Quote:Well, first of all... The Constitution puts the power in the hands of the people. In theory, the republic creates a government that represents the will of the "majority". Not the most wealthy, but the majority of citizens. (that's the problem, of course) One which Trump initially got the Republican riled up about.
But if we are true Constitutionalists that find our values based on the Constitution of the United States, we all understand that the people (you know WE THE PEOPLE) already have the power and responsibility via our government.
To say you don't trust our government means that you really don't want responsibility in the hands of the people. You want the power in the hands of whatever constituency you've been duped by, unfotunately, you're duped by the Republicans which means you go against your best interests every time. It's sad (in my opinion), but it's your choice. In your case, especially since you've lived your entire life getting checks from the government either directly or indirectly, it's really sad to see how much you dislike a democratically representative government having the ability to make the decisions. I mean, it's alot better than just having a few people tell you what to do without any input by you. But I think that's a discussion for another day.
No, its the discussion for today. Your narrative about the constitutional foundations of our democratic republic are incorrect. A representative republic is based on the idea that the people should elect representatives that become more specialized and informed on the issues and thus can make day to day decisions about the inner working of the country more efficiently and more accurately than a random polling of the general citizenry. This is designed to allow public input, but in the 6 years after a senator is elected, 2 years after a congressman is elected or within the 4 years of a presidential term there is not one word in the constitution that binds them to the will of the MAJORITY of citizens.
One of the major draw backs of a representative republic is the fact that it essentially truncates the amount of people that you would have to bribe to influence the direction of the country away from the countries national interest. FL says that he doesn't trust the current ittiration of the federal government, its an acknowledgement that more often than not every two years a large portion of them make just enough campaign promises to affect a 95% retention rate and then as soon as they get back to the capital they discard those promises and govern according to the will of their donors.
One of the things you hear me talk about when discussing private vs. public sector allocation of resources is REAL TIME ACCOUNTABILITY. In the private sector if you screw up today you can be fired or sanctioned immediately (unless you belong to a teachers union.) In the political arena there is enough time for the national news cycle to regenerate before your next re-election.
In terms of the employer mandate, I think you mentioned the history of it, which is accurate. It was only because of WWII and the depleted labor force and strained federal government's inability to support the citizenship that was at home during the war that caused the employer benefit of healthcare to be enacted. Which means, in a world without war, where the democratic republic is not overwhelmed by the military industrial complex, the cost of health care (along with other social programs) would be funded fully by the government. Of course this means via taxes and nationalistic pride in helping your fellow US citizen.
it was more than that. During WWII your hero enacted wage and price controls, WHICH NEVER WORK! one way that employers went around the concept of wage controls was to offer other BENEFITS including health insurance.
But we all know the failures of that. The first being that republicans have been indoctrinated to not trust the government because of other coutnries failures. It's such tripe. But for whatever reason (dixie-crats, civil war, perhaps?) republicans have been brain washed to think that the government is out to get them and that they should hate it.
Lol. You talk about the constitution but you have no idea what it means and what it was written for. Why did the founding fathers spend so much time restraining and limiting the power of the state that they were in the middle of creating? because they understood that the nature of the state is to overgrow and consume resources at the expense of the citizens property and liberty.
Moreover, the federal government has tried its hand at financial services in the past, social security medicare medicaid etc. As a result, the private sector has demonstorably kicked its [BLEEP] in efficency, and rate of return and the country is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.
Perhaps we should figure out a way to work within the government and do what's best for the majority, and not just worry about businesses, especially since businesses have no loyalty to the USA.
send off a dollar to get back a quarter? That's going to work.
Quote:LOL, tell that to the oil industry, the banking industry, and car industry. You guys have such selective imaginations when it comes to "responsibility".
If you would just admit that the majority of subsidies, the majority of bailouts, the majority of the redistribution (including tax breaks) goes to the top 1%, I'd begin to agree with you more.
If not, you're just spouting the propaganda. Sometimes, I just don't get you guys. You defend those in power that are making it harder on all of us.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm doing well enough to support my family and allow my wife to stay at home with our 2 kids. But, dude, I'd never side with the group that hosed us back under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and RayGun. Yet you guys sit here and defend those policies as though they are the answer. Have you not learned the lessons yet??
I do understand that there are a lot of 1%ers that use the federal government to take advantage of the treasury to bankroll their lifestyle. When you admit that most of them are Democrats who want a centrally planned economy that they can control then i think you will see things more closely.
By the way, you notice how you didn't actually respond to the post i made, you just went back to your anecdotal misrepresentations?
Quote:Oh and by the way, based on the Constitution, the law is the Law if the 3 branches all agree. Whatever semantics you want to play, the supreme court upheld the law.
The Legislature drew up the law and both houses in our bicameral system and passed it.
The Executive signed off on it and did not veto it.
The Judicial ruled it Constitutional.
It's the Law. The law is the Law.
Seriously, so sick of talking about that gosh dang law... Just deal with it.
Lol. We have a system of continual debate and challenges to ensure that the true will of the people has been expressed and that programs enacted serve their original function. So "JUST DEAL WITH IT... " You might like Russia.
By the words in the darn bill the bill fell apart. They tried to blackmail republican governors into voluntarily entrenching Obamacare into their state budgets (There were actual provisions in the bill that were deemed unconstitutional and thrown out). This failed and the feds violated their own rules. This may stand because John Roberts is a sissy, but that doesn't mean it meets the constitutional definition of a law passed in the general order of business and duly held up according to the words IN THE DARN BILL.
Quote:Health insurance should bar for catastrophic events like surgery broken bones etc. Having normal run of the mill services like stitches simple prescriptions etc. Tied up within the massive bureaucracy of insurers and reimbursements hurts primary care providers by creating inordinate overhead. To combat this they designed concierge practices by which families pay the doctor monthly and he performs basic services. Couple that with health savings accounts and i think that's a foundation for sustainability.
That's a great policy if this was 1860... Not such a great policy in 2016... But I have a Delorian, and enough road to get to 88 mph if you're interested... :teehee:
Quote:People act shocked that the three branches of government agree that government should have more control. I dont know why.
Yes yes, you're very witty. But it's the Constitution. The Constitution was created to have a strong centralized federal government. It was created to replace the Articles of Confederation that gave most of the power to the states and was a complete disaster (to use a Trumpism).
Quote:I do understand that there are a lot of 1%ers that use the federal government to take advantage of the treasury to bankroll their lifestyle. When you admit that most of them are Democrats who want a centrally planned economy that they can control then i think you will see things more closely.
By the way, you notice how you didn't actually respond to the post i made, you just went back to your anecdotal misrepresentations?
Regarding the bolded, I accept your concession. :thumbsup:
I'm really not sure that Democratic billionaires want to centrally plan the economy. Those people are also billionaires, why would they give up control they have to a large bureaucracy? Also, I'm not 100%, but I'm 91% that the majority of wealthy people are republicans--- Though nowadays I think both parties have been co-opted by the uber wealthy. Look at the disgusting Clintons as an example on the D side and the Bushes on the R side. The whole thing is a mess.
Regarding your 2nd paragraph... I do enjoy reading your posts... It's like Iocane powder from the Princess Bride... It's poison at first but after a year or so of ingesting it, I've built up a tolerance for it... But there was nothing in the post that you wrote in which I responded in terms of responsibility that had any thing but your own "anecdotal misrepresentations"...
You realize that at the end of the day we're both just arguing different sides of the same coin, so to speak...
Quote:send off a dollar to get back a quarter? That's going to work.
There's too much in that post for me to respond to via my phone... I'm sure we'll circle back to those discussion/debating points at some time in the future.
Quote:That's a great policy if this was 1860... Not such a great policy in 2016... But I have a Delorian, and enough road to get to 88 mph if you're interested... :teehee:
Your throwing insults and not actually debating.
What I have expressed is simple risk management. greater risks that people can't pay for themselves should be covered by insurance, that's when u have to have surgery reset broken bones. That covers big ticket items.
Mid and low level care can be handled by concierge practices in which the primary care physician essentially self insures. So that means a family of four might pay a couple hundred dollars s month for nearly infinite doctor visits. U need stitches. Just go its free. U need a prescription? Its free. Rash? Cone on in... Its free. The bureaucracies inefficiency with reimbursement billing coding etc. Dramatically increases the cost associated with certain deliveries of care. A good concierge practice will supplant 50% of needs currently covered by emergency rooms.
Innovating more efficient means of risk management is the only way forward. Incidentally, national healthcare was invented in 18th century Germany by the forerunners to the Nazis. Have a good morning.
Quote:Regarding the bolded, I accept your concession. :thumbsup:
I'm really not sure that Democratic billionaires want to centrally plan the economy. Those people are also billionaires, why would they give up control they have to a large bureaucracy? Also, I'm not 100%, but I'm 91% that the majority of wealthy people are republicans--- Though nowadays I think both parties have been co-opted by the uber wealthy. Look at the disgusting Clintons as an example on the D side and the Bushes on the R side. The whole thing is a mess.
Regarding your 2nd paragraph... I do enjoy reading your posts... It's like Iocane powder from the Princess Bride... It's poison at first but after a year or so of ingesting it, I've built up a tolerance for it... But there was nothing in the post that you wrote in which I responded in terms of responsibility that had any thing but your own "anecdotal misrepresentations"...
You realize that at the end of the day we're both just arguing different sides of the same coin, so to speak...
The 1% at a minimum is split between the two parties but are overwhelmingly statistics (advocating central government control of the economy). Why? The politicians that would run the economy WORK FOR THEM!
Its easy to generate double digit rates of return on investments when you know how 25% of GDP is going to be spent ad on which sectors of the economy. You can also shield your empire from competition by making your competitors product illegal or create a cost structure that makes production unfeasible.
Quote:Yes yes, you're very witty. But it's the Constitution. The Constitution was created to have a strong centralized federal government. It was created to replace the Articles of Confederation that gave most of the power to the states and was a complete disaster (to use a Trumpism).
Enumerated powers, tenth amendment.
Quote:Your throwing insults and not actually debating.
What I have expressed is simple risk management. greater risks that people can't pay for themselves should be covered by insurance, that's when u have to have surgery reset broken bones. That covers big ticket items.
Mid and low level care can be handled by concierge practices in which the primary care physician essentially self insures. So that means a family of four might pay a couple hundred dollars s month for nearly infinite doctor visits. U need stitches. Just go its free. U need a prescription? Its free. Rash? Cone on in... Its free. The bureaucracies inefficiency with reimbursement billing coding etc. Dramatically increases the cost associated with certain deliveries of care. A good concierge practice will supplant 50% of needs currently covered by emergency rooms.
Innovating more efficient means of risk management is the only way forward. Incidentally, national healthcare was invented in 18th century Germany by the forerunners to the Nazis. Have a good morning.
Oh, calm down. Nobody is throwing insults... But I'm sorry, you're idea is a little out dated. Your utopian idea of how the free market would lower costs based on doctors coming up with their own health plans is just not feasable. The costs of health care now are too high. The standards are high, the technology costs are high, the administrative costs are high, the advancements in the health care industry cost money... Most workers couldn't afford a plan with just a doctor, unless you were getting a really bad doctor, and healthcare, I'm sorry to tell you is something people demand high standards to be maintained.
Look at the legal system... There is no legal insurance. Lawyers charge 300 to 400 an hour. Imagine what the market would bear for a doctor... Not to mention the fact that a doctor has actual costs to account for! I'm sorry, but it's a nice idea--- Just not realistic.
Also, can you provide a source for your Nazi's created nationalized healthcare? LOL... What I found is that Otto Von Bismark bagan providing insurance for healthcare... And he's far from being considered a pre-Nazi... Unless you think anyone that wants to maintain a nation is a pre-Nazi... In that case, Lincoln was also a pre-Nazi... LOL
Loll. There is legal insurance.
Once again you are not dealing with the argument. Concierge practices for mid level and low level care already ecist and they usually range about 100 dollars per adult 50 per child per month or there abuts. That covers all doctor visits to that provider. Why do doctors do this? Because 1.) it cuts out all the costs of the bureaucracy. 2.) it provides a dependable network of customers. 3.) they know that you wobt need to see a doctor every day.
The examples DOCTORS have given include families waiting for hours in line for stitches, calling their concierge provider and meeting them outside the office to get the stitches done before they would have been seen at the er to the tune of a few thousand dollars.
Technology cuts both ways. Doctors through this system can diagnose some ailments and write a script through video conferencing.
Is that for a major surgery? No. Is that for a heart transplant? No. Those are covered by health insurance geared toward the big ticket health items that you accurately describe. What I'm talking about is a fundamental deconstruction of the risk pool to develop individual traunches that are more efficient for patients care providers and insurers.
Also the national socialist worker party was a derivative of previous ittirations of German labor parties and German state theory, specifically Bismarck.
On the Nazi thing--That's a stretch dude...
On this new healthcare plan, you got a link to provide?
On the legal insurance thing, sui what's your point? I thought your argument was that insurance was the problem!!! You love to debate so much, you're now debating with yourself!!
I never said insurance was the problem.
Quote:I never said insurance was the problem.
... ok... so... how are things?
Just as a point of reference you will never hear me talk about Utopias or silver bullets. You will only hear me talk about efficiency and lower costs.
Quote:Health insurance should bar for catastrophic events like surgery broken bones etc. Having normal run of the mill services like stitches simple prescriptions etc. Tied up within the massive bureaucracy of insurers and reimbursements hurts primary care providers by creating inordinate overhead. To combat this they designed concierge practices by which families pay the doctor monthly and he performs basic services. Couple that with health savings accounts and i think that's a foundation for sustainability.
Here you are saying health insurance is the problem because it's too large, and you want doctors to create monthly plans to reduce the costs...
So aren't you saying insurance is the problem? It's implied based on the fact you want to reform it...
On the concierge thing... so a family pays a couple hundred a month to the doctor for the little stuff, as you say... and then a couple hundred to the insurance companies for the big stuff?
How is that any better? I'm paying as much if not more in your scenario...
The structure of health insurance is the issue, not the insurance itself. A large segment of ACA subscribers are paying for plans with out of pocket costs that prohibit them using the plan and would often be better off simply paying the premium dollars directly for the care. Unless the condition is catastrophic and requires hospitalization they still dont get the care OR they receive care for which they do not pay in a timely manner. Having affordable usable insurance continues to be an issue while the added bureaucracy continues to increase the overall costs of healthcare. Its wonderful that some are getting care, but we're only prolonging the problem.
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concierge_medicine'>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concierge_medicine</a>
Thanks for the link...
You realize the implementation of Obama care has created the current increase of concierge medicine...
I'm just not sure it's saving all that much if at all.
The cost of catastrophic coverage as well as coverage for prescription drugs really means it's nut that much of a solution.
Add to that that the only reason it's viable note is because of Obama care. And you have an alternative system that cannot stand on its own...