Drunk with Power?
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
I understand the point of view, and how it infringes on freedoms.
But how were the framers supposed to take into account health insurance, and the government's role in mandating coverage? Was there any such thing as health insurance during that time period?
These are more just general questions. I'm not trying to debate, as I'm not as well versed in current politics as you guys. It's never been a forte of mine.
But how were the framers supposed to take into account health insurance, and the government's role in mandating coverage? Was there any such thing as health insurance during that time period?
These are more just general questions. I'm not trying to debate, as I'm not as well versed in current politics as you guys. It's never been a forte of mine.
Everyone keeps talking about reform, but why does reform seem to mean, "just make someone else responsible for paying for it."
Because the costs are passed on, the buying and consuming habits of the market are all skewed. You don't compare prices. You aren't interested in value. You're not worried about needless testing. You just consume it.
SUPPLY AND DEMAND CURVE.
I repeat this over and over, but you can't address health care reform until you at least understand the basic principles of S&D and apply it to the discussion.
Because the costs are passed on, the buying and consuming habits of the market are all skewed. You don't compare prices. You aren't interested in value. You're not worried about needless testing. You just consume it.
SUPPLY AND DEMAND CURVE.
I repeat this over and over, but you can't address health care reform until you at least understand the basic principles of S&D and apply it to the discussion.
Agreed!!!
Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made.
-James Madison
[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.
-Thomas Jefferson
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
-James Madison
-James Madison
[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.
-Thomas Jefferson
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
-James Madison
Can you elaborate, because I don't know precisely what you're talking about.
Insurance is a means for the private sector to protect themselves from catastrophic damages. The person responsible for providing the insurance does so because he's motivated by a profit motive, he can make a modest profit for the time and energy he's invested in his company. People more likely to require pay out paying a higher rate to cover the risk.
Obama and the Democrats are moving towards single payer.
That is not insurance, that's an entitlement.
no, it's still an insurance. you are paying into something to use it when needed.
can you cancel after being denied claims? sure, but you'll never be insured again.
so what good is the corporate insurance? it's only as good as the cash flow of the underwriter. and the profits expected to come out.
is somebody paying for coverage? then it's insurance. just a different underwriter.
from shags post, he's declaring somebody else is paying. if you don't understand my post, maybe you had better elaborate on that.
single payer is government run, but you the person are PAYING for it just like private insurance. so much/month/year, whatever. there is no difference other than it is public rather than private entity run. those who can still pay in. and those who can't were covered under public funding anyways before.
so how is there any difference.
is that person(company) also willing to take on the risk of losing money on the insurance gamble? no, they just say you're no longer covered when their side of the stakes gets too high.
can you cancel after being denied claims? sure, but you'll never be insured again.
so what good is the corporate insurance? it's only as good as the cash flow of the underwriter. and the profits expected to come out.
is somebody paying for coverage? then it's insurance. just a different underwriter.
from shags post, he's declaring somebody else is paying. if you don't understand my post, maybe you had better elaborate on that.
single payer is government run, but you the person are PAYING for it just like private insurance. so much/month/year, whatever. there is no difference other than it is public rather than private entity run. those who can still pay in. and those who can't were covered under public funding anyways before.
so how is there any difference.
Let's just start over.
Why has health reform simply become another way of changing "who" pays for it, rather than how and what we pay for it?
And was my S&D point clear? If we address the S&D issue, then we actually will see the invisible hand control prices.
Apparently you don't understand the difference between insurance and entitlement.
Insurance is something you voluntarily purchase. An entitlement is something you are FORCED to pay for the federal government to provide. That is the difference; choice vs. coercion.
i'm not going into a debate about the american healthcare system. i was merely pointing out a few falsehoods used as talking points. i'm fine with the system i have. healthcare is a necessity of life. there's no "you've reached the limit of your coverage" or other bull. necessary healthcare is taken care of.
No, you merely wanted to do that, though you failed to do so.
So is food and housing...
So.... because they call it an "option" means there is no coercion? You seem to be ignoring the fact of the federal MANDATE to have health insurance coverage.
Maybe if you weren't so focused on condescending toward me and dismissing what I say you would catch what I was saying. Unfortunately, you have shown time and again that you are incapable of mutually respectful discourse.
You were the one to start with the personal attacks. You can't both "reciprocate" and "initiate".
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Wow that deserves an *owned*
just followed your lead from the beginning. i may have escalated a little higher, but i wasn't first. and then i only gave when deserving.
when you learn to stop being condescending in your posts, i'll reciprocate.
what do you know, shaggy's little back door buddy came to the party.
thought i was on your ignore.
Legitimize it however you like. Anyone who has been following your posts and your interactions with me knows the truth and it is the opposite of how you are characterizing it here...
you're mistaken yet again shag. anybody who's read a post of yours knows your contempt for anybody who disagrees with you. and anybody who has followed from the 1st post i ever made will know your lying.
I only ever show contempt for someone who first shows contempt, who uses fallacious arguments, talks beyond their knowledge, etc.; basically for someone who shows a lack of civility. You know that and my history on this forum bears that out.
To characterize me as simply showing contempt for anyone who disagrees with me is to smear me. Something you are rather good at.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
funny, same here. i guess we're at an impasse.