Well there you have it, America in a nut shell! It is not consititutional right to help your fellow american! Thank God it is God Save the Queen
|
Well there you have it, America in a nut shell! It is not consititutional right to help your fellow american! Thank God it is God Save the Queen
That's the illusion, Elliot, you don't have any control over government!Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
We used to talk about the faceless men in politics, the behind the scenes powerbrokers. I'm sure you have them just as we do. These are the decision makers, the ones who have control, not you, unless you are one of them, but if your were you wouldn't be spending your time here.
What I vote for as I'm sure you do is a party platform and a leader who will carry it out. There is a basket of policies the majority of which I agree with and that's what is voted for. We call it a mandate these days, but should a party try to implement something not in the mandate we get upset and that's when governments change and the democratic process works. At other times it happens by default
No it is only constitutional to help yourself, or so the Americans believe, but I don't actually see that in their constitution eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
There is a simple solution to the Constitutional issue which the Dems always seem to overlook . If they really believe that government provided health care is an inalienable right then there are ways the founders put in to amend the constitution.
Phalanx in jolly old England do you have the same inalienable right to government provided food and shelter or do you mostly have to feed yourself by your own means. Now I'm not talking about a safety net. Despite your comment above ,we do have those for the truly needy. I'm talking about government provided food for everyone. And if not why not ? Surely you think eating equally important to going for a physical if not more so.
Eveing Tomder
Now you asking the simple question, should there be charities or not
If it wasn't for charities the Government would have to deal with such issues, but as there are charities they don't have to
Besides, Constitutional (we don't exactly have one as it is approx 800 years old and clouded with a lot of history) we have the right to feed off certain parts of the land, and therefore food is always available
And if you really want to get picky :) then yes, I can have 24/7 shelter, food, medical care, entertainment items, TVS etc, and all I have to do is to be thrown in jail, and I will be completely suported by the government
Odd isn't it, Law abiding citizens get nothing while the ones who break the law get the entitlements
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Not really. We don't have to amend it. It's already there.
You DO remember that pesky Ninth Amendment, don't you? If not, I'll reprint it here for you:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That's pretty clear. Seems to me, if the people have an inalienable right to health care, it can be found there. In fact, that's WHY the Ninth Amendment was written. The founders realized that they couldn't list ALL of our rights, but they knew that by listing SOME, people like you would say, "well, it's not LISTED, so it's not a right" Knowing that the people's inalienable rights went far beyond those listed, they wrote the Ninth Amendment to take care of the rest.
Weren't our Founders brilliant?
excon
Yes sir... I have said this more than once here in one form or another . There is no virtue in charity or benevolence that is compelled. If the gvt. Is taxing me to provide for all but the neediest then they are picking my pockets .Quote:
If it wasn't for charities the Government would have to deal with such issues, but as there are charities they don't have to
D*ckens had it right in 'A Christmas Carol' .The men soliciting charity were the good guys . Scrooge's retort to them was that the poor should rely on the gvt services that he supports through his taxes for their welfare. Scrooge was a typical liberal socialist.
Ex the true measure of a right is that its exercise cannot place an undue burden on someone else i.e. the cost of that right is paid by someone else . An entitlement on the other hand transfers an undue cost to someone other than the one receiving that benefit.
For that reason, government provided health care can never be a right, only an entitlement.
The founders never intended to 9th amnedment to be a vehicle to pick someone's pocket or for the government to act as Robin Hood.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
We have a right to a gun. Somebody gets paid for making 'em. Besides, ain't nobody saying universal health care is going to be free - especially you folks.
excon
That's right.. I have a right to a gun so long as I pay for it . If I had a guaranteed right to a government provided gun then it would be an entitlement and not a right. A right is something the government can never take away. An entitlement they can change the rules of the game any time they choose to do so.
Now come on Tom you know that's not a fair question, Britain is a welfare state and no one need go hungary there.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And Tom it is very hard to get the majority necessary to amend the American constitution. In today's reality it would require bipartisan support not really a reality and in any case if it is an inalienable right there is a Supreme Court to test it in. Given the Supreme Court leanings and propensity for left leaning judgements they should have no difficulty, after all, if criminals have rights so do the sick
Yes they were all for states rights and that idea ultimately fostered the idea that a state could resist invasion which the Constitution required the central government to protect against not perpetrate. What the founding fathers wanted and what the population wanted has sometimes been at odds but who should decide; some long dead liberatians with a different agenda in mind or those people alive today. The reality is that care for welfare of the individual didn't exist beyond individual charity in the day of the founding fathers and so you take a narrow view of what they meant by welfare based on your knowledge of their society which you do not live in. Their concern for welfare was not focused on poverty because that was something that happened in a different place and among people they subjected. The founding fathers thought slavery a good idea but today that idea is anathema so not all of their ideas are sacrosanctQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Honestly, I don't give a DAMN whether UHC is Constitutional. I don't care that I'm coming across as a selfish b!tch that is only looking out for myself.
The main 2 reasons I am against UHC are as follows:
1. I don't trust out government to implement a health care system that actually WORKS. I look at OTHER decisions our government has made with money, and think I'd be an IDIOT to think they could do this less expensively than the private sector, in a manner that was fair treatment to ALL U.S citizens.
2. I don't want to pay for it. No one has YET refuted that the people who don't have health insurance don't have it because of decisions that they themselves have made, except those currently considered "uninsurable". Make a law that forces insurance companies to treat those people fairly, and voilą! You have a system that works again! EVERY OTHER PERSON who does not have health care of some sort has put THEMSELVES in that position. I am NOT going to pay for someone else's bad choices.
Morning Synnen
Do you not accept the possibility that someone is having difficulties through nothing more than making a mistake
A bad choice at some point is made by all of us, hopefully if you live your life more than once!
So there's democracy... it comes down to a handful (5) of unelected for life oligarchs in black robes. I don't think so. They don't get to decide what is a right even though often they have overstepped their mandate and have done so.Hint... they have even used Excon's very broad interpretation of the 9th amendment or in one bizarre ruling the court found that there were rights hidden deep in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections.(whatever that means) .Quote:
And Tom it is very hard to get the majority necessary to amend the American constitution. In today's reality it would require bipartisan support not really a reality and in any case if it is an inalienable right there is a Supreme Court to test it in. Given the Supreme Court leanings and propensity for left leaning judgements they should have no difficulty, after all, if criminals have rights so do the sick
The Constitution was not meant to be easily changed. Still ;if there was overwhelming support for the proposition that government provided health care was an inalienable right ,then there would be no issue ;the amendment would get done.
See my other posting about the Constitutionality of UHC to see how leftists have gotten unconstitutional "entitlements" through the system when they know they have no mandate and authority to do so.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...re-405829.html
There are many things in your response that is refutable. But I'll simply say that the founders knew that there would be changes needed over time ,and that is why they provided an instrument to change the Constitution... the amendment process. Beyond a new constitutional convention that is the only legitimate way for the changing . Anything else is a usurpation of power.Quote:
Yes they were all for states rights and that idea ultimately fostered the idea that a state could resist invasion which the Constitution required the central government to protect against not perpetrate. What the founding fathers wanted and what the population wanted has sometimes been at odds but who should decide; some long dead liberatians with a different agenda in mind or those people alive today. The reality is that care for welfare of the individual didn't exist beyond individual charity in the day of the founding fathers and so you take a narrow view of what they meant by welfare based on your knowledge of their society which you do not live in. Their concern for welfare was not focused on poverty because that was something that happened in a different place and among people they subjected. The founding fathers thought slavery a good idea but today that idea is anathema so not all of their ideas are sacrosanct
There you DON'T have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
It is UnConstitutional for the GOVERNMENT to distribute goods and services.
It is VERY AMERICAN for man to help his fellow man.
Which is why Americans do it more than twice as much as you Brits do.
God Bless the USA.
But you STILL haven't answered my questions. I'm not going to let you avoid them... and you clearly ARE trying to avoid them, because you can't answer them, and not being able to do so destroys your entire point.
1) Who defines "general welfare"?
2) What about the alternatives to health care reform that I posted?
Elliot
Of course it happens by default unless we get involved. And generally it is true that we only get involved when we are upset. But when we DO get involved, we can indeed control the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
That beats the hell out of most of the methods of governance throughout history... most of which have been tyrannies, or at least monarchies. In those systems, it didn't matter how upset you got. You could get upset all you wanted, there was STILL no method by which the people could control or change the policies of the govermment.
What you are describing of Democracy is a "negative feedback control loop", in which we only react to negative data. Something that we don't like happens, and so we react to it... and that reaction causes change. A negative feedback control loop is STILL a control loop. There is still control, even if you only excersize it because of negative input. And it isn't an illusion... the control is real and has real effect.
In tyrannies, monarchies, and other oppressive forms of government, there is no control loop of any sort.
I choose Democracy and its negative feedback control loop over no control whatsoever.
As for your argument that what people generally vote for is a party leader and a platform... that is often true. But when people voted for Barack Obama, it seems to me that they were voting less for a party leader and a platform than they were voting AGAINST Bush. It was the same negative feedback control loop that I am describing. They didn't like BUSH, so they voted against anything remotely related to Bush. And they got change... they controlled the outcome.
Now, I believe that we are seeing the people rejecting what Obama represents in terms of "platform" and "leadership", and I think that the people will again vote with that negative feedback loop... and we will see a change in Congress in 2010 and a change in President in 2012, with corresponding changes in policy.
Clearly the people DO have control of the direction of the country and the makeup of the government if such changes are possible.
If the people can control who is in the government via the vote, and they can change the decisions of the members of the government via their phone campaigns, in what way is such control illusory? In what way is it not real? If it has real results, and can cause real changes in both the makeup of government and the policies of that government, why do you say that it isn't real?
Elliot
So is the USA... we have health care programs that account for up to 20% of every state's budget, and we have both government-run and charitable health care for the poor. And no hospital can turn a patient away, regardless of ability to pay. So why is it an issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
As has been said before, nobody in the USA (whether they are a citizen or not) needs to go without health care.
So why do we need to reform the system to provide health care that is already provided to the poor?
Yep. Deliberately so. It has only happened 18 times in our history (the first 10 Amendments all happened at the same time, the rest happened individually). But it has happened. The most recent was in May of 1992.Quote:
And Tom it is very hard to get the majority necessary to amend the American constitution.
If it doesn't have bipartisan support, it shouldn't be amended. If the vast majority of federal legislators AND state governments cannot agree to the change, why should it be changed? Just because someone thinks it's going to be good for the people? Again we get back to the question of who determines what "general welfare" means. If the overwhelming majority of people can't agree to it, it isn't promoting the "general welfare" is it?Quote:
In today's reality it would require bipartisan support not really a reality
[quite]and in any case if it is an inalienable right there is a Supreme Court to test it in. Given the Supreme Court leanings and propensity for left leaning judgements they should have no difficulty, after all, if criminals have rights so do the sick[/quote]
So you are suggesting MORE legislation from the bench.
Clete, there is a specific separation of powers between the branches of government in the USA. The Legislative branch (Congress) writes laws. The Executive branch (the President) implements laws. The Judicial branch (the Supreme Court) interprets laws and determines the Constitutionality of laws.
The Supreme Court and lower courts are not supposed to be writing law... they are not supposed to be creating new sets of laws to determine who has what rights. They are supposed to simply interpret laws that are already on the books.
What you are proposing... having the SCOTUS determine whether there is a "right to health care"... is simply an attempt to have the court write new law. That is a violation of the separation of powers. As such it would be unconstitutional.
Not that that has stopped them in the past.
Elliot
Salvo Elliot,
Firstly, apologies for missing anything you asked
Lets look at the charity and the facts and not stats - don't make me quote Disraeli to you :)
300m Americans vs. 60m Brits
15tn US GDP vs. 3tn UK GDP
The US is 3.719 million square miles. England is 94,526 square miles.
Therefore, to simplify for you :) You could fit 39 England's into the US and still have room left over
We have the 6th largest economy in the world vs. your first and yet we give the second largest amount to charity
Imagine what the brits could do if we had the land mass that you have - remember 39 times the room to play
By the way, I'm English, as opposed to British, complicated story of history :)
So to answer your questions,
1. Who defines General Welfare? In democracy the people do - obviously
However your question is a little vague, the preamble stated promote the general welfare
So I ask you back, how can a "I'm all right jack" attitude be promoting the general welfare?
Please correct me here if I don't understand it but the founders wrote the constitution to end the elitism of English rule
It was designed so that all men could be equal and be appointed to power by merit and not hereditary
What the main reason for the self rule was back then, is certainly not the situation today
So any argument by what the founders meant is never going to be settled, especially as even you guys can't agree on it by what I have been forced to read up J
It is surely a document which allows you to change according to what the feelings of people are today and certainly not what was thought of way back when which is exactly the reason why it was written in the first place
2nd
I am sure you can appreciate, there is so much news in the world and most of the time it is sensationalised so not really worth listening to, so please correct be if I am wrong
I thought the whole point of the Obamas' plan was to reform a section of the healthcare which provided health insurance to all at a basic level, to clean up certain aspects of the insurance companies to stop their uneven handed approach when dealing with the poor.
SO PLEASE TELL ME - The Constitution was written to make all men equal, no more elitism, and yet I find myself discussing elitism with an American who thinks it is a good idea - Have I got this wrong here or have you guys come full circle
Not having seen it for myself I can only read into third party evidence which by itself is usually tainted to one side, but it does come across as a very harsh system
Don't get me wrong at all, I am all for standing up on your own two feet and getting what you want (within the law of course) but in an economic structure of basic and luxury goods there will always be the ones who have and the ones who don't
True there are the ones who sit back and collect welfare all day long and do nothing for it, but even the tight so and so you are mate, I am sure you can recognise there are those who cannot get good basic health care even though they work hard to try to do everything for themselves in the American way
And so a whole generation of a family must suffer so the next can get the American Dream
In today's age how can that be classed as fair and equal on such basic needs as healthcare
Let me ask you a fair question,
The Founders wrote the document to address some fundamental problems they saw with their present system of rule
This also included a section so that when and where the attitudes of the people changed, the constitution could be changed as well
And yet anytime change is required for a basic level, there is an outcry it is unconstitutional
So my question is this, why do you think elitism rule is what the founders would have wanted?
Yup. My life has been bad more than once, through choices I made, whether those choices were mistakes or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
I got pregnant at 17. I was already working to help support my family (not for "fun" money like many teens), and KNEW another mouth to feed was going to be insanity. My family offered support, but I did what was best for my daughter, and myself, and chose adoption. How many people parent that can't afford to?
I ran up credit card debt in college. In my defense, nearly all of the debt was groceries. I had problems where I was told I had financial aid, and it fell through at the last minute. Since I'd already signed a lease, I had to stick out a year in a town out of state from where I'd grown up. I got a job, went to school full time, and worked more than 40 hours every week to pay for rent, school and food. Food was my LOWEST priority, and many days, my only meal was the one I got from the church down the street from me. I should have dropped out of school; instead, I failed everything and had more debt. So... when my lease was up, I DID drop out of school. I sacrificed my education for food in my stomach.
There ARE some situations where I'm more than happy to help someone get out of a bad spot they're in due to their choices---but they have to be doing as much as I am to get them out of that situation. Great example is a family I help. Mother, 2 kids. Mom is a recovering alcoholic and drug user, sober 3 years. She started her road to recovery when the father of the kids snapped one day and instead of hitting her like he usually did, he hit one of the kids. She packed them up and moved to a women's shelter and started the long road to recovery--so that she didn't lose her kids to him. She'd made some REALLY bad choices in her life, but she makes the choice every morning now to get up, stay sober, and earn enough to keep her family. She barely does it. She also has the unfortunate situation of having Crohn's disease (which is a pre-existing condition that will get you denied health care). She does everything she can herself, but sometimes it's not enough. I've sort of "adopted" them, and help them every time I have a chance--with money for bills, with food, with a place to go that's safe with no drugs or alcohol, with an ear to listen, hand me down clothing, etc. This is a woman who made SERIOUS mistakes in her life, and through NO fault of her own is being denied insurance.
So yes, some people can make mistakes and need a hand up. Giving them a hand up is NOT the same as giving them a hand OUT--and there are PLENTY of programs to help most people who need it.
The problem, phlanx, is that most people who make mistakes and get what they need ANYWAY don't learn from their mistakes--and therefore keep making them. Just look at the US Welfare system if you don't believe me.
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
For a moment, let's pretend that I agree with you that we're serving everybody's medical needs. I don't, of course, but let's pretend. IF we ARE doing it, then we're not doing it very efficiently because we spend more to get less. That's simply a management problem.
Take ER's for example. I understand you have some experience there... ER's aren't for day to day treatment. They're too damn expensive for that. So, we should REFORM the system, if in no other way, so that ER's go back to being ER's, and people get their day to day treatment in a much more cost effective manner.
There's more, of course. But, as a right winger, you DO understand management, don't you?? If we did just that, how much do you think it'll save us?? How could you be against changing THAT?? Can't you say anything other than NO?? Guess not.
excon
Oh, sure, it happens all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
Now explain to me why I should be penalized for someone else's bad decisions by having MY MONEY taken away from me to pay for that person.
What bad decision did I make that I should be penalized? What action did I take that obligates me to that other person? What document did I sign that makes me financially obligated to someone else?
There's a word for being forced to work without compensation so that someone else will benefit from my labor. It's "slavery".
If I am forced to work so that the money I earn is taken away from me to pay for someone else's benefits, then I am a slave. Call it what you will, that is essentially what it is. Call it a "welfare program", call it "forced charity", call it "good citizenship", call it "responsibility to my fellow citizen", it is all the same thing. If I am forced to give up my hard-earned money to someone else without choice, I am a slave. We fought a war in this country to eliminate slavery.
I have no desire to be a slave.
You clearly do.
Elliot
Gordon Bennett Wolverine
As an econoimist I would have thought you would understand the basic rule of any government
YOU ARE GOING TO BE TAXED REGARDLESS!!
So it is not a question of if or how but how much
Hell, I understand that - I work hard for my money and yet I find the government takes money out in every direction so that somebody else can live on welfare, so this and that can be paid for - all of which I will never ever see the benefit from
DIRECTLY!!
Surely the point of having social reform is to ensure the masses are kept happy
Unhappy masses tend to riot, break laws, cause anarchy, and generally ruin any chance you have of earning a living
And then what - taxes have to be increased to keep law and order, WOULD you be happy to pay some of your hard earned cash then mate
You are a Citizen in a country, which will always make you a slave to the system whether you like or not mate, or do you break the laws and don't pay taxes?
Funny point : You had to go to war to get social reform to change so the benefits of the few were cared for, and yet here - we changed the law in a civilised manner within Parliament
And so your solution to "mismanagement" is to give the entire system over to the most inefficient, most wasteful, most poorly managed agency the world has ever seen... the US government.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
This is the same US government that pays $500 for a hammer and $1200 for a toilet seat.
This is the same government that spends money during a recession to study the sexual habbits of field mice.
This is the same government that created Freddie Mac in order to create competition with Fannie Mae, even though both bodies are owned and regulated by the same people, and therefore there is no competition.
This is the same government that mysteriously "lost" $24.5 billion in 2003... they simply can't account for how the money was spent, so they wrote it off.
This is the same government that spent $100 million between 1997 and 2003 on 270,000 commercial airline tickets that were never used... and each of those tickets were fully REFUNDABLE, but refunds were never applied for. (In 27,000 cases, tickets were actually paid for TWICE.)
This is the same government... in fact the same Medicare system... that Inspector General Janet Renquist (DHHS) found in 2002 to have paid 8 TIMES what other agencies were paying for the same drugs, supplies and equipment.
This is who you want to turn our "mismanaged" health care system over to?
But getting more to the point than that... what makes you think that the system is being mismanaged at all?
We have been through the numbers... of the 46 million people that supposedly don't have insurance, roughly 10 million of them CHOOSE not to have health insurance, 12 million are illegal aliens not elligible for health insurance, and 10 million are people uninsured for less than 4 months at a time but generally have insurance at all other times. That leaves between 10 and 15 million people uninsured for extended periods. Or roughly 3% of the US population.
That means that the system we have is 97% efficient in providing health insurance. Where is the inefficiency? What government agency can improve on 97% efficiency in comletion of its assigned task?
So... in summation, you want to improve on 97% efficiency by handing the system over to the most inefficient agency every created in the history of mankind.
What a brilliant solution.
NOT!!
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by exconTake ER's for example. I understand you have some experience there... ER's aren't for day to day treatment. They're too damn expensive for that. So, we should REFORM the system, if in no other way, so that ER's go back to being ER's, and people get their day to day treatment in a much more cost effective manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Well, we were talking about ER's as an example... I don't know what happened to your right wing business acumen, but my four year old granddaughter can take ONE look at the ER's and surmise that there's some mismanagement going on.
You not so much, huh?
excon
First of all, yes, we are all taxed. As we should be. The government has to maintain roads, bridges and tunnels. The government has to maintian a communication system (mail, phones, internet). The government has to maintain a military and police force. The government has to maintain courts to enforce both criminal and civil law. It needs to maintain a jail system to punish those who violate criminal law.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
All these things are accounted for in the Constitution.
But taxing people in order to give their money to someone else in the form of welfare or pork barrel spending?
Nuh uh. It ain't in the Constitution. It's pure Keynesian BS, which is in turn based on Marxism... the idea that government is the only body capable of taking care of man.
There is a value in government. It's value is exactly what I have said it is... the maintenance of a military, the maintenance of freedom of communication and travel, and the maintenance of an economic environment that is favorable to free trade.
Any role of government other than that HAS NO VALUE except to erode personal freedoms by limiting free choice and decreasing personal wealth.
What you are essentially telling me is that you have no faith in your fellow man. You don't believe that man can be charitable to his fellow man except when forced to do so by his government. You believe in the inherent "badness" of man and the inherent "goodness" of government.
I disagree. I have more faith in my fellow man than you do. I trust my fellow man to help help others when they are in need without being forced to do so by the government via taxes and welfare spending. And as I have pointed out before, Americans seem to be better at it than you Brits.
Perhaps that is why you need your government to intervene on your behalf and we don't. We actually do give more charity than you do... we can be trusted to do so without government intervention. You guys don't give as much charity so you need a government to force you to do it.
Elliot
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I define efficiency as placing the most care where it will do the most good in the shortest amount of time possible within a specific department-wide budget without turning away a single patient. By that definition, excon, you are 100% wrong.
In my experience, ERs are some of the most efficient health care service providers around. They actually determine who goes first based on NEED, not based on some arbitrary event like who got there first or who is the most important or richest person in the room. It's called "triage medicine", and it works very well. The guy with the gunshot wound to the abdomen will ALWAYS get cared for before the guy with the splinter in his pinky. The guy with the major trauma from an MVA will go before the guy with the sniffles. The guy who is having the MI will go before the guy with a cold. That is an efficient method of distributing care based on immediate need.
So what you, a non-professional in health care see as "inefficient" I, as a volunteer EMT with 20 years of critical care experience, see as the height of efficiency in providing care.
Now... if you want to talk about inefficiencies in OTHER departments of a hospital, we can have that discussion. But not ERs. They are actually the MOST EFFICIENTLY RUN part of any health center or hospital due to the nature of trama and critical care medicine. And you will be hard pressed to find any system that is more efficiently run and gives more effective care than an ER.
And that is even in the state-run and county-run hospitals that I have worked in... with all the massive waste that takes place in any government agency, ERs are STILL the most efficient part of any hospital, by the definition I gave above.
Do you have a different definition of efficiency that applies to an ER?
More importantly, can you show me how the government can run an ER more efficiently than it is currently run?
I doubt it. But go ahead... give it a shot.
Elliot
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Remind me NOT to inquire about your right wing business acumen any more. What you said above, indicates that you NEVER had any...
So, you think a guy sitting around to get his cold treated by an emergency room doctor is the most efficient use of that doctors time, do you?? Dude! We can't talk about this anymore... Cause you and I ain't on the same planet...
excon
Actually it is an inefficient use of the PATIENT'S time. The Doctor is busy doing other things, like treating patients with greater immediate need. So yes, the doctor's time is being used efficiently. It is the PATIENT'S time that is being wasted.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
But we weren't talking about the efficiency of the patient. We were talking about the efficiency of the ER. And the ER is VERY efficient.
Try again.
Elliot
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
So, having an emergency room doctor treat a guy with a cold is INEFFICIENT for the patient, but it's a GOOD use of the doctors time?? That's you story? You're going to stick with that, huh?
DUDE!
Patient inefficiency costs us HOW MUCH?? I didn't know that WE were the problem. DUDE!!
excon
You clearly can't understand what you have read.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
It is an efficient use of the doctor's time because the doctor is treating patients on the basis of most urgent need. THAT is the definition of efficiency.
Patient inefficiency costs us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING... which is why it isn't a problem. You are trying to manufacture an issue that doesn't exist.Quote:
Patient inefficiency costs us HOW MUCH?? I didn't know that WE were the problem. DUDE!!
Excon
You have yet to show how ERs are inefficient, and you have yet to show how government could do a better job of managing them. That's because you CAN'T and you know it.
Elliot
Don't worry excon, elliot is an economist who thinks paying taxes for services amounts to slavery
Elliot, your list didn't include social services which looks after others people kids paid for by you, or do you want to see what China or Romania did with their unwanted kids!
You haven't mentioned the refuse collection - surely you are more than capable of driving down to the refuse collection point instead of paying your government to do it
Road networks can be looked after by companies, so can rail and mail.
Telephone networks - nah you don't need a government for that either do you
You certainly don't need a government to run your jails
So the next step would be a privatised police force - because a company can look after that as well
You keep stating the one fact that you guys give more to charity than we do - WuHu, good for you, pat yourselves on the back
One question, how many wars has the US won?? (No offence to anybody serving or had served)
When your country comes even close to what we as a nation have achieved then please feel free to keep sounding it out
I wonder how much you will be giving to charity in a few generations when you are no longer a super power?
Elliot, you really are not living in this solar system
You missed the point . Those are all legitimate services of local governments . The mandates of the central Federal government in our system is few and delineated carefully in the articles of the Constitution.
The Constituition is not a fixed document
Where in the original text does it state, And every week your rubbish will be collected form your door. Your kids will be looked after if you can't look after them, we will lay telephone communications so everybody can talk to each
It doesn't, it is open to interpretation and change
And as I have said many times over, the War of Indpendence was about tyranny, about ruling elitism, and yet here people are saying, nobody is taking my position away from me - if people are hungary let them eat cake, wow everybody has moved on haven't they!
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Then tell me what I didn't understand... I understand perfectly what you said... The doctor is treating people efficiently, even though some of his time is spent on people who shouldn't be there in the first place...
Who wouldn't understand THAT cockamamy right wing business bull crap?? I mean, if a manager told a worker to pound nails into sand, and the worker diligently pounded those nails, that would, according to you, be an efficient use of the workers time, even though nobody needs nails pounded into sand??
Yessir. I understand perfectly. I doubt, however, that you'll understand me. That's cool. Those reading this will.
excon
Excon, I understand what you are trying to say
My final thought here is you just can't reason with stupidty
Have a good evening people
I didn't list that because it isn't provided for in the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
You're right, I missed that one, though it could be said to be part of maintenance of roads... but I'll grant you that one.Quote:
You haven't mentioned the refuse collection - surely you are more than capable of driving down to the refuse collection point instead of paying your government to do it
Yep... and most often, road repairs are contracted out to private companies. But it is STILL a government responsibility under the Constitution and therefore something that can legitimately be taxed for.Quote:
Road networks can be looked after by companies, so can rail and mail.
Actually not... the private companies handle it better than the government ever could. But it could be argued that it is a government responsibility.Quote:
Telephone networks - nah you don't need a government for that either do you
I actually listed jails above... but as a matter of fact, the running of jails is often contracted out to private companies as well. But the government pays for it.Quote:
You certainly don't need a government to run your jails
There are some counties that have such a system... police duties are contracted out to private individuals. Nevertheless, it is a government responsibility to do it, and the government pays for it.Quote:
So the next step would be a privatised police force - because a company can look after that as well
Actually it goes to the heart of your point. You argued that you need the government to handle your charity work for you... you need the government to do all the benevolent work that your people don't do by themselves. We don't need the government to do that work for us because we give more charity voluntarily than you do.Quote:
You keep stating the one fact that you guys give more to charity than we do - WuHu, good for you, pat yourselves on the back
Beginning with our national birth in 1776:Quote:
One question, how many wars has the US won?? (No offence to anybody serving or had served)
1) The Revolutionary War
2) The Shays Rebellion
3) The Whiskey Rebellion
4) The Quasi-War (against France)
5) The War of 1812 (aka The Second War of Independence)
6) The Mexican-American War
7) The Amercan Civil War (coincidentally was also lost that war)
8) The Spanish American War
9) The Banana Wars
10) World War I
11) World War II
13) The Korean War
14) The Cold War
15) Granada
16) The Gulf War
17) The Iraq War.
Please keep in mind that the only reason you don't speak German is because of US.Quote:
When your country comes even close to what we as a nation have achieved then please feel free to keep sounding it out
Deal with it.
That will depend on how much our government keeps taking from us in the name of "helping those less fortunate" as you advocate. But for now WE ARE a super power, both economically and militarily. I'm just trying to make sure we stay that way.Quote:
I wonder how much you will be giving to charity in a few generations when you are no longer a super power?
Again, deal with it.
Uh huh... you're the one dreaming of the USA no longer being a super power and utopian governments that keep everyone happy, healthy and care-free.Quote:
Elliot, you really are not living in this solar system
AND THAT is where you are wrong. It IS a fixed document.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
It doesn't... that's a STATE responsibility, not a federal one.Quote:
Where in the orginal text does it state, And every week your rubbish will be collected form your door.
Since when is that a government responsibility? It may be a nice thing for someone to do for you, but it isn't a government responsibility.Quote:
Your kids will be looked after if you can't look after them
That IS listed... when it talks about maintaining roads and mail systems... which includes methods of communications. But the fact is that the telephone system is handled by private companies... formerly Bell Telephone, and now it's various "baby bells".Quote:
we will lay telephone communications so everybody can talk to each
Interpretation, yes. That is what the Supreme Court is there for. But change? Only via Amendment.Quote:
It doesnt, it is open to interpretation and change
You're right.Quote:
And as I have said many times over, the War of Indpendence was about tyranny, about ruling elitism, and yet here people are saying, nobody is taking my position away from me - if people are hungary let them eat cake, wow everybody has moved on havent they!
When we rebelled against King George, we did so because he was taxing us into oblivion, taking our assets, ostensibly for the good of the realm.
Today the government is trying to pass new laws that will tax us into oblivion and take away our assets, ostensibly for the good of the nation.
Not much has changed at all.
And your analysis of the reasons for the Revolution make it clear that you STILL don't know what it was about. It was about TAXATION without REPRESENTATION... it was about taking away the hard-earned assets of individuals without them having a say in the matter.
It had nothing to do with "elitism" or "position". In fact, the Founding Fathers were quite ready to name George Washington "King"... it was the system they knew and most understood. They LIKED monarchy, and would have been quite comfortable with it. They had no problem with the idea of a ruling elite. But they decided, after looking at history, that there had to be a better system that would prevent that much power from being in the hands of any one man... and from that concept came the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The point is that you misunderstand the nature of the Revolutionary War, why we broke away from you, and how we came to believe what we do about the role of government. You still think it was because of some sort of hate of monarchy and nobility in general. It wasn't. And when you can figure out what it REALLY was all about... freedom to keep what you earn, freedom to accumulate wealth, freedom to pursue our goals unmolested by government intervention... then you will understand why Conservatives feel as we do about the role of government.
But I doubt that you will get it. You don't see anything wrong with the government taking your money and giving it to others. Or keeping it for themselves.
Excon,
Well, for one thing you seem to think that "patient inefficiency", the fact that the patient has to wait around for a long time in an ER if his problem isn't emergent, is some sort of issue.
Second, you seem to think that a doctor who deals with patients who need less care AFTER dealing with patients who need more care is somehow an inefficient use of that doctor's time.
Third, you seem to think that the government is going to fix these inefficiencies... that somehow the patient won't have to wait so long, and that somehow the doctor's time will be more efficiently used.
You assume this despite the fact that everywhere nationalized health care has been tried, patient waits for care have INCREASED instead of decreasing... patients who used to wait for a few hours in an emergency room now wait weeks for an appointment with their doctor at his office.
You assume this despite the fact that in every place where it has been tried, doctors have become LESS efficient due to government intervention... a doctor who has met his quota for the day, week, month or year doesn't see any more patients, because he's not getting paid for more patients. He could have 3 more hours left to his shift, but he's not going to see any more patients that day, because he's met his quota. Whereas in the USA, doctors see patients until their shift is over, and then they usually stay overtime to make sure that the patients they STARTED seeing are cleared from the board before they go home.
So patient wait times become more inefficient, and doctors times are spent more inefficiently in a nationalized health care setting.
And fourth, you think that ERs are inefficient.
But YOU assume that nationalizing health care is going to make these things MORE efficient.
THAT is what you don't understand.
Elliot
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:00 AM. |