National Healthcare

[chafnerjr]

Woah! Let's keep it friendly guys. This is a rare political thread that hasn't devolved into stupid. Tossing left or right wing accusations will get it closed. Put up truth and fact, and leave it there.

Personal opinion is expected, attacks on ideology are not.

Well said. I did edit out a line in my last post that was in response to, because you have a very good point.

[drg]

Really? What portion of the Constitution allows / mandates the federal government to fend any health care program? That obvious right is pretty much non-existant in my mind

No constitution is intended to be the sum total of the governing mandate of ... pretty much anything. It provides some specific terms and limitations, but there is very broad mandate under its auspices. That said, you will find the constitutional language affirming this specific mandate in the General Welfare clause.

NB however, in this case I'm talking about the point of government in general. The closer you get to nongovernance, the less you fulfill the point of a government. I.e. if it isn't taking care of the people (as a whole), government has no use.

Those de-regulations were pushed through in order to enforce the CRA on the few GSE's (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in particular) that HAD to offer it.

Er ... deregulation by definition doesn't enforce anything.

That said, I'm open to any proof of said claim you may have, that deregulation was passed in support of the CRA. I find this EXTREMELY unlikely as the CRA is counter to the goals and beliefs of the Republicans and economic right-wingers that are responsible for the deregulation.

[Lohman446]

NB however, in this case I'm talking about the point of government in general. The closer you get to nongovernance, the less you fulfill the point of a government. I.e. if it isn't taking care of the people (as a whole), government has no use.

To what level can we take this argument? Understand I am one of the "uninsured working people" that everyone cares so much about. The health care system is broken - I agree. Having witnessed government in action (and knowing the cost of goverment action) I am certain the answer it not the government handling my healthcare.

[bornl33t]

Does anyone disagree that taxes are bad...for the individual and the ecconomy. I understand that they are necessary but generally speaking no? If this is true what can justify more? Goverment can regulate just fine without taking in more taxes. Teeth to me are laws not taxes. Any move towards NH will be preceded with half asses attempts to fix the system until enough people agree that only solution is NH funded by taxes.
And for the "no ones proposing this" crowd...turn on the tv. It's where the idiots get their politics. And they are voting majority.

[vf-xx]

Does anyone disagree that taxes are bad...for the individual and the ecconomy. I understand that they are necessary but generally speaking no? If this is true what can justify more? Goverment can regulate just fine without taking in more taxes. Teeth to me are laws not taxes. Any move towards NH will be preceded with half asses attempts to fix the system until enough people agree that only solution is NH funded by taxes.
And for the "no ones proposing this" crowd...turn on the tv. It's where the idiots get their politics. And they are voting majority.

I agree that that I don't want more taxes, however you do come to a point of, how do you run any organization without funding? I think taxes as a whole might be a nessicary evil.

That said, I don't think our money is being used well.

[MANN]

I agree that that I don't want more taxes, however you do come to a point of, how do you run any organization without funding?

There is an easy solution to getting more money(for the us gov). In fact it relates to paintball.

Everyone is tring to get a bigger piece of the pie. That is the wrong way to go about it. We need to make the pie bigger.

So now you want to know how to make the pie bigger? less taxes on companies. Allow companies to save a buck or two. They hire more people/invest in other ways/etc. The economy blossums, and everyone wins.

When you tax companies/people to death they come to a point where it is better to take their money/skill/investment, and find a better way to make captial.

/carry on with healthcare

[Lohman446]

One of the issues with government spending:

It has been shown time and time again that private industry is FAR more efficient than government. That being said I think our healthcare system may be the most wasteful private industry in existance.

[drg]

Does anyone disagree that taxes are bad...for the individual and the ecconomy. I understand that they are necessary but generally speaking no? If this is true what can justify more? Goverment can regulate just fine without taking in more taxes. Teeth to me are laws not taxes. Any move towards NH will be preceded with half asses attempts to fix the system until enough people agree that only solution is NH funded by taxes.
And for the "no ones proposing this" crowd...turn on the tv. It's where the idiots get their politics. And they are voting majority.

I don't think taxes are bad. I think they are necessary and low taxes can be quite bad for an economy with a high income disparity, especially if the top brackets are too low.

Too much wealth in private hands leads to irresponsible behaviors like those we have seen that led us to this crisis; people cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the group as a whole. Government and taxation is an important counterbalance to the tendency of the individual to act without regard to others.

Large tax cuts often lead to economic bubbles, which are far worse than progressive, proactive taxation.

One of the issues with government spending:

It has been shown time and time again that private industry is FAR more efficient than government.

At doing what? Creating profits perhaps. But providing social services? For-profit service providers are some of the WORST offenders in all of this.

[vf-xx]

I don't think taxes are bad. I think they are necessary and low taxes can be quite bad for an economy with a high income disparity, especially if the top brackets are too low.

Too much wealth in private hands leads to irresponsible behaviors like those we have seen that led us to this crisis; people cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the group as a whole. Government and taxation is an important counterbalance to the tendency of the individual to act without regard to others.

Large tax cuts often lead to economic bubbles, which are far worse than progressive, proactive taxation.

Um, but the government is made up of people. What makes them magical?

Actually the government is usually made up of the economic elite to begin with. I don't believe that they look out for me before they look out for themselves. Not one bit.

[Lohman446]

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

The fact is he was right. You as an individual are welcome to give whatever you want to help whoever you want. The government is not entitled to take anything from anyone to give to someone else. This includes taxing in order to set up some health care system. The government has the right (arguably) to regulate. They do not have the right to run it.

For the record, Crocket was considered a champion of the rights of the poor.

[drg]

Um, but the government is made up of people. What makes them magical?

What makes them "magical" is that they themselves are numerous and they are responsible to the people as a whole, whose votes they need to stay in their positions of power. Sure that's simplistic, but politicians do have an entirely different set of considerations than leaders of industry.

Even if you consider them to act in a similar way to private industry, they provide a valuable competing interest to keep things in check. Checks and balances and all that.

The alternative, not having government and letting industry do whatever it wants, is pretty obviously a poor option.

[Lohman446]

At doing what? Creating profits perhaps. But providing social services? For-profit service providers are some of the WORST offenders in all of this.

At doing anything. The government usually spends more - while not turning a profit and often producing an inferior product. Innovation without private industry is almost non-existant.

Consider the supermarkets of socialist countries for example of pure failure to compare to private industries.

Unless we were to reinvent pride as a reason to do things (and frankly, looking at Americans holding out there hands this is a long shot) its going to require $$ to spur industry and innovation.

[drg]

At doing anything. The government usually spends more - while not turning a profit and often producing an inferior product. Innovation without private industry is almost non-existant.

Consider the supermarkets of socialist countries for example of pure failure to compare to private industries.

Unless we were to reinvent pride as a reason to do things (and frankly, looking at Americans holding out there hands this is a long shot) its going to require $$ to spur industry and innovation.

I don't think a destruction of industry where innovation is a good thing is a part of any of these plans. However in financial industries, what exactly does "innovation" mean? It means new ways to get your money and hide shady dealings. Innovation brought us HMOs and credit derivatives.

No thanks. That kind of innovation can die out; that kind of growth is not good growth. That's cancerous growth.

Not all innovation is good. A product is not necessarily inferior if it produces less profit and/or growth for the company.

[Lohman446]

I don't think a destruction of industry where innovation is a good thing is a part of any of these plans. However in financial industries, what exactly does "innovation" mean? It means new ways to get your money and hide shady dealings. Innovation brought us
HMOs and credit derivatives.

Compare the new drugs / treatments / procedures in medicine come up in the past twenty years through private industry compared to those brought up through the government.

Even most X-prizes today that are designed to cause innovation are offered by private individuals and companies.

Face it, the last time government spurred innovation was when JFK announced we would go to the moon - and private industry contributed heavily to getting there.

[vf-xx]

The alternative, not having government and letting industry do whatever it wants, is pretty obviously a poor option.

I don't know where you get the idea that I don't want government at all, so let me be clear: I do believe that government has a purpose. I do not believe that it needs to be a monsterous thing that lords over everything to the finest detail and feeds deeply on the working class to appease the needs of the greedy and lazy.

There's a difference between navagating and driving. For the topic in hand, it's my opinion that the government should guide, not drive.