Can the government force me to give up my home because the government determines that someone else can make better use of it to build a business than I can and therefore taking it away from me and giving it to someone else promotes the "general welfare"?

    Not according to the written Constitution, they can't.

    But they have taken such powers upon themselves anyway. (I suggest that you Google a Supreme Court case known as Kelo v. New London to see an example of what I mean.) And THAT is one example of why I have problems with giving the government more powers than they currently have. And handing them direct control of 1/6th of our economy falls under the heading of A Very Bad Idea.

    The Founding Fathers knew that the meaning of "general welfare" would come up for debate eventually. That's why they were very specific in the powers that they granted the government and the responsibilities they enumerated for the government. And that is why they were very clear to say that any powers not so enumerated do not belong to the federal government.

    Elliot
  • Oct 15, 2009, 01:51 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    Is Democracy seriously missing something in America

    What makes a Government decide what is good for the poeple - THE People DO!! Or do we have a completly different explanation of democracy

    You allow your government to tell you at what age you can drink, where you can gamble, what you should wear in a car (this is a good thing!)

    And yet you think a simple reform to allow millions of americans to obtain health insurance is a bad thing and anti constitutional

    I am afraid I still dont get it!

    Democracy is when you elect people to tell you what to do as distinct from them being born into a position or taking over at the point of a gun. There is an illusion in democracy that the average person actually has a say in what gets done but it is an illusion. As long as a government behaves in a reasonable manner democracy works but as soon as it puts its hand in the pocket of the people they get upset
  • Oct 15, 2009, 01:53 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    Is Democracy seriously missing something in America

    What makes a Government decide what is good for the poeple - THE People DO!! Or do we have a completly different explanation of democracy

    You allow your government to tell you at what age you can drink, where you can gamble, what you should wear in a car (this is a good thing!)

    And yet you think a simple reform to allow millions of americans to obtain health insurance is a bad thing and anti constitutional

    I am afraid I still dont get it!

    As I have said before, there are ways to make sure that everyone who wants insurance can get it without nationalizing the health system of the USA. What is wrong with trying those methods, all of which are Constitutional, Capitalist and Democratic, and don't rely on Marxism and government growth? Why are you so stuck on selling us a socialist system when we have OTHER options than can work better and don't violate the Constitution.

    I haven't seen you comment on ANY of the 10 items that I listed to reform health care in the USA. Is that because you don't have anything to say about it? Do you think those reforms won't work? Do you think they will work? Have you even read them?

    If there are other options, why would you continue to push THIS solution when you know that so many people are against it?

    Elliot
  • Oct 15, 2009, 01:54 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    The Constitution DOES promote the general welfare of the people. But the Founders knew that promoting the general welfare meant, and gave the Federal Government specific instructions on how to do so by...


    The Founding Fathers knew that the meaning of "general welfare" would come up for debate eventually. That's why they were very specific in the powers that they granted the government and the responsibilities they enumerated for the government. And that is why they were very clear to say that any powers not so enumerated do not belong to the federal government.

    Elliot

    You know Elliot I'm glad we had 100 years to observe the operation of your Constitution before we modeled ours on yours
  • Oct 15, 2009, 02:06 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    democracy is when you elect people to tell you what to do as distinct from them being born into a position or taking over at the point of a gun. There is an illusion in democracy that the average person actually has a say in what gets done but it is an illusion. As long as a government behaves in a reasonable manner democracy works but as soon as it puts its hand in the pocket of the people they get upset

    Yep. And in a Democracy, we can do something about it in the next election.

    And given the number of times in the past coupls of years that bad laws have been STOPPED by phone calls flooding Congress members' switchboards, I would hesitate to claim that the people have no power. Cap & Trade has died in the Senate because of the flood of phone calls that members of the House of Representatives had to deal with telling them NOT to vote for it before they ended up voting for it. It passed in the House by the skin of their teeth, but the Senate buried the bill because of the political flak that they feared from their constituents.

    The Immigration Reform bill died a horrible death in 2007 and 2008 because members of Congress received phone calls from constitutents telling them to vote against it, too.

    And there is a reason that Congress wasn't able to simply vote for Health Care Reform before the summer recess took place as Obama wanted. They were flooded with phone calls DEMANDING that people have a chance to read the bill and ask questions before Congress voted on it.

    Members of Congress from BOTH Houses know that they have to stand for election. And if they get flooded with phone calls telling them that if they vote for a particular bill they are going to be voted out of office, they listen. And legistlation gets buried or voted down because of it.

    So the Democratic system DOES work if enough people are willing to act within that system. The representative either votes the way the majority wishes him to vote, or his constituents vote him out of office.

    This isn't illusion. There are those who used to BELIEVE that it was only an illusion, back when people weren't quite as involved with the political process as so man are now. But recent events over the past couple of years have proven otherwise. The people really DO have the power to stop bad legislation or vote the bums out of office, IF THEY ARE WILLING TO ACT. Which they are now. And the Members of Congress know it.

    Elliot
  • Oct 15, 2009, 02:18 PM
    paraclete
    Affirmative action
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Yep. And in a Democracy, we can do something about it in the next election.

    And given the number of times in the past coupls of years that bad laws have been STOPPED by phone calls flooding Congress members' switchboards, I would hesitate to claim that the people have no power. Cap & Trade has died in the Senate because of the flood of phone calls that members of the House of Representatives had to deal with telling them NOT to vote for it before they ended up voting for it. It passed in the House by the skin of their teeth, but the Senate burried the bill because of the political flak that they feared from their constituents.

    The Immigration Reform bill died a horrible death in 2007 and 2008 because members of Congress received phone calls from constitutents telling them to vote against it, too.

    And there is a reason that Congress wasn't able to simply vote for Health Care Reform before the summer recess took place as Obama wanted. They were flooded with phone calls DEMANDING that people have a chance to read the bill and ask questions before Congress voted on it.

    Members of Congress from BOTH Houses know that they have to stand for election. And if they get flooded with phone calls telling them that if they vote for a particular bill they are going to be voted out of office, they listen. And legistlation gets burried or voted down because of it.

    So the Democratic system DOES work if enough people are willing to act within that system. The representative either votes the way the majority wishes him to vote, or his constituents vote him out of office.

    This isn't illusion. There are those who used to BELIEVE that it was only an illusion, back when people weren't quite as involved with the political process as so man are now. But recent events over the past couple of years have proven otherwise. The people really DO have the power to stop bad legislation or vote the bums out of office, IF THEY ARE WILLING TO ACT. Which they are now. And the Members of Congress know it.

    Elliot

    You're right Elliot by using affirmative action the people have stopped their "democratic representatives" from making decisions that were not in their interest. What this demonstrates is that the system isn't working, not that it is. If the people elected by the people were acting in the interests of the people it would not be necessary for the people to conduct a pseudo referendum to get them to do not what is in the interest of vested interests but what is in the interest of the people. As I said Elliot democracy is an illusion and mob rule has taken over
  • Oct 15, 2009, 02:22 PM
    ETWolverine

    Democracy IS mob rule... just without the violence and with a set of rules.

    But you make that sound like it's a bad thing. The key thing that makes it GOOD is the 2nd half of my 1st sentence... "just without the violence and with a set of rules".

    Elliot
  • Oct 15, 2009, 02:23 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    As I said Elliot democracy is an illusion and mob rule has taken over

    Then don't vote. If you feel that way, don't participate in the system. Nobody is forcing you to be involved.

    I prefer to excersize my rights and my controls over the government.

    Elliot

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:58 PM.