Public Healthcare

[Jerba]

Don't forget the fact that the current crisis in the US is a result of government intrusion in the first place. Due to price fixing and wage caps instituted by FDR during WWII companies were unable to raise wages to attract workers so they started offering employer based health care in an effort to increase benefits without raising wages. This started the employer based health care system which uses massive insurance companies. The fact is that these insurance companies have supplanted any capitalist health care system and combined with the introduction of the govt. with medicare in the 1960's (or 70's?) has raised the prices of health care dramatically. Prices are huge because most people do not pay directly for their care. There is no incentive to bring down prices because someone else pays for it. Insurance and govt. provided care is expensive because it is a monopoly.

 
Much is made out of the 35-70 million Americans that are not covered by insurance. Most of the time it is fallacious arguments about how they can't afford it and are dying in the streets. Most of the time this is untrue. Most of those numbers are young people who have made a financial decision to not get care. As young healthy people they are managing the risk and have determined that they don't need care. The coverage is too expensive since they don't use it. They don't have care because they don't need it. They are free to do so, and should be. My wife and I have not had insurance for years and have not had any trouble, we are now getting some because we have made the financial decision that we can afford it and we want to start a family in the next year or so.

Health care is important and needs to be available. The question is one of trade-offs. The fact is that it costs money and right now the US is trillions in debt, it cannot afford these programs. Taxes for such programs are politcally unreasonable for Americans. Europeans here have attested to the tax costs. Liberty is also a consideration in America. The Constitution, if you still believe in it, makes no reference to public welfare programs like social security and healthcare and therefore in my opinion these things should not be legislated. They will not lead to prosperity in any way. Prosperity comes from competition and from the ability to enjoy the fruits of one's labors. Healthcare is dependent on taxes and makes the public dependent on government and will eliminate competition. If there is no alternative but government healthcare, which is a strong possibility since the government doesn't play fair, that is tyranny in my opinion.

[Gate Troll]

Regardless of the supposed benefits of federally mandated public health care, the crux of the issue is this; the federal government has no right to legislate health care to the people. To quote section 8 of the United States Constitution:

"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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The last line is very important. It gives Congress the right to make laws, but only those laws that shall be necessary to the execution, or to the fulfillment of the 'powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States'. Aside from that, Congress can not make any new laws. All other powers are delegated to the states of the union.

That is why we believe that, if laws about health care are to be made, they should be made by the states of the union, not by the union of the states.

-GT

[Gil-Estel]

Health care is important and needs to be available.

Liberty is also a consideration in America. The Constitution, if you still believe in it, makes no reference to public welfare programs like social security and healthcare and therefore in my opinion these things should not be legislated. They will not lead to prosperity in any way. Prosperity comes from competition and from the ability to enjoy the fruits of ones labors. Healthcare is dependent on taxes and makes the public dependent on government and will eliminate competition. If there is no alternative but government healthcare, which is a strong possibility since the government doesn't play fair, that is tyranny in my opinion.

I just have to react, and I do so respectfully. But I do disagree. Healthcare is indeed important. But what I don't get is that you have a natural distrust against the government, which is chosen by the people, and represents the people, but have a naive trust in the market. It is an illusion to think that without regulation quality will rise and prices will drop. History has proven many times that it doesn't work like that. With less control, they will go wild. That is what the crisis has showed. Banks, insurrance companies came up with products that have no right of exsistance, fooling the people, who can not determine what is the right way to go.
And for your first reasoning, that doesn't work. The constitution was written long time ago under other circumstances. Medical care was very, very different than, as it is nowadays. I agree with you that public health care is expensive, but it also works the other way around. Sick people are less productive, and thus contribute less. And since the first line says that 'we the people' find it important to maintain and secure Welfare, one could say that making sure that everyone has access to healthcare, that contributes to the general welfare.

And when it comes to blind trust into capitalism, please, please wake up. It is like deomcracy, the bigger it gets, the worse it works. The whole market mechanism works when the local butcher, gets competition from another he will adjust his prices, will give extra service to keep his customers. At larger scale they will make agreements with eachother, making more money out of it. Trust me, it works like that. In the Netherlands we have had a huge case in which construction companies frauded by making these agreements. And I know most Americans are proud of their country, but I have no reason to believe that Americans are better people than the Dutch

[Gate Troll]

Health care is important and needs to be available.

Liberty is also a consideration in America. The Constitution, if you still believe in it, makes no reference to public welfare programs like social security and healthcare and therefore in my opinion these things should not be legislated. They will not lead to prosperity in any way. Prosperity comes from competition and from the ability to enjoy the fruits of ones labors. Healthcare is dependent on taxes and makes the public dependent on government and will eliminate competition. If there is no alternative but government healthcare, which is a strong possibility since the government doesn't play fair, that is tyranny in my opinion.

I just have to react, and I do so respectfully. But I do disagree. Healthcare is indeed important. But what I don't get is that you have a natural distrust against the government, which is chosen by the people, and represents the people, but have a naive trust in the market. It is an illusion to think that without regulation quality will rise and prices will drop. History has proven many times that it doesn't work like that. With less control, they will go wild. That is what the crisis has showed. Banks, insurrance companies came up with products that have no right of exsistance, fooling the people, who can not determine what is the right way to go.
And for your first reasoning, that doesn't work. The constitution was written long time ago under other circumstances. Medical care was very, very different than, as it is nowadays. I agree with you that public health care is expensive, but it also works the other way around. Sick people are less productive, and thus contribute less. And since the first line says that 'we the people' find it important to maintain and secure Welfare, one could say that making sure that everyone has access to healthcare, that contributes to the general welfare.

And when it comes to blind trust into capitalism, please, please wake up. It is like deomcracy, the bigger it gets, the worse it works. The whole market mechanism works when the local butcher, gets competition from another he will adjust his prices, will give extra service to keep his customers. At larger scale they will make agreements with eachother, making more money out of it. Trust me, it works like that. In the Netherlands we have had a huge case in which construction companies frauded by making these agreements. And I know most Americans are proud of their country, but I have no reason to believe that Americans are better people than the Dutch

Yes, but TheJord did ask for the American view on healthcare. I know you disagree with my standpoint, but I don't think is supposed to be a debate. If you would like to debate me, I'd gladly start a new thread. Thanks.

[Gil-Estel]

Haha, point well made. I will respect Jordy's intend, and let it be. However, a debate is always nice ...we'll see what the future holds for us

[Jerba]

Gil great points. First, don't worry I am not insinuating that the Dutch are worse people than Americans. I am simply pointing out the differences in our political mentality. You point to my naive trust in the market, and I in turn would point to your naive trust in the government (any government, Dutch, American, or otherwise).

My trust is not in capitalism per se. It is in the individual. Capitalism is indeed the worse economic system, except for all the others. A free market is not perfect, that is correct. Neither is a government. However, as I pointed out before the question is one of trade-offs. I believe that the free market presents FEWER negative consquences than a socialistic european system. That is my personal belief. And I cling to it because the free market is fueled by individuals that drive innovation and progress. Government has never produced the prosperity that the free market has. And it has never done away with inequality of outcomes. A free market has revolutionized life on this planet in the past 400 years or so. Government has been around for thousands of years without the success the free market has had in 400 years. The market has casualties, but governments have produced hundreds of millions of casualties through tyranny (communism, fascism, naziism, imperialism, etc.)

I believe that everyone is entitled to an equality of opportunity. To the liberty and freedom to do what they can to be prosperous. However, they are entitled to this opportunity as a privilege that is accompanied with the consequence of their action. I do not believe in equality of outcomes. Some people will succeed and some will fail, they must be allowed to do so. Will people be dishonest? Yes, in some circumstances. But the same is true in a socialist system, fraud is just as rampant if not more so due to true incentives being compromised.

Congress shall have the power...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

Above is quoted Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the US Constitution. The current debate is based in the interpretation of the clause. There are indeed 2 interpretations of it. Yours is the one that gives congress any power through the clause. Or as Brutus, the critic of this clause said in 1787, it "leaves the national legislature at liberty to do everything". I subscribe however to the other view which is that the clause allows the congress freedom to carry out the foregoing enumerated powers only. The clause is not for any use, anything that congress wants, but only for the specific things previously mentioned in that section such as defense and the post office.

I believe in this limited view for 2 reasons: 1st, why bother enumerating, or picking certain things like defense, in the previous part of the clause if in the last part you are going to say congress can do ANYTHING necessary and proper. It doesn't make sense to limit government in the rest of the doccument if you say they can do anything in the end.

2nd reason, 10th amendment in the Bill of Rights, also part of the Constitution, strictly define what can be done by the government, a way of covering bases. It says:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The powers delegated to the government are explicitly given in the Constitution and previously posted (defense, etc). EVERYTHING else is given to the states, localities, and kept by the people. To understand US political culture one must understand that the government gets its powers from the people, it can't take more powers from us unless we give them up. The government is limited then by the contract that is the Constitution.

Some say the Constitution is old fashioned and we live in new times unforeseen by the founders of America. I reject this. This contract was made to protect us from government and from ourselves. If we are past it then there must be a new contract, but I contend that the Constitution of the United States is the finest governing document that has ever existed and must be kept intact if liberty is to be kept intact. When government is limited man is free. There is no one, especially governemnt, I trust more than myself to take care of me. Except maybe my wife.

Sorry for rambling on!

[jdizzy001]

One thing we tend to forget about the constitution, is that this document was written with the intent that it outlines what a government CANNOT do to the people, not what it CAN do.  I know this forum is to talk about US POV in health care, but I forget that sometimes and it casts a new light on the constitution.  I just wanted to share that. (winky face) even though jerba just mentioned it.

[MR. Lurtzy]

Excellent post, Jerba. 

[Gate Troll]

Yeah, that sums it up pretty well.

[sickofpalantirs]

ah the good old federalist/anti federalist jeffersonian/hamilton loose/strict construction debate.

tis a glorious thing to see people still debating their side of the view as the perfect one...

(it feels good to be back, even if only for one post )

[Gate Troll]

Not perfect, just better than any others tried. If you have a better idea, be sure to let us know. 

[sickofpalantirs]

My idea?  hmmm...we give social healthcare a whirl and see if it works.  If it doesn't, we kill it, if it does we don't.  Could be kinda hard, but hey, worth a try. 

[Gate Troll]

That's all well and good, but it takes a bureaucracy to run something like that, and history has shown that once a  bureaucracy is created it takes a great deal more effort to remove it. In any case, the federal government should not administrate it. Just plain unconstitutional. It should be voted on by the people of each individual state. Let New England try it for a decade or so, and if it works, great. Still not up to the feds to implement it.

[sickofpalantirs]

the hardest thing about public healthcare for me, and socialism in general is the simple idea that every person that starves to death/dies because of lack of care is a failure of the Church...a failure of Christians, a failure of....me.
Somber thoughts.

[Gil-Estel]

the hardest thing about public healthcare for me, and socialism in general is the simple idea that every person that starves to death/dies because of lack of care is a failure of the Church...a failure of Christians, a failure of....me.
Somber thoughts.

Well, it only confirms that we need Christ . And luckily we are accepted by Him, not for what we do, but because He wants to....so cheer up SoP