insane medical costs

Point taken.....

:thumbsup:

For my part, because I don't accept any particular privelege for the several states beyond what is ambiguously mentioned in the Constitution and I don't, in a larger context, accept the eternal nature of the Constitution, the distinction doesn't matter much. Others may find it more germane to their thinking. But I believe you are correct-in fact does the word right(s) actually appear in the Constitution other than in the first Ten Amendments? I can't dredge that up simply from memory:huh:
 
I understand the natural progression of society and were it leads. I don't really expect to change that but I can warn people. I think many of the founders tried to construct the constitution in such a way to slow that natural progression. However, some of the founders didn't agree and that left compromises that created loop holes in the constitution such as "general welfare". Not that I think a constitution is much defense against the natural inclinations of a determined society. Things will happen the way they happen and I have to learn to live with it. It would be easier if these things didn't involve the government forcing me to do things against my will.
 
What is there to say....

except that, military service or no, there is something fundamentally wrong with the richest country in the world spending as much as it does on medical care (50% more per head than anyone else) and still not being able to address exactly these kind of calamitous results. My very deep prejudice on this is that at some level we just don't care , because if we did something would be done about it.

My father served in both theaters of WW2 from 1939(in Northern Ireland) until 1945 in the Pacific and in Korea during the whole of the war there and when he retired from the service he received $101 in pension and when he developed Alzheimers late in his life he was denied care at the VA for reasons I still do not understand. They did allow him burial at Fort Rosecrans if the family wished though.
 
usta in Portland said:
:thumbsup:

For my part, because I don't accept any particular privelege for the several states beyond what is ambiguously mentioned in the Constitution and I don't, in a larger context, accept the eternal nature of the Constitution, the distinction doesn't matter much. Others may find it more germane to their thinking. But I believe you are correct-in fact does the word right(s) actually appear in the Constitution other than in the first Ten Amendments? I can't dredge that up simply from memory:huh:
Click to expand...

"Right" appears in the Constitution once. In the copyright clause.
 
The only point of.....

government is to make people do things against their will, thus the affection for the concept of limited government-an affection I hold also, appearances, perhaps, to the contrary. the more limited the government the fewer things they can make you do. But the accomodation with all other factors means there will always be more government than any one person wants even if, in some way, it could be shown that it was the minimum required at the time and in the place.
 
Dan Sarandrea (Phila) said:
Basic human needs:
Food. Grocery stores, food manufacturers, and farmers all operate for profit.
Shelter. Home builders, real estate agents, mortgage companies all operate for profit.
Clothing. Clothing stores, clothing distributors, and Fruit of the Loom all operate for profit.
Utilities. Are regulated yes, but the vast majority operate for profit.

Care to revise your statement?
Click to expand...

All my utilities are run efficiently by publicly governed, not-for-profit entities. Are law enforcement, fire protection services, roads, schools all exclusively for profit in your area? Mine are not.

Imagine calling 911 and being first asked for proof of Police/Fire insurance or your employment status before they can provide services. That's precisely what this discussion is about.
 
bedrock not sand

The Constitution is built on bedrock. To believe otherwise - IMO - renders it meaningless. The Constitution can be amended, when it's proposed by a 2/3 vote in each house of Congress and ratified by 3/4's of the states. That may not be enough for some. It may be too much for others.
 
Last edited:
usta in Portland said:
except that, military service or no, there is something fundamentally wrong with the richest country in the world spending as much as it does on medical care (50% more per head than anyone else) and still not being able to address exactly these kind of calamitous results. My very deep prejudice on this is that at some level we just don't care , because if we did something would be done about it.

My father served in both theaters of WW2 from 1939(in Northern Ireland) until 1945 in the Pacific and in Korea during the whole of the war there and when he retired from the service he received $101 in pension and when he developed Alzheimers late in his life he was denied care at the VA for reasons I still do not understand. They did allow him burial at Fort Rosecrans if the family wished though.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that we don't care it is that we care so much it clouds our judgment on how to fix it. When there is a problem the answer is to have the government "do something" but when they are already the source of the problem it only makes matters worse.
 
3/5 ?

is that right? I thought it was 3/4 of the state legislatures after approval by 2/3 of both houses. Maybe that multiplies out to 3/5, math isn'tt my strong point.
 
MGandini said:
All my utilities are run efficiently by publicly governed, not-for-profit entities. Are law enforcement, fire protection services, roads, schools all exclusively for profit in your area? Mine are not.

Imagine calling 911 and being first asked for proof of Police/Fire insurance or your employment status before they can provide services. That's precisely what this discussion is about.
Click to expand...

Many utilities as well as roads are publicly run because is difficult to build and maintain parallel and competing infrastructures required for free market competition. Police serve a basic government function outlined in every state constitution. Fire protection and schools could easily be privatized and often are better when they are.

Health care is a commodity and competition in the free market is easily accomplished. It has none of the features would require government control or heavy regulation.

One other point. All these things are done at the local level (except roads to some degree). I would have much less of a problem with health care being done at the local level. If a city wants universal health care for its citizens that wouldn't be so bad. It doesn't happen because it's a bad idea so only a big powerful centralized government can impose it on the people with any success.
 
Last edited:
You are going to have to explain....

why the 'city' would be OK but not the federal government. There is a compelling pratical argument against the city in that it cannot control inflows of people who might come there just to get health coverage that is unavailable elsewhere. If coverage were uniform over the whole country this wouldn't be a problem. it is one of the big arguments against right now against allowing cross state insurers because sure as the sun comes up, one state will allow very lax regulation driving down the cost of the insurance and a lot dollars will flow there-this happens with incorporation laws and off shore banking. If the rules aren't uniform there will be cheating of one legal form or another. So the practical solutution is state by state quarantined markets as we now have, some uniform national rules or no rules at all. I suppose very savvy consumers might be able to price the difference in regulatory certainty in a non-uniform regulatory situation but probably only the most savvy.
 
usta in Portland said:
why the 'city' would be OK but not the federal government. There is a compelling pratical argument against the city in that it cannot control inflows of people who might come there just to get health coverage that is unavailable elsewhere. If coverage were uniform over the whole country this wouldn't be a problem. it is one of the big arguments against right now against allowing cross state insurers because sure as the sun comes up, one state will allow very lax regulation driving down the cost of the insurance and a lot dollars will flow there-this happens with incorporation laws and off shore banking. If the rules aren't uniform there will be cheating of one legal form or another. So the practical solutution is state by state quarantined markets as we now have, some uniform national rules or no rules at all. I suppose very savvy consumers might be able to price the difference in regulatory certainty in a non-uniform regulatory situation but probably only the most savvy.
Click to expand...

Right, it wouldn't work at all which is why I would be okay with it. It would bankrupt the city, people would flee the city for lower taxed areas and the city would be forced to end the program. At the federal level we are all captive to it and forced to subsidize it. The slow steady decline would effect all of us and there would be no political will to repeal it until there is no other option and that would be too late. At the federal level unsustainable bad ideas last for years and do enormous damage. At the local levels the competition between neighboring jurisdictions makes that very unlikely.
 
This probably represents....

an insoluable 'world view' problem inasmuch as some of us prefer the devil we know (and vote for by-the-way) to the devil we don't and one who has proven adept at circumventing uncomfortable requirements. If there was some way to make the provision of services of predictably high quality and the price reasonably affordable then the market mechanism might work. The problem is that no one wants to be the guinea pig in such an experiment. No one wants to be depending on a system of care where the only assurances of good treatment is the threat of after the fact law suit-you might be dead by that point anyway and in all liklihood the industry would press for limitations on torte judgements. And there is nothing in the market mechanism to prevent low cost through the simple mechanism of lower quality-in fact that is almost a given- in which case those with the least money, regardless of need, will get the shoddiest treatment; or so that, in any event, is a very real possiblity. It happens already in some ways with HMOs. So barring a simple denial of this eventuality on 'faith in the market' grounds, I don't see how those world views can be reconciled without doing considerable violence to one or the other of them.
 
usta in Portland said:
an insoluable 'world view' problem inasmuch as some of us prefer the devil we know (and vote for by-the-way) to the devil we don't and one who has proven adept at circumventing uncomfortable requirements. If there was some way to make the provision of services of predictably high quality and the price reasonably affordable then the market mechanism might work. The problem is that no one wants to be the guinea pig in such an experiment. No one wants to be depending on a system of care where the only assurances of good treatment is the threat of after the fact law suit-you might be dead by that point anyway and in all liklihood the industry would press for limitations on torte judgements. And there is nothing in the market mechanism to prevent low cost through the simple mechanism of lower quality-in fact that is almost a given- in which case those with the least money, regardless of need, will get the shoddiest treatment; or so that, in any event, is a very real possiblity. It happens already in some ways with HMOs. So barring a simple denial of this eventuality on 'faith in the market' grounds, I don't see how those world views can be reconciled without doing considerable violence to one or the other of them.
Click to expand...

The mechanism that prevents low cost through reduced quality is competition. In a free market there is a range of quality and price points. People will pay for what they can afford or the quality they want. Killing your customers is not a good way to compete in a free market. The systems will have problems for sure but the cost will be lower, the availability will better and there will be higher quality available. There will likely be low quality available as well but under a nationalized system the government will have a monopoly on low quality. Wealthy people will likely get better quality and that is an important aspect that helps society in the long run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top