Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2013 - 11:36pm PT
|
This is about reducing the bourgeoisie (middle class) to dependent subservience.
The political class will feel no pain.
The poor will see no relief.
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2013 - 11:42pm PT
|
Why are the politicians and most government unions not required to be a part of this plan? Instead they are excluded and keep "platinum plans" that the middle class (whatever that is) pay for?
Dem, Repub, this is all BS and party doesn't matter. Let them eat cake while we take them to the cleaners. This seems like a feudal government looking to line their pockets at the cost of the people they are supposed to serve.
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2013 - 11:50pm PT
|
Term Limits
edit: Shilo, roger that. Congress currently has a 9% approval rating, but the nation keep voting the bastards in for term after term after term...
"Bend me over but you keep telling me all the good you will do for me next year, so I'll vote for you again".
2nd edit: if I had a 9% approval rating at work I would be fired.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2013 - 11:59pm PT
|
I am not quite willing to turn my back on these folks when it comes to basic health care...
We are talking two different things here. And let me start by saying that, as I've posted, I would fully support a properly-designed single-payer system... not deriving from the principles I have cited, but because I'm willing to compromise on something like this, because I realize that many, many people (like you) so strongly believe that "we" just must do something. NP, let's do "something," but lets distribute the costs FAR more intelligently than any plan (including Obumblecare) has so far contemplated.
I was talking about the principles upon which this country was supposed to run. We're WAY too far down the road now to return fully to those principles. I get that. So, I'm pragmatic enough to try to find solutions that least violate the principles, while also providing an intelligent and real solution!
And it wasn't just "church groups" and such that were supposed to be the charity-providers. There is a HUGE difference between what a state or local government decides to implement to "help" its "poor" (as that is defined more or less locally) and what is foisted off on us at the national level. One reason is that I can fairly easily move from town to town or state to state. But I cannot easily (and our founders said: should never HAVE to) move from nation to nation to escape policies that are terribly odious.
Even friends and families can help, not to mention all sorts of community projects. But there's less and less money to do that now. At this point, when I'm asked, "Would you like to donate to the blah, blah, blah fund?" or to "help such and such a group?" my response is the same: "I gave and gave and GAVE at the office!" And, oh, does my office GIVE!
Anyway, I stand by my principles, but I'm willing to find compromises.
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 12:08am PT
|
deleted. getting to far OT.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 12:19am PT
|
The fact is however healthcare should be a basic right just like education, public roads, etc.
It's funny how much we agree, yet it's a fairly pragmatically-based "agreement," because we clearly differ pretty greatly on the underlying political philosophy.
I've posted this elsewhere, but even the "rights" talk has gone wildly astray since FDR was President (he was the real turning point on this front). Prior to FDR, "rights" were talked about in "negative" terms (I satisfy your negative rights by doing nothing). Since FDR, "rights" have been more and more sweepingly considered in "positive" terms (to satisfy your positive rights, I have to DO something, pay something, expend something).
So, you talk about "basic rights" and the cite a bunch of things that are all positive rather than negative rights.
In "founders" terms, your NEGATIVE right to life does NOT imply that I have ANY responsibility to ensure that you live (and certainly not to any particular standard)!
Anyway, I'm again getting dragged into a discussion I said I wouldn't on this thread. Gag: political philosophy!
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 12:28am PT
|
Bravo to Madbolter and J Shiloh for bringing intelligent discussion to this thread, instead of the common political "hacktivism". Healthcare is a right ,and everyone has the right and responsibity to pursue the best possible care for themselves and their family. No amount of goverance , coercion, or redistribution can substitute for personal healthcare achieved through freewill. There will always be winners and losers, let' s just hope we all don't become the losers to a giant government artistocracy.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 12:35am PT
|
I, too, have really appreciated Shiloh's contributions very much. IMHO, he has almost single-handedly elevated the level of discussion.
Well, I'm off to beddie-bye. Gotta get my beauty (and healthy) sleep.
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 08:52am PT
|
It's looking like the House may pass legislation permitting people to keep their insurance plans. The Senate may also pass a version. In his lead from behind style, the president will probably not veto.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/190146-reid-calls-special-obamacare-meeting
So last month my ex-wife was told by her insurance provider that they were pulling out of California. I would think that it might be wise for her to wait and see if she even needs to enroll in a new plan. How many other people will now delay enrolling due to legislative uncertainty?
Democrats are scrambling to cover their re-election chances in the wake of the ACA debacle. How ironic that had arrogant Democrats gone along with dim witted Republicans on delaying ACA before the government shutdown, the Democrats would look much better now.
"I only lied because it was the easiest way to get what I wanted."
Bart Simpson
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 10:05am PT
|
Some people work hard but just lack the intelligence to do a job that is as valuable as another job.
Again, this is lack of respect for the work ethic.
Riddle me this, madbolter. Who does more to keep us healthy and disease free: the garbage mnan or the physiscian?
I still fail to see why anyone, even a ditch digger, has to live in poverty while doing a full day's work, while another small class wallows in riches for doing nothing.
I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence. -- Eugene Debs Convict No. 9653
|
|
Snowmassguy
Trad climber
Calirado
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 12:13pm PT
|
But the same conditions that are causing the cancellation of individual policies will eventually result in the cancellation of millions of employment-based policies as well. The only reason that hasn’t happened yet is that the employer mandate was postponed for a year, so employer plans don’t yet have to be ACA-compliant. But they will. Even the Congressional Budget Office estimates that as many as 20 million workers will lose their current employer-sponsored plans. Combine that with those losing individual plans, and more than 30 million Americans cannot keep their current insurance.
Kos, your employer based health plan will be next.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 12:16pm PT
|
Kos, your employer based health plan will be next.
Looking forward to that day--when it will be Medicare based single-payer for everyone.
Curt
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 12:35pm PT
|
Wealth CONFISCATED from one and given to another!
You miss the point. The feds were constitutionally granted the power to tax to support the NARROW and specific functions stated in the enumerated powers clause. Nothing like wealth redistribution was contemplated by the enumerated powers. I have NO problem with taxation to support a strong national defense, etc. Just keep taxation supporting ONLY those enumerated powers (without the interstate commerce clause writ larger and larger!), and I'm a happy camper.
Whatever happened to Christian values?
It's called: individual liberty, which implies free will. Christianity is not about coercion. Christianity values free and willing giving, which is the only sort that has moral value. Coerced extraction to take the fruit of one person's labors and give that to another (especially one who more often than not is not WORTHY of any charity), and that is THEFT, plain and simple. I seem to remember a core Christian value: Thou shalt not steal.
Oh, right. It's okay if it's the government doing it under the auspices of majority faction. Yeah, right.
Again, now I just way, "I gave at the office." (Not really true, as I didn't GIVE; it was extracted from me against my will as pure and simple theft.)
And you really should stop conflating what is legitimate at the state and local level with what is legitimate at the federal level!
|
|
Snowmassguy
Trad climber
Calirado
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 12:37pm PT
|
Looking forward to that day--when it will be Medicare based single-payer for everyone.
Perfectly idealistic. Medicare is broke. How do you fairly fund Single Payer?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 12:37pm PT
|
Thou shalt not steal ( unless a majority of Congress approves the theft, then God's on board too )
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 12:46pm PT
|
Great post, Shiloh. "Kill the organism...."
So, seriously, how do we now get from "here" to "there?" I mean, we're a deeply divided nation, and we're governed by idiots that are a clear reflection of the apathetic, gimme voters that keep putting them back in office again and again.
It's like "powerless sniveling" feels better to the voters than actually making the substantial changes necessary to give these buffoons a serious heads-up.
I'd like to see every, single incumbent (of any party) voted out of office at each cycle, until we have a clean slate in Washington. Then, hand the newcomers a clear list of priorities.
Ahhh, but there's the rub. We all have vastly different priorities and really can't agree about which ones are most important. And the (bare) majority agrees on only one thing (even though they are not clear what "it" means): Don't you dare cut my entitlements in any way; in fact, see if you can give me more.
Long and short: We're totally hamstrung, and decisions are finger-to-the-wind and completely unprincipled.
A systematic, step-wise path from "here" to "there?" Uh huh... who is going to lead it? Certainly not our Obumbler in Chief, his cronies, or even the Rebumblecrats.
Sigh
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 12:53pm PT
|
Since madbolter won't answer my question, I will. The garbage man does more for the overall health of society than the physician.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 12:59pm PT
|
Perfectly idealistic. Medicare is broke. How do you fairly fund Single Payer?
I already posted a link to how this is done in England, as one example. I'm sure other alternatives could be considered as well.
Curt
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 01:07pm PT
|
The feds were constitutionally granted the power to tax to support the NARROW and specific functions stated in the enumerated powers clause.
And you accuse ME of selective excerpts? (I'm guilty as charged but only in response to your usual sweeping generalizations of some document or other as unequivocally supporting you chosen stance.
So another selective excerpt from some obscure document:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Note please, that the general welfare comes higher in the list than individual freedoms.
Another selective excerpt which just happens to completely contradict your claim above.
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
I don't believe healthcare is a fundamental right either, but a very very good idea, that surely promotes the general welfare, which is one of the explicitly stated purposes of the Federal government.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2013 - 01:22pm PT
|
Next time you are in DC, take a drive through the parking lot at the pentagon.
Tell me, were all those Land Rovers and BMWs purchased with stolen money?
Because every dime of it was extracted from the "fruit" of someone else's labor.
LOL.... You are making it too easy for me, Dave. Sorry, but you are MAKING my case for me here. Please continue.
(Oh, and another point about federal inefficiency to do a thing that is much better handled by smaller, more efficient entities: the Obumbler website has so far cost half-a-billion dollars (and climbing) to develop. Any number of private companies (including mine) could have produced that site (and it would just work) for under a million bucks.)
Let the feds have at it, and ALL you'll hear is the giant (the biggest the world has ever known) sucking sound: the sound of BILLIONS being sucked out of your pockets and then instantly wasted (just as Dave has noted). But, not to worry: They also have the biggest (the biggest the world has ever known) printing press with which to print more "money," make you slave and bleed to get some of it, and then repeat that same, sick process all over again.
Some economist said: "Government is the only entity that can take two valuable commodities, such as paper and ink, and by their mere combination render the product worthless."
...promote the general welfare....
Your problem, TE, is that you jump on excerpts without understanding the principles or verbiage you are quoting.
I'm not going to do your work for you: Do some research about what "general welfare" meant to the founders. What you will NOT find is "welfare" as in the nanny state we now have. Oh, and to help you out a bit, what you're looking for is the fact that "general welfare" was defined IN TERMS OF the most fundamental principles that legitimize government in the first place; and that will be cast in terms of the protection and promotion of individual (negative) liberties.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!