| Author |
Topic:
US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
chibiangi
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
10/22/07 7:54pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Because a land invasion is more common than uh people dropping dead in the ER with a heart attack that could have been prevented with proper health care.
Talk about tangents dude.
-----signature-----
Talk nerdy to me.
mujaki na kao de boku ni hohoemu
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon
Registered:
Dec '00
|
Date Posted:
10/22/07 8:05pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
chibiangi posted:
Because a land invasion is more common than uh people dropping dead in the ER with a heart attack that could have been prevented with proper health care.
Talk about tangents dude.
Talk about missing my point, 'dude'.
I was pointing out that the same rationale for making the people fund the military though taxes could be applied to socialized health care.
The reason land invasions (or sea or air invasions, for that matter) are so far less common than heart attacks is BECAUSE we have armed forces, which serve as preventive care as regards the 'pathogen' of invasion. We have too many heart attacks because the government doesn't go to the same lengths to prevent death by heart attack that it does to prevent death by bombing.
If the anti-socialized-medicine crowd dealt with the military the way they deal with health care, we'd hear politicians and pundits telling people to buy their own emergency bunkers and radar arrays, because that's how capitalism is supposed to work.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
10/22/07 8:20pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
You could almost argue that the primary justification for a national military is its use as a form of preventive health care. It's like a vaccine against military invasion and all the mutilation and death that invasion would cause.
But... who's going to invade Canada, or the US -- or Mexico, for that matter?
It would take a massive military and massive naval forces, an operation of D-Day times several thousand. The area taken over by the Western allied forces in WWII would only be a portion of land in any 3 of these countries (I think even Mexico is larger than France, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Western Germany combined).
In terms of North America, conventional warfare is passe and has been so since the 20th century. The only way it would resurge again is in the event of a civil war. That's why any enemies of any North American nation would be forced to invest in ICBMs in order to be a real threat.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Midgetsforbreakfast
Registered:
Nov '02
|
Date Posted:
12/17/07 3:35pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
We can make drastic improvements in our Health Care costs and in the numbers of the uninsured and uninsurable without drastic changes in our system.
There is no need to socialize health care. The best way to make a difference is to fight obesity in America. Obesity and obesity-related health problems contribute nearly %30 to our health care costs.
However--there are some catches to this. Obesity is also linked to poverty, as foods that are heavily processed and dense with starches and fats are cheaper than "healthy foods." So what do we do there? We already have programs that help people afford food, but how do we make people choose the right kinds of food?
I'd like a solution that involves as little government as possible, so (to start) I would propose that we all, as individuals, get involved locally by going to PTA meetings. Ask what kind of health education programs they have. Ask what kind of education on healthy eating and exercise they have, and try to work with them to make this education better. Talk to them about inviting a dietitian to come speak to the classes. Get creative, but most importantly--get involved! IMO, by educating our kids early on the importance of such things we can make a real, and lasting) impact on our overall health issue.
But this is just one step of many that would be required.
-----signature-----
Fan-boys are the worst thing to EVER happen to Star Wars
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
12/17/07 3:43pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
The issue then, however, is how do you force choices upon people?
Case in point, all of half an hour ago, I had burger king. I could've gone and gotten subway and gotten something pretty healthy, but I opted for deep fried chicken with cheese on it. Not a cost issue, I just like that better. Why shouldn't I be able to pick what I'm going to eat? I know full well its unhealthy, however from my perspective the problems outweigh the benefits of a good tasting meal.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
EnforcerSG
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
12/17/07 5:28pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Midgetsforbreakfast posted:
However--there are some catches to this. Obesity is also linked to poverty, as foods that are heavily processed and dense with starches and fats are cheaper than "healthy foods." So what do we do there? We already have programs that help people afford food, but how do we make people choose the right kinds of food?
Tell me, are dwarfs healthy to eat? ;-)
Seriously though, how do you make people change? And maybe a deeper question, is it the Federal government's responsibility to make them change?
But you do have a really good point, a large part of the problem is people making bad choices. Universal health care would probably have less risk associated with it if people weren't so thick sometimes.
-----signature-----
The more you fight, the more the sacrifice for peace becomes a waste
If you don't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say.
God answers all prayers.
Sometimes the answer is no.
I don't know: I would tell you if I did!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ben_Skywalker
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
12/20/07 4:08pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Midgetsforbreakfast posted:
We can make drastic improvements in our Health Care costs and in the numbers of the uninsured and uninsurable without drastic changes in our system.
There is no need to socialize health care. The best way to make a difference is to fight obesity in America. Obesity and obesity-related health problems contribute nearly %30 to our health care costs.
However--there are some catches to this. Obesity is also linked to poverty, as foods that are heavily processed and dense with starches and fats are cheaper than "healthy foods." So what do we do there? We already have programs that help people afford food, but how do we make people choose the right kinds of food?
I'd like a solution that involves as little government as possible, so (to start) I would propose that we all, as individuals, get involved locally by going to PTA meetings. Ask what kind of health education programs they have. Ask what kind of education on healthy eating and exercise they have, and try to work with them to make this education better. Talk to them about inviting a dietitian to come speak to the classes. Get creative, but most importantly--get involved! IMO, by educating our kids early on the importance of such things we can make a real, and lasting) impact on our overall health issue.
But this is just one step of many that would be required.
Where did you get this number, 30%? Anyways, what about the other 70% of America's health care costs? Tens of millions of people will still be unable to afford proper health care even if somehow obesity was magically cured. By the way, educating people about obesity will not always work. Look at how abstinence and anti-smoking education worked out.
The fact is that we need government to help those in need and if that means creating a universal health care, then so be it because corporations aren't doing anything.
And although the founding fathers didnt directly mention health care in the Constitution (maybe because it was the 1700s?), they do state in the Preamble that We the People ought to promote the general welfare. And to me, it doesn't matter whether or not the State or the Federal government does it, as long as the job gets done.
BTW, San Francisco has a great universal health care system. IMO it should be a model for other cities/states
-----signature-----
Those who sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither.
*Obama '08*
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
12/20/07 5:55pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
|
It would be in my general welfare to have a more reliable car so that I can get to and from school and work. When do I get it?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
12/20/07 7:31pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Ben_Skywalker posted:
And although the founding fathers didnt directly mention health care in the Constitution (maybe because it was the 1700s?), they do state in the Preamble that We the People ought to promote the general welfare. And to me, it doesn't matter whether or not the State or the Federal government does it, as long as the job gets done.
Why don't we see what they had to say about the general welfare clause, then:Thomas Jefferson posted:
[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.
James Madison posted:
Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made.
The general welfare clause is not a blank check for the government to spend on whatever it wants. If that were the case, then why would the government need any of the other enumerated powers? Why would they need (for example) the authority to establish post offices and post roads if the general welfare clause already covered any government spending? Are post offices not for the "general welfare"?
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ben_Skywalker
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
12/21/07 10:29am
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
- Date Edited:
12/21/07 10:34am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Ben_Skywalker
|
Don't be so naive. Obviously the government isn't responsible for giving you a car. That's like saying just because the Constitution says that I have the right to free speech, I can say whatever I want, whenever I want. We're talking about the welfare of people's lives here. How can I live my life in the pursuit of happiness if I'm living paycheck to paycheck and worrying about the fact that I don't have health insurance? What am I going to do if I get into a car accident? Hell, what if I break a bone and I can't afford the medical costs just to have a doctor see me? Did you know that if you don't have insurance it costs about $400 just to have a doctor look at you (and not even treat you)? What am I going to do if my children get hurt? Or even my parents? Thank God being in the Army gives you insurance otherwise I'd really be asking these questions. Unfortunately tens of millions of people aren't so lucky.
Kimball, you quoted Madison and Jefferson. They lived in a totally different era. People did not have to worry about paying for food, rent, utility bills, car insurance, gas, and indeed health insurance.. The general welfare of the people had a totally different meaning back then.
And I'm not saying that our government should give a blank check on anything. I'm saying that if we can spend almost a trillion dollars in places like Iraq in order to ensure our security, I'd say that providing affordable health care to every citizen should definitely be a government prerogative.
-----signature-----
Those who sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither.
*Obama '08*
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DroidGeneral
Registered:
Jun '05
|
Date Posted:
12/21/07 12:16pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Ben_Skywalker posted:
And I'm not saying that our government should give a blank check on anything. I'm saying that if we can spend almost a trillion dollars in places like Iraq in order to ensure our security, I'd say that providing affordable health care to every citizen should definitely be a government prerogative.
That's just it, we have to borrow $3 billion a day from overseas bankers.
We don't have the money for Iraq or Universal Healthcare. Raising taxes is not going to fix the problem either.
-----signature-----
"The Force will be with you, always." "Star Wars isn't dead."-George Lucas  Ron Paul 2008
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ben_Skywalker
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
12/21/07 12:35pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Info about San Francisco Health
What do you guys think about SF's health care plan?
-----signature-----
Those who sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither.
*Obama '08*
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
darthdrago
Registered:
Dec '03
|
Date Posted:
12/21/07 1:07pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
I think it's unwise.
SF is still recovering from the dot com bust of `00-`01, which left lots of real estate parcels & storefronts unoccupied and/or uncompleted. The subprime collapse isn't helping much, but I'll admit the foreclosures are much more numerous across the water in the East Bay. Smaller businesses that might have been flirting with the idea of setting up shop in those vacated spaces in SF will certainly think twice if it looks like they'll have to spend a large chunk of their grosses on mandatory health care for employees. If smaller businesses flee the city, then it'll make it harder for the city (and probably also the individual) to pay its own share into the kitty if tax revenues are drying up.
I really don't know if the SF Board of Supervisors will in fact pass this on its final vote, but it's highly possible, given the solid-left bent in the majority of the government officials. Some city officials have been calling for a city-enforced "living wage" for all those who work within SF city limits, regardless if the individual is a banker or McDonalds employee. So city-enforced universal health care isn't much of a stretch in this case. If it somehow fails to pass the final vote, then it's certain to be a close vote.
I'm curious as to how Arnold will react if this measure is passed. A large part of his platform during the `03 recall election was to "stop the bleeding" of businesses fleeing California due to high costs of doing business here (taxes, business licenses, state/city/county fees & permits, minimum wages that are above the federal equivalents, etc.)
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 1:10am
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Ben_Skywalker posted:
Don't be so naive. Obviously the government isn't responsible for giving you a car. That's like saying just because the Constitution says that I have the right to free speech, I can say whatever I want, whenever I want. We're talking about the welfare of people's lives here. How can I live my life in the pursuit of happiness if I'm living paycheck to paycheck and worrying about the fact that I don't have health insurance? What am I going to do if I get into a car accident? Hell, what if I break a bone and I can't afford the medical costs just to have a doctor see me? Did you know that if you don't have insurance it costs about $400 just to have a doctor look at you (and not even treat you)? What am I going to do if my children get hurt? Or even my parents? Thank God being in the Army gives you insurance otherwise I'd really be asking these questions. Unfortunately tens of millions of people aren't so lucky.
I'd say you've the right to say whatever you want when you want so long as you're not unfairly harming others. Which is pretty wide range.
And why shouldn't I? How can I live my life in the pursuit of happiness if I'm having to take 2 or more hours each way to go to school and work by public transit? If I'm restricted to public transit lines only and have to worry about suffering injury from the increased strain of having to walk several miles a day to get to said work and school and agrevating a medical condition? Without a car, my health would most certainly be impacted in a negative way.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 5:48am
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Ben_Skywalker posted:
Kimball, you quoted Madison and Jefferson. They lived in a totally different era. People did not have to worry about paying for food, rent, utility bills, car insurance, gas, and indeed health insurance.. The general welfare of the people had a totally different meaning back then.
So? The Constitution constituted an explicit grant of powers to the federal government. There is no way to grant additional powers to the government, except through an Amendment to the Constitution. If the power to do whatever the government wants in order to support the "general welfare" wasn't granted by the Constitution when it was ratified, then it hasn't been granted today unless the Constitution was amended to grant that power.
Can you point me to the amendment that grants that power?
You see, the written word has a very specific purpose. It is designed to take a specific thought and fix it in a permanent medium. The Constitution isn't just a bunch of words that you can redefine to mean whatever you want. It is a collection of specific thought, accepted by the People, dictating what authority they were granting to the federal government. Those thoughts don't change just because you've redefined the words to mean what you want. The thoughts and the meaning of those words remains the same until you change the words themselves (i.e. amend the document).
If the "general welfare" clause wasn't a blank check in 1789, it still isn't a blank check in 2007.
Just because you think that the government should do something doesn't mean that it has the authority to do it. After all, that's why they had to pass the 13th, 16th, and 18th Amendments. As the Constitution stood at the time, Congress didn't have the power to abolish slavery, institute an income tax like we have today (although some forms of income tax were permissible), or prohibit alcohol. Similarly, just because people wanted Congress to end Prohibition, doesn't mean that Congress could do it without the 21st Amendment.
If you want the federal government to have such a blank check, then propose and support an Amendment to give it such powers. That's the proper way to do it.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
