I really shouldn't say this considering my current insurance is going to run out, and getting insurance on my own will be difficult and expensive, but they should kill this bill with fire. If it was truly for the betterment of U.S. health care or its citizens, I'd be all for it, but it's full of so many backroom deals, I just don't trust it.
I also don't trust the government to be able to run health care any better than it is now. For example: military health care. All the retired military service members I've talked to will say that the government/military does a terrible job with health care. Why should we let them run our health care?
I really hope the adminstration and our representatives realize that we're not stupid and just drop this. They can try again with real reform, not some bloated piece of crap.
Not shrunk in the ways we would need it to, or want for that matter. Doesn't mean we stop trying to do it, though.
Of course not, but there's always a fine line between a small useless government and a small effective government. Small and useless is just as bad a big and useless...only cheaper and more pointless.
No it doesn't, b/c there are more than 38 nations in the world and apparently many nonindustrialized and poorer countries offer "free" hc.Yes. However, the incidence of UHC is greater in countries that are ranked progressively higher on the HDI, therefore providing a correlation between economic growth, standard of living, etc... the very principles that are found within developed nations.You're merely conflating the terms. Besides, your argument was "modern and industrialized", not "developed". Shifting goalposts? Developed is a subjective term that doesn't require a system to have govt run healthcare to meet the requirement. Of course, neither does "modern and industrialized" either, frankly.No. de·vel·oped
: having a relatively high level of industrialization and standard of living <a developed country>I think it's quite easy to discern between a nation like the UK and, say, Somalia, so developed isn't quite as subjective by definition as you think. "Modern and industrialized" can also be subjective, sure, but the terms are most certainly attributed to "developed country".
We have one of the best health nationalized plans in Medicare--if you're 65 or older, or on Social Security Disability. It works well for us doctors, works pretty well for hospitals, and it's at least semi-understandable, unlike many insurance companies' policies (which love obfuscation--if you make a single mistake on the claim form, they don't have to pay! Woohoo for them!) However, the fund has been underpaid, and that's why it's going broke.
A lot of GOPers forget we have gov't run health care in Medicare (or conveniently ignore it), and it does a darn good job. I think it's the model we should have gone with (just extended to everyone, and taxes raised accordingly to cover it), but it didn't happen that way.
Of course not, but there's always a fine line between a small useless government and a small effective government.
Exactly. This is what most of us want. Plus on our side or at least neutral enough that we the people remain the effective working 3rd pillar of the triad, instead of like a squirrel between 2 hogs fighting over a steak like it has been.
Still...you know the saying: want in one hand, **** in the other and see which gets full fastest. :¬:
Small and useless is just as bad a big and useless...only cheaper and more pointless. At least it's easier to clean up the mess. *shrugs*
Exactly. This is what most of us want. Plus on our side or at least neutral enough that we the people remain the effective working 3rd pillar of the triad, instead of like a squirrel between 2 hogs fighting over a steak like it has been.
Still...you know the saying: want in one hand, **** in the other and see which gets full fastest. :¬:
If I remember correctly, weren't the 1860s-1890s a period of relatively unmoving, small government. If I also remember correctly, that period was plagued by corruption, poverty, and corporate dominance; which in turn, led to the progressive era that (for the most part) led to some great reform that we still have today.
We got to debate the healthcare bill in German (lol), was a fun class, hope it's for the best.
If I remember correctly, weren't the 1860s-1890s a period of relatively unmoving, small government. If I also remember correctly, that period was plagued by corruption, poverty, and corporate dominance; which in turn, led to the progressive era that (for the most part) led to some great reform that we still have today.
We got to debate the healthcare bill in German (lol), was a fun class, hope it's for the best.
The 1860's saw the Civil War and Reconstruction, so it wasn't unmoving or small at that point, though compared to today it was pretty tiny.
I don't think in the entire history of the US, the government has ever "shrunk", regardless of who's in power.
So, naturally, we should just sit by and let it get ever larger, right? Frankly, I'd rather have a "small" and useless govt than a large and useless one. At least they'd be less in my way. A federal govt that limited itself to negotiating foreign treaties, providing for America's national defense interests and focusing on America's infrastructure would be fine in my book.
A lot of GOPers forget we have gov't run health care in Medicare (or conveniently ignore it), and it does a darn good job. I think it's the model we should have gone with (just extended to everyone, and taxes raised accordingly to cover it), but it didn't happen that way.
No, I've not forgotten that. They also run the healthcare for the vets and Indian reservations. Problem w/Medicare is that, however well run you feel it is, we're fast coming to the point where we can't really afford it. Perhaps instead of hiring 16k+ agents for the IRS to monitor our HC payments, they should hire them to ferret out all the fraud currently in the MC system. There are too few people there as it is. The problem with this bill (and they are legion) is that it seeks not to fix the system but to make it anew. Hence their use of transform in their rhetoric pre-election. Kind of like fixing a house by tearing it down and erecting a new one in it's place.
The 1860's saw the Civil War and Reconstruction, so it wasn't unmoving or small at that point, though compared to today it was pretty tiny.
Sorry, should have been a little more specific, meant more 1880s to the late 90s, with Mckinley, Harrison, Cleveland, etc... If memory serves me though, the period was characterized by general noninterference on the part of government.
No, I've not forgotten that. They also run the healthcare for the vets and Indian reservations. Problem w/Medicare is that, however well run you feel it is, we're fast coming to the point where we can't really afford it. Perhaps instead of hiring 16k+ agents for the IRS to monitor our HC payments, they should hire them to ferret out all the fraud currently in the MC system. There are too few people there as it is. The problem with this bill (and they are legion) is that it seeks not to fix the system but to make it anew. Hence their use of transform in their rhetoric pre-election. Kind of like fixing a house by tearing it down and erecting a new one in it's place.
I don't really see how the healthcare bill is completely destroying the current system, it's simply adding a few more regulations and standards on private healthcare, as well as requiring all citizens to have healthcare. As to the abuse of Medicare; I really hope there is some type of solution in the future to minimize swindling, as I personally know quite a few "family friends" that make a fairly large income, afford 3 cars, and a more than comfortable home that receive lots of government assistance concerning health and basic necessities (i.e. food).
So, naturally, we should just sit by and let it get ever larger, right? Frankly, I'd rather have a "small" and useless govt than a large and useless one. At least they'd be less in my way. A federal govt that limited itself to negotiating foreign treaties, providing for America's national defense interests and focusing on America's infrastructure would be fine in my book.
You clearly didn't read my previous post. Until you do, you can kindly not respond to me.
If I remember correctly, weren't the 1860s-1890s a period of relatively unmoving, small government. If I also remember correctly, that period was plagued by corruption, poverty, and corporate dominance; which in turn, led to the progressive era that (for the most part) led to some great reform that we still have today.
<snip>
Just because a perfect triad in power was at a slow time in our history, doesn't mean it'll necessarily land that way next time. The principle reason for why I am about the least amount of government, but still enough present to the point where it is actually effective is precisely because of the nature of human involvement, regardless of entity.
Basically I look at Corporations AND government much the same (at the end of my sword/gun/10 ft. pole); whoever wins it's an entity with a large amount of power to represent it; whereas the people (WE the people) are the ones that seem to lose out and the price is our liberties in the process because it is only us and our rights. Meanwhile everyone is disagreeing and tilting it in their own favor.
general noninterference on the part of government.
No. See that's not completely what I'm after. I'm after more of an equilibrium where there is just enough regulation to prevent catastrophic self destruction and it is designed to protect our liberties as well as keep the markets competitive. All the while it is not overly interfering with "normal operation" or sustainability. (I think many American officials in general have abandoned/betrayed this principle quite recently, which saddens me.)
From a pseudo engineering standpoint if governing mechanisms are over designed or the engine itself is too complicated, there are more things that can, do, and inevitably will go wrong. At best it stagnates. Conversely too simple and too little, the whole thing destroys itself. Either way you look at it: Murphy's law.
Problem here (as it seems) is that it's very difficult to achieve one way or the other. Nobody does or means just what they say. Plus we don't always agree as people how to go about that, whether that's best or not, to what degree, etc.
Seeing as how further discussion will detract from health care bill discussion I suggest we speak of this elsewhere if you wish to continue this discussion.
I don't really see how the healthcare bill is completely destroying the current system, it's simply adding a few more regulations and standards on private healthcare, as well as requiring all citizens to have healthcare. As to the abuse of Medicare; I really hope there is some type of solution in the future to minimize swindling, as I personally know quite a few "family friends" that make a fairly large income, afford 3 cars, and a more than comfortable home that receive lots of government assistance concerning health and basic necessities (i.e. food).
It's not completely destroying the system, that's pretty much in motion already. The US already has a burgeoning debt that is close to surpassing annual GDP and risks losing it's AAA credit rating. Congress now adds another entitlement program to the mix that it really can't afford. Top it off with this govt (Exec and Leg) being anti-business in its policies and rhetoric, and you don't have an environment conducive to the kind of growth you're going to need to extricate America from this crushing burden. I agree that there should be greater enforcement and investigation of current abuses as well as means testing for participation in govt programs. I recall several people in the past who have said that they would collect unemployment and then work under-the-table on top of that.
You clearly didn't read my previous post. Until you do, you can kindly not respond to me.
Of course not, but there's always a fine line between a small useless government and a small effective government. Small and useless is just as bad a big and useless...only cheaper and more pointless.
I don't think in the entire history of the US, the government has ever "shrunk", regardless of who's in power.
Actually I did. And while my question was rhetorical, it was one which you could chose to answer if you so wished. You chose instead to proffer a somewhat petulant reply. Whether govt has gotten smaller or not is somewhat moot, but also brings to mind the old saying about past performance not indicating future results. Also, possibly, that there's a first time for everything. In this case, I don't expect the govt to really get smaller than it was before this poorly conceived monstrosity was passed, but won't cry croodile tears if it ends up being a case of big govt leaping 2-3 steps forward and having to fall 1-2 back.
I'd be all for it, but it's full of so many backroom deals, I just don't trust it.This is actually an argument that I agree with, but I would also like to point out that backroom deals are nothing new to Washington or Congress. Despite some talking heads saying this is the first time in history a bill has been passed in such a matter, they have.
The Homestead Act of 1862. (Thankfully done by the Republicans)
The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (The GI Bill by the Democrats)
Reagan’s Tax Plan of the 1980s.(by conservative Democrats and Republicans)
The first two bills were (IMO) instrumental in forming the nation into what it is today by allowing the middle class to grow including homeownership and in the case of the GI Bill promoting higher education within families.
So, naturally, we should just sit by and let it get ever larger, right? Frankly, I'd rather have a "small" and useless govt than a large and useless one. At least they'd be less in my way. A federal govt that limited itself to negotiating foreign treaties, providing for America's national defense interests and focusing on America's infrastructure would be fine in my book.
Actually I did. And while my question was rhetorical, it was one which you could chose to answer if you so wished. You chose instead to proffer a somewhat petulant reply. Whether govt has gotten smaller or not is somewhat moot, but also brings to mind the old saying about past performance not indicating future results. Also, possibly, that there's a first time for everything. In this case, I don't expect the govt to really get smaller than it was before this poorly conceived monstrosity was passed, but won't cry croodile tears if it ends up being a case of big govt leaping 2-3 steps forward and having to fall 1-2 back.
Your question wasn't "rhetorical" it was just asked by GTA and answered in the statement you quoted. And while you are right that what has happened in the past does not limit the future to only that, but it certainly stands to define it.
What I do think is that most people who want small government don't really take time to consider is how many things actually go in to "National Defense". EX: you can't defend your country from outside threats if your citizens don't know what 2x2 is.
No Dubya, you don't get to decide what is rhetorical and what's not. And we can see that public ed has been soooo much better than the private sector at educating people on the value of "2x2". Btw, what question do you refer to b/c GTA doesn't ask any prior to that post in the way you appear to be implying. Anyway, it doesn't really seem to be that big a problem, as most military recruits are smarter than the average citizen in the current era. So, what other social issues do you want to make a tenuous link to the military or a nebulously defined concept of "national security"?
A lot of GOPers forget we have gov't run health care in Medicare (or conveniently ignore it), and it does a darn good job. I think it's the model we should have gone with (just extended to everyone, and taxes raised accordingly to cover it), but it didn't happen that way.
Actually this is part of the problem. We DO realize we have national health care. In fact expanding Medicare WAS one of the suggestions put forth by Republicans, though coverage of that was lacking. Many GOPers recognized this bill for what it is... So bloated with pork that it becomes darn near useless.
Very few GOPers think health care is fine as it is. We just had different ideas on how to fix it. A gigantic bill like this was not the answer. I mean heck large portions won't even take place for 4 years...
And keep in mind that the government does have a fully government run health care system... the VA. That works splendidly doesn't it? And they have a much higher claim denial rate than any insurance company.
I'm happy about the "pre-existing clause" thing, and that insurers can't drop you for things like cancer(seeing as how my girlfriend is a cancer survivor, and requires regular treatments etc), but that IS going to cause rates to rise(at least in the short term) because people who would otherwise be darn near uninsurable will get insurance(great for them, not so great for others who are already insured).
As for the unconstitutionality... I believe it's probably going to be deemed constitutional, though it's shady. As it is run by the IRS, it will be called a tax, which is allowed. It is not however anything like the automotive insurance requirement. Life is one of our inalienable rights. Driving a car is not a right. it is a privilege. It may be a necessity in some areas, but it is not a necessity in order to live in this country.
Of course there are other portions of the bill that COULD be deemed unconstitutional. For the same reasons as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were upheld. Essentially the right to privacy. Health care choices being fairly private and close to home. But we'll have to see. For now, we have health care on layaway for 4 years while they fight to see if it's constitutional... then if it isn't, well the government already has the money... yippee...
And they have a much higher claim denial rate than any insurance company.
I would like to see your evidence of this statement. Please keep in mind you wrote any insurance company.
I would like to see your evidence of this statement. Please keep in mind you wrote any insurance company.
I'll have to look for it again, but you're probably right in that I should have qualified it with "on average" as there are some insurance companies that deny pretty much every claim regardless of validity. Though those should probably just be listed as insurance scams haha.