Founding fathers on Healthcare

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What Jefferson would have been in favor of would be the government getting out of healthcare all together, therefore making medicine more competitive and bringing about lower prices.

 

[Shogun]

Speaking of Founding Fathers, I think an interesting take on this can be percieved in how Ben Franklin organized his Firefighting club:

Members of the fire company pledged to help one another should fire break out or threaten one of their homes or businesses. Not only would they attempt to put out the flames, members would also help save goods within the building and protect the building from looters. Members were not required to help protect properties of non-members.

Members had to provide at least two buckets for carrying water and several cloth bags for carrying items rescued from the fire. The original twenty-five members of the group met once a month to discuss fire-fighting techniques, to establish company policies, and, of course, to socialize.

Benjamin Franklin . Citizen Ben . Firefighter | PBS


Then again, I'm not an originalist and thoroughly believe that the Constitution is a living document.

 

[Luissa]

What Jefferson would have been in favor of would be the government getting out of healthcare all together, therefore making medicine more competitive and bringing about lower prices.

and lower quality of goods. Lower prices doesn't always mean better product.

 

[Navy1960]

You know Shogun, I will allow that there are those out there that believe that the constitution is a living document, and given that fact the very idea that those who would wish a "healthcare right" would go about it through the legislative process rather than the Amendment process seems to counteract that. It would seem to me that in order to make a true living document then use the Amendment process too make the constitution reflect what those beliefs are.

I tend to agree with Kevin on Jefferson though Luissa , because its very clear Jefferson was not in favor of uspurping the rights of the people in favor of Govt. In fact I like to think that Jeffrson would most likely be in favor of legislation that would reflect limiting Govts. involvement in ventures that were better suited for the citizens. While I do tend to agree that most of the founding fathers were very stern in their views when it came to corporations and the laws of the time reflected that fact , so given that fact, most likely Jefferson would have favored a regulatory approach where it applied to the commerce aspect of medicine rather than one whereby the Govt, when into the actual business of providing that commerce.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What Jefferson would have been in favor of would be the government getting out of healthcare all together, therefore making medicine more competitive and bringing about lower prices.

and lower quality of goods. Lower prices doesn't always mean better product.

The natural tendency of the market is towards higher quality and lower prices. If you don't provide higher quality for lower prices you're unlikely to survive long. It's when the government gets involved that we see higher prices and stagnation of quality.

 

[pflynn001]

You realize you are quoting a bunch of dudes who wore wigs and have been dead for 200 years, right? They also gave us the ability to amend the constitution, which goes to show they knew things might CHANGE.

Just the fact you continue to quote them leads me to believe you don't have the ability to think for yourself. Which kind of explains your ignorance in this case. Isn't it hard to breathe with your head in the sand?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

You realize you are quoting a bunch of dudes who wore wigs and have been dead for 200 years, right? They also gave us the ability to amend the constitution, which goes to show they knew things might CHANGE.

Just the fact you continue to quote them leads me to believe you don't have the ability to think for yourself. Which kind of explains your ignorance in this case. Isn't it hard to breathe with your head in the sand?

Properly amending the Constitution via Article V, and bastardizing it to fit the whims and desires of the political whores in Washington, are two different things.

Congress has 18 enumerated powers for a reason. Healthcare is not one of them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You realize you are quoting a bunch of dudes who wore wigs and have been dead for 200 years, right? They also gave us the ability to amend the constitution, which goes to show they knew things might CHANGE.

Just the fact you continue to quote them leads me to believe you don't have the ability to think for yourself. Which kind of explains your ignorance in this case. Isn't it hard to breathe with your head in the sand?

Yes, they gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, which meant they expected us to amend the Constitution if it didn't give authority for something. Universal healthcare for example.

 

[pflynn001]

What Jefferson would have been in favor of would be the government getting out of healthcare all together, therefore making medicine more competitive and bringing about lower prices.

and lower quality of goods. Lower prices doesn't always mean better product.

The natural tendency of the market is towards higher quality and lower prices. If you don't provide higher quality for lower prices you're unlikely to survive long. It's when the government gets involved that we see higher prices and stagnation of quality.

Ha! Yeah maybe your right (sarcasm). But doesn't it concern you that the "free market" you love so much has left us with an economy that HAS to be saved by the government. Government ownership=BAD IDEA. Government regulation=GOOD IDEA.

Maybe when China owns the ENTIRE country, or when we are the ones speaking Hindi and providing tech support to the Indians, ya'll might figure this out. Maybe via a bit of government REGULATION we can avoid socialism.

Oh and Kevin, if I could suggest some light reading? It's a book called "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. It may provide you with a more realistic view of government regulation. Unfortunately, people just aren't as trustworthy when it comes to making a buck as we would like. Sometimes it pays to keep an eye on them.

 

[Gudrid]

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

James Madison


I just thought some of you might enjoy what one of the our founders thought of the idea of a Govt. that people looked to for all it's needs.

Do you feel the public school system and federal highways should be abolished?

I don't disagree with your basic premise; however, I think there's another level to healthcare at this point beyond the general welfare - specifically, protection of the people from tyranny (in this case, corporate tyranny). The control that private insurers hold over our health care is stunning, and it kills people regularly. It should have been stopped a long time ago, back when we were providing immunity to lawsuit to these insurers. That should never have happened, in my opinion. But it did, and now we're at a place where we have to find a way to correct that damage that has been done and let the pendulum swing the other way.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

and lower quality of goods. Lower prices doesn't always mean better product.

The natural tendency of the market is towards higher quality and lower prices. If you don't provide higher quality for lower prices you're unlikely to survive long. It's when the government gets involved that we see higher prices and stagnation of quality.

Ha! Yeah maybe your right (sarcasm). But doesn't it concern you that the "free market" you love so much has left us with an economy that HAS to be saved by the government. Government ownership=BAD IDEA. Government regulation=GOOD IDEA.

Maybe when China owns the ENTIRE country, or when we are the ones speaking Hindi and providing tech support to the Indians, ya'll might figure this out. Maybe via a bit of government REGULATION we can avoid socialism.

Oh and Kevin, if I could suggest some light reading? It's a book called "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. It may provide you with a more realistic view of government regulation. Unfortunately, people just aren't as trustworthy when it comes to making a buck as we would like. Sometimes it pays to keep an eye on them.

Well if we're going to recommend fiction in regards to economics let me recommend Atlas Shrugged.

At any rate, the free market is not to blame for our recession in any way shape or form. We had nothing resembling a free market economy. The Federal Reserve's low interest rate policy is what gave us our recession.

 

[Big Black Dog]

ALso Health care should never be for profit.

I can see you know nothing about the real world. People go into business to make money. I know it seems like a silly concept to you but that's what makes the world go around. If there was no money in it, nobody would have made the computer you typed this silly statement on. If there was no money in it, nobody would be a doctor, nobody would build a hospital, and nobody would make your medicine. Hope you aren't serious about what you believe. It costs millions of dollars to invent, make, and sell medications. Do you think anybody's going to do that in a non-profit kind of business? You've got to be joking...

 

[pflynn001]

You realize you are quoting a bunch of dudes who wore wigs and have been dead for 200 years, right? They also gave us the ability to amend the constitution, which goes to show they knew things might CHANGE.

Just the fact you continue to quote them leads me to believe you don't have the ability to think for yourself. Which kind of explains your ignorance in this case. Isn't it hard to breathe with your head in the sand?

Properly amending the Constitution via Article V, and bastardizing it to fit the whims and desires of the political whores in Washington, are two different things.

Congress has 18 enumerated powers for a reason. Healthcare is not one of them.

Yeah, problem is the political pimps in Washington (lobbyists) are bitch slapping the whores. This fight isn't about socialism, it's about what the people want. That's why we elect the "whores" as you say. Unfortunately, the people do not get what they want because the pimps run the show.

We the people..

What else needs to be said?

 

[pflynn001]

ALso Health care should never be for profit.

I can see you know nothing about the real world. People go into business to make money. I know it seems like a silly concept to you but that's what makes the world go around. If there was no money in it, nobody would have made the computer you typed this silly statement on. If there was no money in it, nobody would be a doctor, nobody would build a hospital, and nobody would make your medicine. Hope you aren't serious about what you believe. It costs millions of dollars to invent, make, and sell medications. Do you think anybody's going to do that in a non-profit kind of business? You've got to be joking...

Not what I said. I said regulation. You have got to be kidding.

 

[pflynn001]

The natural tendency of the market is towards higher quality and lower prices. If you don't provide higher quality for lower prices you're unlikely to survive long. It's when the government gets involved that we see higher prices and stagnation of quality.

Ha! Yeah maybe your right (sarcasm). But doesn't it concern you that the "free market" you love so much has left us with an economy that HAS to be saved by the government. Government ownership=BAD IDEA. Government regulation=GOOD IDEA.

Maybe when China owns the ENTIRE country, or when we are the ones speaking Hindi and providing tech support to the Indians, ya'll might figure this out. Maybe via a bit of government REGULATION we can avoid socialism.

Oh and Kevin, if I could suggest some light reading? It's a book called "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. It may provide you with a more realistic view of government regulation. Unfortunately, people just aren't as trustworthy when it comes to making a buck as we would like. Sometimes it pays to keep an eye on them.

Well if we're going to recommend fiction in regards to economics let me recommend Atlas Shrugged.

At any rate, the free market is not to blame for our recession in any way shape or form. We had nothing resembling a free market economy. The Federal Reserve's low interest rate policy is what gave us our recession.

HA! I'm done with this thread. It's the Fed's fault? Not the last 30 years of migrating jobs or the total obliteration of the middle class!?

This is not worth my time.

Btw, "The Jungle" may be fiction, but it is one of the main reasons you don't have shit in your food!

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

You realize you are quoting a bunch of dudes who wore wigs and have been dead for 200 years, right? They also gave us the ability to amend the constitution, which goes to show they knew things might CHANGE.

Just the fact you continue to quote them leads me to believe you don't have the ability to think for yourself. Which kind of explains your ignorance in this case. Isn't it hard to breathe with your head in the sand?

Properly amending the Constitution via Article V, and bastardizing it to fit the whims and desires of the political whores in Washington, are two different things.

Congress has 18 enumerated powers for a reason. Healthcare is not one of them.

Yeah, problem is the political pimps in Washington (lobbyists) are bitch slapping the whores. This fight isn't about socialism, it's about what the people want. That's why we elect the "whores" as you say. Unfortunately, the people do not get what they want because the pimps run the show.

We the people..

What else needs to be said?

As a whole, "We The People" is the core problem. They are enabling the political whores in Washington. Too many people want the government to wipe their butt for them. They call out for this, that, and the other government program, and when the government takes from them all they can get their hands on, the people whine and complain about the expanse of government.

I am against government run healthcare. If people ( read: big government drug addicts ) want such, they can go about the right way, instead of seeking to use the federal government as a bastard child of force.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ha! Yeah maybe your right (sarcasm). But doesn't it concern you that the "free market" you love so much has left us with an economy that HAS to be saved by the government. Government ownership=BAD IDEA. Government regulation=GOOD IDEA.

Maybe when China owns the ENTIRE country, or when we are the ones speaking Hindi and providing tech support to the Indians, ya'll might figure this out. Maybe via a bit of government REGULATION we can avoid socialism.

Oh and Kevin, if I could suggest some light reading? It's a book called "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. It may provide you with a more realistic view of government regulation. Unfortunately, people just aren't as trustworthy when it comes to making a buck as we would like. Sometimes it pays to keep an eye on them.

Well if we're going to recommend fiction in regards to economics let me recommend Atlas Shrugged.

At any rate, the free market is not to blame for our recession in any way shape or form. We had nothing resembling a free market economy. The Federal Reserve's low interest rate policy is what gave us our recession.

HA! I'm done with this thread. It's the Fed's fault? Not the last 30 years of migrating jobs or the total obliteration of the middle class!?

This is not worth my time.

Btw, "The Jungle" may be fiction, but it is one of the main reasons you don't have shit in your food!

That's all nonsense. I'd suggest studying some actual economics.

 

[pflynn001]

Nonsense? Okay Captain economy. Explain why the city I live in went from a burgeoning metropolis of 200,000 to a shit hole with less than 50,000 in 20 years. I don't need to understand economics to know we no longer make anything in this country. We have gone from being producers to being consumers and for many folks the best job they can get is at Wal-Mart.

You can sit there on your high horse and spout off all this bullshit about hard work getting you everything in this country. Problem is, that's just not the way it works anymore. If you don't have the means to go to a good school and get a degree, what do you have? A job at Wal-Mart. This is not nonsense Captain, this is fact and it IS a problem.

To compound this, where do you think these Wal-Mart workers get their health care? Right out of your pocket. You are already paying for the "deadbeats" and it's only getting worse.

So march on with your superiority and your ideals. See where it gets your children.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nonsense? Okay Captain economy. Explain why the city I live in went from a burgeoning metropolis of 200,000 to a shit hole with less than 50,000 in 20 years. I don't need to understand economics to know we no longer make anything in this country. We have gone from being producers to being consumers and for many folks the best job they can get is at Wal-Mart.

You can sit there on your high horse and spout off all this bullshit about hard work getting you everything in this country. Problem is, that's just not the way it works anymore. If you don't have the means to go to a good school and get a degree, what do you have? A job at Wal-Mart. This is not nonsense Captain, this is fact and it IS a problem.

To compound this, where do you think these Wal-Mart workers get their health care? Right out of your pocket. You are already paying for the "deadbeats" and it's only getting worse.

So march on with your superiority and your ideals. See where it gets your children.

My high horse? You came in this thread laughing at what I say and recommending that I read a fictional story in regards to economics.

At any rate, you're right about us being a consumption economy as opposed to a production economy. However, it was the Fed's interest rate policy that made all of this possible.

 

[pflynn001]

Yes your high horse. Do not tell me I need to study economics when I can walk out of my front door and see what is happening. The Fed did not destroy our economy. If you can somehow explain to me how the Fed, all by itself, is destroying our economy I will say you deserve your high horse and I will go get a degree in economics. If you can explain to me how the Fed took my brother's job and sent it to some third world country, I'm all ears.

You need to look at the bigger picture and try to realize that the destruction of our economy has been going on for years and we can only dummy it up for so long. This idea that interest rate cuts are the only reason we are in a recession is nuts. How about the fact that we let these banks get so gigantic (free market) that we had no choice but to save them. I guess the death of small business and the middle class is also because of the Fed. Come on. Don't kid yourself.

And I did not suggest a fictional story in regards to economics. It was in regards to GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Such as the FDA. As I was trying to make the point that regulation is useful and maybe wouldn't be such a bad idea in terms of healthcare and business. AND MAY HELP US AVOID SOCIALISM (ie. Citibank, Lehman Bros. GM) in the future. Maybe you SHOULD read more fiction, since you seem to be living in a fantasy world.