Debate initiated by Jordy's Topic

[Gil-Estel]

To keep the topic of Jordy clean, I will respond in a new topic, just for the fun of debate

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).

I do not have a naive trust in the government, but I do believe that there lies the possibility for us people to have the most influence. I love the history of George Washington, where he was posing for a painting, pretending to be Cincinatus, a Roman leader who was a farmer at the same time. In times of trouble he would go to Rome, tried to make everything back into normal, went back to his farm, for he didn't care for the power. His wish was that government was there for the people, not the other way around. I think we can agree there. I'm not saying that it is the case nowadays, but I'm saying it should be. And I think, that when more people care about the system, the system works better. For example, when the people in the Netherlands were fighting for their rights, they were more politically involved, and thus limiting government to do whatever they wanted.

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.)

You can not compare certain things. Government has been around for a long time indeed, but modern government, with the whole Trias Politica idea from Montesqieu, where the 3 powers in government, the legislating power, the exectuting power and the judging power are devided to make sure 1 could never gain too much power, is active for like a small 200 years, but I tend to say it is around for a smaller amount of time. Therefor capitalism is around longer, I would say capitalism in a certain form is there from the start of this world, cause it is driven by the need to prosper one's own future. Since the entering of worshipping Ego, that is.
Make no mistake, I do agree with you that sadly capitalism is the lesser of all evils I guess. But I also like to point out that allthough it has brought great prosperity to some, it also delivers the enormous gap between the rich and the poor. A gap that is widening every day.
And the point of government making casualties, agreed, and again I say, with modern government, and huge participation of the people, the odds are smaller. And I ask you, not as retorical question, but out of sincere curiosity (I myself do not have the answer either, allthough I tend towards a certain direction):

Poverty in the world, isn't that the direct result of capitalism? Trying to be succesful even if that costs certain peoples lifes?

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.

If everyone is entitled to an equality of opportunity, shouldn't all be provided with the same chances? I agree with you that it can differ on the outcome, but if you give one man tools, and the other person not, and you give the assignment to built whatever, the outcome will be different for sure. I can not judge American system, and if I somehow rise the impression that I do, please forgive me, cause I don't like to judge things of which I have little knowledge, but how about education? Shouldn't everyone be able to go to school, and schools of equal quality? Than you can say that everyone has had the same opportunities, and you can compare the outcome. I'm a biblical man myself, and the story in which the landlord gives all of his men the same amount of money comes to mind. They all had the same possibility, but the outcome was different.
I think you cannot say: here, everyone has the same possibilties, but they come at a certain cost, so that people with no money can't access the possibiltiy. Then you don't have the same possibilities.
Indeed, fraude is around everywhere. I see it a small scale with my pupils. If I leave the classroom and stay away for a longer period of time, I can be sure that when I return, the class will be in riot  . The fun is that I have multiple windows in my classroom, so they can see me coming. They feel guilty and try to sit right before I return, as if I haven't seen them the same as they have seen me, haha. But again my point: without control, the chance of fraud rises.
Communist society is a great example. All forms of critisism were smuthered, giving corruption all the possibilities to to thrive.
But capitalism is no different. And I have rather a government which is controlable by more people participating, to take control of certain subjects, than a major company that isn't democratic at all.

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".

NO! Haha, you tend to take the opposites into extreme. I'm not saying that government should be able to do whatever, it should be under control by the people. For a democratic system to work people need to partcipate. Without participation it is doomed, imho.

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.

I think that we agree in a certain way. Government is there for the people, not the other way around. Government is the first employee of the people. But my point is that here, in the Netherlands we say that the government should work for the people, providing all with same possibilities, to make sure everyone has prosperity. Not everyone is equal, but everyone is of equal value. You have people who are healthier than others, brighter, capable of responding better to certain options. And it isn't wrong for some to make more money than others, but I believe that everyone should be provided with a certain amount of prosperity. When my wife asks me to move the washingmachine, I'm not telling her to do it herself, for she has 2 arms as well. Since I'm stronger I do it for her (and I wouldn't dare risk it, allthough I'm stronger she's the only person/thing I really fear in this life  ). We are the community, we are society, we are to take care for eachother. And if we can make government to do so for us, it is good.

I do not understand fully how the independed states if the US work, or how the power is devided. But I do understand that cause of that there is a huge difference in the way we have a central government opposed to yours.

Sorry for rambling on!

No worries, it is much appreciated

[Gil-Estel]

Jerba, GT, not much of a debate right now :-)

[TheJord]

I'll just say my part then

I feel universal healthcare is, generally speaking, a good thing. Being able to live you life without fear of going bankrupt if you get sick, or hurt yourself, is very reassuring to me. I broke my arm when I was 15, and all of it was covered. I didnt have to pay for the ambulance, the surgeries, the casts and all the outpatient visits and physiotherapy.

I agree that in the hands of a central government the potential for corruption by unscrupulous individuals is possible, but thats the payoff you take with any centrally run program. I think GT is correct that local power by devolution from central governments is a good way to keep those who are accountable close to the system

[legolas3333]

I broke my arm when I was 15, and all of it was covered. I didnt have to pay for the ambulance, the surgeries, the casts and all the outpatient visits and physiotherapy.

you got an ambulance for a broken arm?!?!?!?!?!?!

[TheJord]

You think I was going to walk to the hospital? I broke through both the radius and ulna, and almost lost the use of my hand, so yeah, I did get an ambulance.

[Gate Troll]

I feel like stirring things up so... What about healthcare insurance? Does the government provide free insurance?
Or do you still buy insurance from whatever company?

[TheJord]

Well in the UK, the NHS provides healthcare to anyone who needs it. This can include dental, but its hard to get an NHS dentist now. We have private companies that offer healthcare plans that give you cover for all kinds of treatments, including hospital stays.

[jdizzy001]

I'll just say my part then

I feel universal healthcare is, generally speaking, a good thing. Being able to live you life without fear of going bankrupt if you get sick, or hurt yourself, is very reassuring to me. I broke my arm when I was 15, and all of it was covered. I didnt have to pay for the ambulance, the surgeries, the casts and all the outpatient visits and physiotherapy.

I agree that in the hands of a central government the potential for corruption by unscrupulous individuals is possible, but thats the payoff you take with any centrally run program. I think GT is correct that local power by devolution from central governments is a good way to keep those who are accountable close to the system

Who doesn't want FREE health care?  But that isn't what many Americans are worried/upset about.  There is no such thing as free.  Health care must be paid for by someone, and with a price tag in the trillions of dollars, that someone is the tax payer.  That is what we're worried about.  Americans don't want to pay 50%, or more, of our income in taxes.  Our market is driven by money, and if that money disappears so does everything else.  But yeah, FREE health care would be awesome, but then again, there is no such thing as free. 

[Jerba]

Well in the UK, the NHS provides healthcare to anyone who needs it. This can include dental, but its hard to get an NHS dentist now. We have private companies that offer healthcare plans that give you cover for all kinds of treatments, including hospital stays.

A great plan to be sure. Except that the UK, like the US, has massive debt that is destroying the economy. The value of the pound, like the dollar, is going down dramatically. The debt cannot grow forever without serious repercussions. This system is unsustainable. The US is in a similar situation but can hold out just a little longer perhaps, due to the bigger economy, but will ultimately collapse if money is continually printed, and debt increased. And the US doesn't even have a socialist healthcare system! Yet!(?)

If for no other reason, such as ideology, practicality dictates that the US cannot institute a universal Healthcare system. The cost in the House of Representatives is at least $1.055 trillion which we DO NOT HAVE. And will claim at least $572 billion in NEW TAXES, despite the Presidents disengenuous claims otherwise. The US has over $9 Trillion in debt, $135 Trillion is already owed to Social Security, Medicare, etc in the coming 20 years. Where is that money? It isn't there. Regardless of politics I believe that people should live within their means. This is the fault of every American president of the past 50 years and both parties.

[Treebeard13]

Jerba,
I'm not at odds with your position.  Being more of a fiscal conservative it really concerns me the position that the U.S. has put itself into economically.  But I question some of your numbers and others appear more dramatic when not put in any kind of context.

The current accumulated debt is actually, as of 4/3, 11.1 trillion so you're close there.  Where does the 135 trillion already owed to social security and medicare come from?  The several sources I found puts the looming short fall at around 40 - 50 trillion, but that's over the next 75 years.  Only Medicare part A is already in a short fall situation but social security won't be until around 2017 and runs out of cash somewhere between 2040 and 2050 depending on the analysis.

Again, I am not a fan of entitlements but just throwing out large ominous numbers simply shows your bias.  The Health Care plan being proposed is about 1 trillion - but it's over ten years.  The numbers that I'd really like to see and it would seem the logical question.  What does the government, state and federal, and the citizens now pay for health care.  What is the total cost.  What would the total cost be over the next ten years under the current situation and then under the proposed Health Care package. 

Neither side really presents an intelligent debate.  Both just try to scare the citizens.  One side talks about the millions of un-insured and the horror stories of medical care denied, the other side throws out huge numbers and discribes how bad it will be both for the economy and how poor the health care will be.

But as I've said before, we have the government we deserve.

Chuck

[TheJord]

The World Health Statistics says the USA pays 16% of its GDP towards healthcare. Health insurance costs are rising faster than wages or inflation, and medical causes were cited by about half of bankruptcy filers in the United States in 2001 (Health Affairs Journal, 2005).

Despite all this spending, when the World Health Organisation did its last measure of overall health performance, the USA ranked 37, behind countries like Columbia, Cyprus, Dominica and Costa Rica. France was considered top (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf)

Something has to change the US healthcare system, as it costs a lot of money and provides the majority of its benefits to the rich, with the richest 5% in the US accounting for half of the spending on healthcare (Health Affairs Journal, Volume 20, Number 2, March, April 2001). I'm not suggesting public healthcare is the answer, but whats being done isnt working for the majority.

And I'm not totally convinced that it is unconstitutional, after having read your arguements. It seems a mere interpretation and I personally dont agree.

[MR. Lurtzy]

And I'm not totally convinced that it is unconstitutional.

Show me where it is open to such interpretation.

[Gil-Estel]

And I think it is also important to keep in mind the costs of illness in general? If people do not have proper insurance, and get sick more, how does that affect the society? And more important, how does it affect the economy. Like Treebeard says, there are many things to keep in mind, it is very important to use the correct numbers (this is stated in general, for I do not know any numbers, especially the US numbers) and -this is the hardest part- keep prejudice out of the debate.

[sickofpalantirs]

And I'm not totally convinced that it is unconstitutional.

Show me where it is open to such interpretation.

The same place where people have been arguing for it since Hamilton.  These are not old arguments, and they have not been resolved.  And as a Christian, quite frankly, I would rather people were taken care of than a possible interpretation of the constitution followed.

[Jerba]

Jerba,
I'm not at odds with your position.  Being more of a fiscal conservative it really concerns me the position that the U.S. has put itself into economically.  But I question some of your numbers and others appear more dramatic when not put in any kind of context.

The current accumulated debt is actually, as of 4/3, 11.1 trillion so you're close there.  Where does the 135 trillion already owed to social security and medicare come from?  The several sources I found puts the looming short fall at around 40 - 50 trillion, but that's over the next 75 years.  Only Medicare part A is already in a short fall situation but social security won't be until around 2017 and runs out of cash somewhere between 2040 and 2050 depending on the analysis.

Again, I am not a fan of entitlements but just throwing out large ominous numbers simply shows your bias.  The Health Care plan being proposed is about 1 trillion - but it's over ten years.  The numbers that I'd really like to see and it would seem the logical question.  What does the government, state and federal, and the citizens now pay for health care.  What is the total cost.  What would the total cost be over the next ten years under the current situation and then under the proposed Health Care package. 

Neither side really presents an intelligent debate.  Both just try to scare the citizens.  One side talks about the millions of un-insured and the horror stories of medical care denied, the other side throws out huge numbers and discribes how bad it will be both for the economy and how poor the health care will be.

But as I've said before, we have the government we deserve.

Chuck

Chuck, Thanks for pointing out the $135 Trillion. I had it in mind but can't seem to find it either. So I do want to apologize for the exaggeration. Rather irresponsible, so I'm sorry.

If health care is currently 16% of the GDP (Seems high to me) I guarantee that number will skyrocket with the addition of a massive bureaucracy that also has to be paid in order for the entire population to get health care. Not to mention that there is no proof costs of procedures will drop with the plan. There are arguments saying that cost will actually increase. But I digress.

Regardless of ideology, the money just isn't there. Whether payable over ten years or one, the money is not there. In fact Majority Leader Reid is declining to pay the $11 Billion 'down payment' up front as initially called for. We can't keep passing the debt on. Its got to stop. Both parties are guilty, and I am sick of it.