Chrysler 300M Enthusiasts Club
  • Milk, no eggs.

  • A place to discuss the politics of the day.
Ocean City 2019 Banner

Membership Banner

A place to discuss the politics of the day.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
 #254172  by slimpants
 
Split from http://300mclub.org/forums/viewtopic.ph ... 1&start=15 to appease the masses.



Bill Putney wrote:
krautmaster wrote:...We are supposed to have the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
Not in the Constitution. The context (in the Declaration of Independence) was of the government not activly pursuing to kill you, not to take a way your liberty, and to allow you to freely pursue happiness. There's no way anybody can guarantee you life, and the writers of the Constitution realized that that would not be a realistic guarantee. That's why it's not in there.
...If we had a system of basic affordable, portable (across state lines) healthcare, wouldn't it relieve a lot of the burden on businesses (both small and large) that struggle to provide insurance?...
Excellent point, Rich. Possibly without realizing it, you've hit on a huge crux of the matter.

Do you realize that the health insurance industry is not a free market system - by government legislation, it has an artificial protection from competition among itself. The health insurance industry is exempt from the anti-trust laws that are there to ensure fair competition in practically every other industry in the U.S. (see McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945). That's what took health insurance out of the free market and eliminated competition by not allowing state-to-state portability.

Part of every intelligent and coherent plan to positively reform health insurance does exactly what you suggest by eliminating the non-portability of health insurance policies by removing the anti-trust exemption and truly putting it back into the free market like other businesses.
You have to admit that healthcare is a problem in America, and I for one am tired of seeing a few executives get filthy rich off the backs of working people by denying them coverage when they need it most...
That is possible largely because the health insurance industry is exempt from normal competition (by their exemption from anti-trust). You better believe that the industry itself will fight against repealing McCarran-Ferguson because they want to continue to operate in a competition-free environment. The answer is not more government (it created the mess in the first place). The answer is more free market with true competitive pressures within the industry, part of which would be state-to-state portability.
Unfortunately, our political system has been corrupted by dirty money from corporations, lobbyists, and unions, and this constant grab for cash by our politicians prevents anything useful from ever being accomplished: we end up with half-arsed policies like Obamacare or nothing at all.
Can't argue with you there (see Microsoft and GE - Microsoft who used to do zero lobbying until it got threatened to get litigated out of existence unless it started playing ball with the system - now it lobbies; GE which made $14B profit and paid zero taxes due to green energy tax credits from legislation they lobbied for, yet they are one of the worst offenders of sending jobs overseas - but they are exempt from criticism and scrutiny in the press and in politics in the usual corporation-bashing game because they play ball with the government on all the pet projects and favored agendas. Guess who is head of Obama's economic recovery advisory panel.).

------

Bill Putney wrote:The answer is not more government (it created the mess in the first place). The answer is more free market with true competitive pressures within the industry...
This is impossible. Give me the healthiest of humans and I'll make billion$. No businessman in his right mind will (want to) insure the gravely ill or those likely to become ill soon. And, if/when he's stuck with them, he'll do what he can to see that they "disappear" asap.

Make it Universal to spread out the cost. i.e. we'll pay half of what we currently are and we'll live the extra three years that the rest of the West does. Or, we can continue to hope like hell we make it to age 65 (with a few bucks in our pocket) when that clever "Public Option" thing kicks in.




.
User avatar
 #254190  by Bill Putney
 
slimpants wrote:
Bill Putney wrote:The answer is not more government (it created the mess in the first place). The answer is more free market with true competitive pressures within the industry...
This is impossible. Give me the healthiest of humans and I'll make billion$. No businessman in his right mind will (want to) insure the gravely ill or those likely to become ill soon. And, if/when he's stuck with them, he'll do what he can to see that they "disappear" asap...
They can only do that now because they are exempt from competition (granted exemption from the anti-trust laws by the government). Reintroduce true competition so that I can pick and choose my carrier, and a company that is conducting themselves unscrupulously will find itself with its customers having moved to the competition that is providing a service for its premium dollar. You can't make money without customers.

If someone is stupid enough to stay with a provider that doesn't cover you when the chips are down when their competition does, then they are subject to the consequences of their own decision. All you need is groups that track the statistics of the various companies and make that information public, and people will go with the better providers.

What do you think it's going to do to government insurance costs when you can stay out of the system when you're healthy and pop back in when you get sick?

Like Rich said - have the policies be portable like they would be without government favoratism/protectionism.

Let the companies compete for your business.

Also - the federal gov't has no authority to force states to participate. Any such authority is only imagined and not real, Consititutionally speaking. And using the interstate commerce laws to force me to buy a product that I don't want is no less a crock today than when it was when used to stop Filburn from growing wheat solely for consumption on his own land by his own cattle in 1942.

And - again - please explain how giving over 1100 exemptions to Obamacare makes any sense at all. If it is so good, why are certain entities requesting exemption? And how is it fair that anybody be exempted. Why can't I or anybody be exempted and not be forced to buy a product that we don't want? I'm really interested in seeing how you can thoroughly answer that without tripping yourself up. Not even sure that needle can be threaded. Hopefully the courts will see it the same way when they declare it unenforceable for that very reason.

"Milk, no eggs"? What's that all about?
User avatar
 #254193  by krautmaster
 
Bill Putney wrote:...the federal gov't has no authority to force states to participate. Any such authority is only imagined and not real, Consititutionally speaking... And using the interstate commerce laws to force me to buy a product that I don't want is no less a crock today than when it was when used to stop Filburn from growing wheat solely for consumption on his own land by his own cattle in 1942. [
Bill,
I'm not so sure about this one, it depends on how the courts rule (so far it's batting 60/40): George Washington's government required all able bodied men (18-45 years old) to buy and maintain a musket/powder/ammo/pack/and other military equipment, so it's not the first time that citizens have been required to purchase something by the government....

The Second Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792:
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm


Old George (actually signed into law by John Adams) also had Government healthcare for sick and disabled sailors. It was not free -they had a portion of their wages withheld, which were put into a government fund to pay for the care.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29099806/Act- ... -July-1798
User avatar
 #254196  by Bill Putney
 
Interesting stuff, Rich. Not sure this addresses everything raised by what you posted, but the Constitution does specifically authorize the government to provide for defense. Interesting that the men had to pay for their own weapons.

While you could certainly argue that the gov't couldn't require the purchase of weapons for the common defense (i.e., the Colonial requirement could be considered unconstitutional had it been challenged), there is absolutely no Constitutional authority requiring me to purchase health insurance, especially under the bogus attempt to invoke the interstate commerce clause - i.e., because my not purchasing something affects interstate commerce, I can be required to purchase it. That is tyranny pure and simple, no question.
User avatar
 #254198  by krautmaster
 
And therein lies the "rub"- if the government can't make you buy insurance the whole thing collapses: people will only buy it when they're are sick and not when they are healthy (human nature) so the program would either be too expensive for anyone to afford and it would go bankrupt very quickly.

That's why I like the Swiss way: the people are required to have a basic policy (like auto liability insurance) and the government prevents the insurers from gouging them on the price-and that is all the Government has to say about it, period. The rest is left up to the private sector where people can buy as much insurance as they want/need from whoever they want and competition keeps the prices affordable.

My brother-in-law is a lawyer, and an arch conservative John Birch Society member who hates anything associated with Obama (he's also one of the old school Mormon's who does not care for Blacks-some mumbo jumbo about them being descended from Ham or Shem?) but after studying the issue he thinks they can get away with it because the fine for not buying it is a TAX (and lets face it, a really cheap one at that with no enforcement standard), and it's really pissing him off! As I said before, it's going to be up to the Supreme Court....

http://fortmohavelaw.com/about_us
User avatar
 #254199  by mabraham
 
I agree with Bill, that is de facto tyranny. The government wants to own/run as much of the private sector as they can, in turn spending our money how ever they choose, gaining them more control.
 #254247  by tinman
 
Bill Putney wrote:"Milk, no eggs"? What's that all about?
That was the joke originally posted that led to this discussion.
User avatar
 #254255  by Bill Putney
 
tinman wrote:
Bill Putney wrote:"Milk, no eggs"? What's that all about?
That was the joke originally posted that led to this discussion.
I had totally forgotten. Funny.
 #254257  by tinman
 
Bill Putney wrote:
tinman wrote:
Bill Putney wrote:"Milk, no eggs"? What's that all about?
That was the joke originally posted that led to this discussion.
I had totally forgotten. Funny.
Figures. Engineers, 'sheese' :P
User avatar
 #254259  by slimpants
 
Funny stuff. GW's Militia Act #2 was harsh. "Can I bum a flint, Ed? I'm only packin' one spare today."


Bill Putney wrote:And - again - please explain how giving over 1100 exemptions to Obamacare makes any sense at all.
Political expediency, like always. You do what ya must to get the damn thing done and try to keep the campaign donations in the process. The Dems have been trying for 20 years to address this issue. Hillary.


If someone is stupid enough to stay with a provider that doesn't cover you when the chips are down when their competition does, then they are subject to the consequences of their own decision. All you need is groups that track the statistics of the various companies and make that information public, and people will go with the better providers.
That's their genius. We're all somewhat content with our "plan" 'cause we ain't sick yet. But, wait til ya see the fine print when you do fall ill. You're gonna get cancer and THEN go shoppin' around for a "Provider"? Hmm.


Let the companies compete for your business.
I don't want strangers competing to see how much money they can save should I get ill. I want a doctor to cure me. I'll gladly pay the same premiums that elected officials do and simply expect reasonable basic coverage.


mabraham wrote:I agree with Bill, that is de facto tyranny. The government wants to own/run as much of the private sector as they can, in turn spending our money how ever they choose, gaining them more control.
I disagree. If you were Prez, why would you wanna spend one minute dealing with Health Care b.s.? Zero political benefit. Leave it to the doctors/physicians. Way more important stuff going on in the country/world. Unfortunately, here, we're saddled with a gang of "entrepreneurs" who insist they're forever entitled to a third of our premium$ simply for handling the paperwork (poorly). And, those dollars = clout.


"Milk, no eggs"? What's that all about?
Forest for the trees. You can spend an hour discussing what the wife's actual words/intent was, but, in the end, you'll be heading back to the groceteria to complete the task none too soon. One would think. Heh.




.
User avatar
 #254263  by Bill Putney
 
slimpants wrote:That's their genius. We're all somewhat content with our "plan" 'cause we ain't sick yet. But, wait til ya see the fine print when you do fall ill. You're gonna get cancer and THEN go shoppin' around for a "Provider"? Hmm.
My daughter had a childhood cancer (35% survivability rate) when she was 18 years old, so I am intimately familiar with what's out there. I just don't think the government can do it better. (BTW - daughter is fine now 13 years later - didn't want to leave anyone hangin' about that.)
Let the companies compete for your business.
I don't want strangers competing to see how much money they can save should I get ill...
Believe me - the politicians and the doctors run by the politicians will be way worse.
mabraham wrote:...Unfortunately, here, we're saddled with a gang of "entrepreneurs" who insist they're forever entitled to a third of our premium$ simply for handling the paperwork (poorly)...
And we all know how much better and more efficient at that the government is. :)
"Milk, no eggs"? What's that all about?
Forest for the trees. You can spend an hour discussing what the wife's actual words/intent was, but, in the end, you'll be heading back to the groceteria to complete the task none too soon. One would think. Heh.
True.
User avatar
 #254303  by slimpants
 
Bill Putney wrote:I just don't think the government can do it better.
Better? C'mon, now. Does anyone NOT know someone who's been failed by our system? In all other First World countries, the gubment is simply the holder of the funds once the medical experts set the table. Thus, it only costs them ~ 12% to administer the program (as opposed to our 28%) and nobody gets the boot. So, ya might have to wait a week to get your package juggled. Boo hoo. At least you're gonna live.

Believe me - the politicians and the doctors run by the politicians will be way worse.
As per above. In the 30 countries ranked higher than us, the physician doesn't have to call up a hack to ask permission to do a procedure; if it's necessary, he simply does it. Supplemental policies for the affluent.

And we all know how much better and more efficient at that the government is.
Yup. There's no denying govt sucks in almost all ventures. But, no profit motive saves and extends lives in this situation. And, the "happiness" quotient is immeasurably increased because there's no need to remain in a job ya absolutely despise. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/economy- ... story_more




Three years is an awfully long time as we start approaching geezerdom. :shock:





Glad to hear about your girl, BP. It's still hard to fathom that 40% of us will be diagnosed with cancer at some point. Not exactly a Fun Fact of the Day, but, worth filing away in the cranium so as to lessen the imminent shock.



.
User avatar
 #268635  by 300maximilien
 
slimpants wrote: It's still hard to fathom that 40% of us will be diagnosed with cancer at some point. Not exactly a Fun Fact of the Day, but, worth filing away in the cranium so as to lessen the imminent shock.



.
when will people start asking WHY? Why will 40% of US Citizens be diagnosed with a form of cancer???

I believe it is related to 4 major things

1. The food we eat (poisoned by pesticides and hormones)
2. Pharmaceuticals (they are all poisons.....change your lifestyle before you have to get hooked on one or more)
3. Chemicals (In our food, in are water supply and in most of the products we use daily)
4. Life style (get up and move to live...stop watching TV, playing video games and using the computer) go outside and live!