"And since it's timely: medicare is actually more efficient than private health insurance, and a LOT less goes to administration than at private insurers."
And yet...it is going broke. And will likely go broke even earlier now with all the new additions to the program (new health bill).
Yep, model of efficiency. I can't wait till they take it a step further, and have my visit to the health clinic be likened to my 2-3 days when I have to go to the DMV. (Ok, I know it is a state thing, but still...just as much fun as pulling teeth with no anesthetic, and I've yet to see a program dealing with the Feds to be any better).
"It must be nice to live in a country where roads, food safety, police/fire/ambulance service, clean water, worker safety, public education, etc come free of charge without any taxes."
I don't think anyone really has much a problem with reasonable taxes to pay for the things you mentioned above (although most of those come from state and local taxes).
I think most people are getting fed up with the seemingly uncontrollable appetite the FEDERAL govt. currently has with spending, and the soon to be implemented HIGH taxation necessitated by said spending. And really..what are we getting back for all that? Hell, the entitlement programs are going broke (and they've pretty much just created a new one on top of all the past problems), and they're putting more burdens on the states with unfunded mandates.
There was a real reason (well lots of reasons, but this is one biggie) that the federal govt was initially designed to be small and weak, and that most power resided in the states...because the state is closer to you, and more responsive to your needs and desires for governance. I don't mind paying reasonable taxes for public infrastructure. I'd rather pay most of my taxes to my state, since they are more directly answerable to me in how they spend and tax me.
Washington doesn't know who the hell I am, does not differentiate the different needs between someone in Las Vegas, New Orleans or NYC, and frankly doesn't give a fuck about what any citizen or non-corporate group of citizens think. And yet, they still keep sucking money from us.
"I don't care if you own a gun. I don't care if you own extremely powerful guns. All I care about is that you have to register said gun when you purchase it and that you keep it away from me."
Depends on the state you live in.
Where I live, I do not have to register a gun. If I buy one from a private individual, I don't have to go through any stupid waiting period or background checks. I'd ONLY have to tell the govt. about it if I wanted to get a carry concealed license. And if you walked by me, you'd likely never know if I'm carrying it or not.
"This isn't any different than requiring drivers to purchase liability for auto insurance. Very similar in fact as lack of liability cost others when the driver didn't carry it. I can only assume that when that legislation was passed, similar challenges were presented and obviously didn't fly either."
Actually there is a BIG difference.
The federal govt. doesn't require drivers to purchase auto insurance. That is something the state decides. And actually, not every state requires you to buy auto insurance.
The federal govt is supposed to be VERY limited on what powers it has....most is supposed to reside with the states. Remember, in theory you are a citizen of your STATE first, and then a citizen of the United States.
"Have you ever tried to drop your auto insurance? It's not so easy to do it, they demand proof that you have a new insurance policy before they will drop you."
"In this context, "the general Welfare" should probably be interpreted as establishing a level playing field for everyone to succeed on their own merits. I cannot believe for a second that the Founding Fathers would be OK with more than 700,000 personal bankruptcies due to health costs Every. Single. Year. "
I also can't believe for a second that the Founding Fathers had in mind that it would be the Federal Govt's job to step in and intercede here. At best, they likely would have said this was a states issue.
The general welfare clause was for broad public services (think police/firemen), and not for individual entitlements.
"Yeah. While we're at it, lets abolish fire departments and police stations. It's not fair that I'm being forced to help some dude down the street when his house is on fire or some old lady when she gets robbed and shoved and breaks her hip.
Seriously... All government services are meant for the betterment of society, and picking and choosing which ones you use is the tragedy of the commons at work. It is in everyone's best interest to maintain a healthy and productive workforce."
Yes, but you're trying to equivocate public services like police/firemen that help the community as a whole, with a new mandated entitlement to individuals, and it isn't the same thing. The former fits into what the US Constitution is referring to when it says provide for 'general welfare'. It isn't talking about individual entitlements.
We are given the right to pursue happiness, that society here is set up for you to succeed, but it is NOT a guarantee. It certainly wasn't set up to be guaranteed by taking from one man's pocket (forcibly) and given to another all in the name of social justice.
"...and the "welfare queen/king" myth is, at best disingenuous."
I invite you to come visit our wonderful plethora of project housing down here in New Orleans, where you can readily observer such behaviors going on daily. There are no official tours, and I would advise you bringing your own weapons.
"The idea that preventative care (spending $1000-2000 a year to visit the doctor and repair various ailments) is cheaper than catastrophic care is a myth. It makes about as much sense as me repainting my car every year to prevent rust. It makes much more sense to wait for the rust, and THEN repaint my car. The same is true with your body."
That and well, insurance should be only for catastrophic emergencies, not something to pay for every time Suzie had the sniffles and needs to see the Dr.
I actually remember when it used to be termed "hospitalization". You only used it for emergencies.
For routine care, why don't we go more to the model of socking money away pre-tax in a HSA or FSA (I prefer HSA since it isn't use or lose it every year), and make people budget for their routine care, just like they do for car payments, house payment, retirement..etc.
Sadly, I think the current bill has gone so far as to actually gut some of the existing laws for HSA's and FSA's that now exist.
Trouble is...the Federal govt. really doesn't have the constitutional power to mandate that every citizen purchase insurance or anything else really. The state attys and others are already lining up to challenge this aspect of the bill based on 10th amendment and other considerations.
I have a feeling this will go all the way to SCOTUS and likely be thrown out, maybe this will be a good thing after all, as that the feds have been running roughshod over the 10th amendment for a long time now.
I mean, they had to pass an amendment to let the feds tax income, which should there be any LESS requirement for them to force a citizen to buy something or pay a fine?
"Which gun law prevents you from getting a gun license, and purchasing a shotgun or something suitable for protecting your home? IANAGE (gun enthusiast) but I feel like the only barrier that the laws really provided was if you expected to walk into a store that minute and walkout with a gun and or a handgun (and some background checks that you aren't a convicted fellon / have outstanding warrants / have otherwise taken choices that resulted in the loss of the privilege to personally own a gun)."
Hmm..where do you live where you have to get a license to own a gun?
Where I live, you don't have to have any kind of license (well, only if you want a carry concealed license, but that isn't required for gun ownership). You don't even have to register any firearms in my state, and heck, if you want to really stay off the 'books', you can always purchase a used firearm from another private citizen and there is no record of the transaction anywhere. If you're really paranoid, pay in cash.
:)
I guess some states are still more restrictive than that?
Actually, I was just using Olbermann as an example of the most extreme on the MSNBC side, but the whole channel overall, I say IS a good counterpart to Fox. Maddow...the Ed show..etc. They pretty much ALL that I've seen on that channel hang to the far left.
Hell, even regular NBC is hardly centrist...they are pretty well over to the left on their network channel...MSNBC just takes it further as a whole.
"Understandable, but then you get into the problem of who gets to decide what every state does or doesn't need? "
Well, if the state's saying what an insurance would or would not have to cover got in the way of selling across state lines...then they would not get a say.
The various insurance companies would offer whatever deals they wanted, and the consumer would then have THEIR CHOICE of what they wanted to purchase. Why should even the state (after thinking about this) decide what a citizen can buy with regard to coverage. Look, I'm saying if they can sell motorcycle insurance across state lines why can't health insurance be sold the EXACT same way? Apparently there aren't so many state or federal regulations on what it has to cover...so, set health to be sold and offered in as many flavors as other types of insurance, and let the consumer decide?
This is also an answer to one of your responses to one of my other posts too.
Insurance is insurance, let them offer what they want and prices they want, and let the consumer decide what is best with their dollars!
But, welfare in the constitution doesn't mean what people today are trying to make it sounds like..it isn't 'welfare' like the entitlement.
From another of my posts:
"Trouble is, the welfare spoken of by the framers of the Constitution is not the welfare type of system YOU are speaking about. It is more about the ability of the feds to tax for the management of the resources and defense for the country as an entity, not handing out entitlements to individual citizens. And if this is wanted, it is supposed to be a responsibility of the states, not the federal govt. Remember the 10th amendment?"
"We already have it; unfortunately it hasn't gotten much attention. H.R. 676 [wikipedia.org] would provide single-payer health care to every American resident, and includes information on how it would be funded, in 26 pages."
You missed the part where I said "most everyone could agree on". Most people in this country do NOT want a govt run, single payer system. That's why it was jerked out of this current monstrosity they're trying to pass.
"I don't think you realize how expensive health insurance is. It's like buying a second house. Even so, it would be worth it if you could guarantee that it would be there when I got sick. Right now, you can't, so I won't buy."
It isn't THAT bad. While working for myself, I got a high deductible health insurance policy (and I'm high risk with high triglycerides) with a $1200 deductible...to be used ONLY for catastrophic needs (heart attack, wreck, etc). That was only about $200/mo or so. I set up a HSA (Health Savings Account) and loaded it up with $3K annually pre-tax. That is what I used for my normal routine medical care. Worked out great. HSA's are great in that they are not use it or lose it...you roll it over annually...you can even invest that money to make it grow faster..and what is left at retirement...is yours for retirement.
Frankly, I think this is more the model we should move to...make people good health care shoppers...budget for it like anything else.
Heck, when I went for dr visits or tests and told them I was paying myself...I got an immediate 15% or more discount off their billing rate.
"Doctors don't make good money like they used to. New doctors mostly work for "provider" corporations. The only doctors that make money in medicine now do it by owning provider corporations, pharmacies, medical office buildings, etc. Nobody "hangs their shingle" anymore. The cost of malpractice insurance is far too high."
Hmm, that's not my experience. Most all doctors I use or know...have either their own private practice, or maybe they have a group of doctors owning the clinic...but I've not been to any type of thing you and another has described with them being 'employees' of someone owning a medical company. Most all doctors I know (some in my family even) still do quite well, determine their own course of practice and business...etc.
"We seem to have a disagreement over the definition of "provider". You're stating that the providers are the doctors and nurses. His definition of provider is the company the doctors and nurses are employed by, the company running the hospital/clinic/etc."
Hmm...maybe things are different where you live, but MOST all doctors I know and use, all have their own private practice where I use their services. If it is something that required a surgery suite, then sure, I hit the hospital, but I don't go to one of those unless I'm really sick. But a normal dr. visit to me is where they 'hang their shingle'. I've been where a group of doctors own a clinic and they all work with each other (cover for each, etc), but, yes...they are the providers to me.
Are you talking about going to the ER for any given problem or something? I don't quite understand where you are coming from...
"Understandable, but then you get into the problem of who gets to decide what every state does or doesn't need? Who gets to choose which model to follow? Different parts of the country have different requirements, depending on environment, local culture/cuisine, local economy, etc. "
That's easy...the states themselves get to decide. The state is more responsive to the needs of its people and therefore the people of the state should decide for themselves what they need and want.
It isn't the business of the federal govt. If the feds took less money from us and got smaller again, the states would have more money to do what they needed/wanted.
Frankly, I see a major showdown in SCOTUS over the 10th amendment if this thing passes, and I think that is long overdue.
"What does the average American pay for health insurance per month? For comparison, I think I pay about £50 per month, for which I get free health care no matter what the circumstances; and I earn a pretty hefty salary, so I don't think it is bad."
I pay about $80/month out of my paycheck. I'm quite happy with my coverage and medical care.
I think it sucks that I'm gonna likely end up with less coverage and pay more if this thing passes.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet...it is going broke. And will likely go broke even earlier now with all the new additions to the program (new health bill).
Yep, model of efficiency. I can't wait till they take it a step further, and have my visit to the health clinic be likened to my 2-3 days when I have to go to the DMV. (Ok, I know it is a state thing, but still...just as much fun as pulling teeth with no anesthetic, and I've yet to see a program dealing with the Feds to be any better).
I don't think anyone really has much a problem with reasonable taxes to pay for the things you mentioned above (although most of those come from state and local taxes).
I think most people are getting fed up with the seemingly uncontrollable appetite the FEDERAL govt. currently has with spending, and the soon to be implemented HIGH taxation necessitated by said spending. And really..what are we getting back for all that? Hell, the entitlement programs are going broke (and they've pretty much just created a new one on top of all the past problems), and they're putting more burdens on the states with unfunded mandates.
There was a real reason (well lots of reasons, but this is one biggie) that the federal govt was initially designed to be small and weak, and that most power resided in the states...because the state is closer to you, and more responsive to your needs and desires for governance. I don't mind paying reasonable taxes for public infrastructure. I'd rather pay most of my taxes to my state, since they are more directly answerable to me in how they spend and tax me.
Washington doesn't know who the hell I am, does not differentiate the different needs between someone in Las Vegas, New Orleans or NYC, and frankly doesn't give a fuck about what any citizen or non-corporate group of citizens think. And yet, they still keep sucking money from us.
He turned me into a NEWT!!
Don't you wanna haggle???
Depends on the state you live in.
Where I live, I do not have to register a gun. If I buy one from a private individual, I don't have to go through any stupid waiting period or background checks. I'd ONLY have to tell the govt. about it if I wanted to get a carry concealed license. And if you walked by me, you'd likely never know if I'm carrying it or not.
Actually there is a BIG difference.
The federal govt. doesn't require drivers to purchase auto insurance. That is something the state decides. And actually, not every state requires you to buy auto insurance.
The federal govt is supposed to be VERY limited on what powers it has....most is supposed to reside with the states. Remember, in theory you are a citizen of your STATE first, and then a citizen of the United States.
Depends on the state you live in.
Not all states require auto insurance.
I also can't believe for a second that the Founding Fathers had in mind that it would be the Federal Govt's job to step in and intercede here. At best, they likely would have said this was a states issue.
The general welfare clause was for broad public services (think police/firemen), and not for individual entitlements.
Seriously... All government services are meant for the betterment of society, and picking and choosing which ones you use is the tragedy of the commons at work. It is in everyone's best interest to maintain a healthy and productive workforce."
Yes, but you're trying to equivocate public services like police/firemen that help the community as a whole, with a new mandated entitlement to individuals, and it isn't the same thing. The former fits into what the US Constitution is referring to when it says provide for 'general welfare'. It isn't talking about individual entitlements.
We are given the right to pursue happiness, that society here is set up for you to succeed, but it is NOT a guarantee. It certainly wasn't set up to be guaranteed by taking from one man's pocket (forcibly) and given to another all in the name of social justice.
Yep, the Federal Govt's track record has been SO exemplary for coming in on budget, being efficient and not letting anyone slip through the cracks.
I invite you to come visit our wonderful plethora of project housing down here in New Orleans, where you can readily observer such behaviors going on daily. There are no official tours, and I would advise you bringing your own weapons.
That and well, insurance should be only for catastrophic emergencies, not something to pay for every time Suzie had the sniffles and needs to see the Dr.
I actually remember when it used to be termed "hospitalization". You only used it for emergencies.
For routine care, why don't we go more to the model of socking money away pre-tax in a HSA or FSA (I prefer HSA since it isn't use or lose it every year), and make people budget for their routine care, just like they do for car payments, house payment, retirement..etc.
Sadly, I think the current bill has gone so far as to actually gut some of the existing laws for HSA's and FSA's that now exist.
I have a feeling this will go all the way to SCOTUS and likely be thrown out, maybe this will be a good thing after all, as that the feds have been running roughshod over the 10th amendment for a long time now.
I mean, they had to pass an amendment to let the feds tax income, which should there be any LESS requirement for them to force a citizen to buy something or pay a fine?
Hmm..where do you live where you have to get a license to own a gun?
Where I live, you don't have to have any kind of license (well, only if you want a carry concealed license, but that isn't required for gun ownership). You don't even have to register any firearms in my state, and heck, if you want to really stay off the 'books', you can always purchase a used firearm from another private citizen and there is no record of the transaction anywhere. If you're really paranoid, pay in cash.
I guess some states are still more restrictive than that?
Hell, even regular NBC is hardly centrist...they are pretty well over to the left on their network channel...MSNBC just takes it further as a whole.
Back when there was personal responsibility, and no handouts....and let intrusion into citizen's lives by the federal govt.
Remember, it was set up to where you are a citizen of your state you live in first...THEN, a citizen of the United States...
Well, if the state's saying what an insurance would or would not have to cover got in the way of selling across state lines...then they would not get a say.
The various insurance companies would offer whatever deals they wanted, and the consumer would then have THEIR CHOICE of what they wanted to purchase. Why should even the state (after thinking about this) decide what a citizen can buy with regard to coverage. Look, I'm saying if they can sell motorcycle insurance across state lines why can't health insurance be sold the EXACT same way? Apparently there aren't so many state or federal regulations on what it has to cover...so, set health to be sold and offered in as many flavors as other types of insurance, and let the consumer decide?
This is also an answer to one of your responses to one of my other posts too.
Insurance is insurance, let them offer what they want and prices they want, and let the consumer decide what is best with their dollars!
From another of my posts:
"Trouble is, the welfare spoken of by the framers of the Constitution is not the welfare type of system YOU are speaking about. It is more about the ability of the feds to tax for the management of the resources and defense for the country as an entity, not handing out entitlements to individual citizens. And if this is wanted, it is supposed to be a responsibility of the states, not the federal govt. Remember the 10th amendment?"
But in the US, that is not where that money goes....
You missed the part where I said "most everyone could agree on". Most people in this country do NOT want a govt run, single payer system. That's why it was jerked out of this current monstrosity they're trying to pass.
It isn't THAT bad. While working for myself, I got a high deductible health insurance policy (and I'm high risk with high triglycerides) with a $1200 deductible...to be used ONLY for catastrophic needs (heart attack, wreck, etc). That was only about $200/mo or so. I set up a HSA (Health Savings Account) and loaded it up with $3K annually pre-tax. That is what I used for my normal routine medical care. Worked out great. HSA's are great in that they are not use it or lose it...you roll it over annually...you can even invest that money to make it grow faster..and what is left at retirement...is yours for retirement.
Frankly, I think this is more the model we should move to...make people good health care shoppers...budget for it like anything else.
Heck, when I went for dr visits or tests and told them I was paying myself...I got an immediate 15% or more discount off their billing rate.
Hmm, that's not my experience. Most all doctors I use or know...have either their own private practice, or maybe they have a group of doctors owning the clinic...but I've not been to any type of thing you and another has described with them being 'employees' of someone owning a medical company. Most all doctors I know (some in my family even) still do quite well, determine their own course of practice and business...etc.
Hmm...maybe things are different where you live, but MOST all doctors I know and use, all have their own private practice where I use their services. If it is something that required a surgery suite, then sure, I hit the hospital, but I don't go to one of those unless I'm really sick. But a normal dr. visit to me is where they 'hang their shingle'. I've been where a group of doctors own a clinic and they all work with each other (cover for each, etc), but, yes...they are the providers to me.
Are you talking about going to the ER for any given problem or something? I don't quite understand where you are coming from...
That's easy...the states themselves get to decide. The state is more responsive to the needs of its people and therefore the people of the state should decide for themselves what they need and want.
It isn't the business of the federal govt. If the feds took less money from us and got smaller again, the states would have more money to do what they needed/wanted.
Frankly, I see a major showdown in SCOTUS over the 10th amendment if this thing passes, and I think that is long overdue.
I pay about $80/month out of my paycheck. I'm quite happy with my coverage and medical care.
I think it sucks that I'm gonna likely end up with less coverage and pay more if this thing passes.