Founding fathers on Healthcare

[Navy1960]

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?

It seems I've discovered another person that spent too much time in social studies class and too little time in history class. The very reason , I started this thread is to give people some pause for thought that perhaps the Amendment process within our framework of Govt. is the best way to accomplish the goals they daily preach on. As you have not been on USMB and have not had the chance to read any or my previous posts, I will take a moment to give you a little background. On most of these types of threads , I have long advocated that the Amendment process would be the best avenue for those that wish things like Universal healthcare and the so called "healthcare is a right" crowd. I do have a suggestion though, in the future perhaps you may want to actually read a little of your nations history to understand exactly where it's going before you take the time to judge others ability on the matter. If that proves too difficult for you, then of course your always welcome to continue to read my posts to expand your knowledge on your nations history and gain the knowledge that you were obviously not taught in school.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

The free market doesn't create any businesses that are "too big to fail," that's the government. Perhaps you think Fannie and Freddie, government sponsored enterprises, were somehow products of the free market? Perhaps you think the Federal Reserve itself is somehow a product of the free market? Well the fact is that that's not the case. In a truly free market none of those institutions could exist.

At any rate, the Federal Reserve keeps interest rates artificially low and that leads to malinvestment. When you have malinvestment eventually the market seeks to correct itself by liquidating the malinvestment, and that's the recession.

 

[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?

It seems I've discovered another person that spent too much time in social studies class and too little time in history class. The very reason , I started this thread is to give people some pause for thought that perhaps the Amendment process within our framework of Govt. is the best way to accomplish the goals they daily preach on. As you have not been on USMB and have not had the chance to read any or my previous posts, I will take a moment to give you a little background. On most of these types of threads , I have long advocated that the Amendment process would be the best avenue for those that wish things like Universal healthcare and the so called "healthcare is a right" crowd. I do have a suggestion though, in the future perhaps you may want to actually read a little of your nations history to understand exactly where it's going before you take the time to judge others ability on the matter. If that proves too difficult for you, then of course your always welcome to continue to read my posts to expand your knowledge on your nations history and gain the knowledge that you were obviously not taught in school.

I have a BA in History and Political Science from Syracuse University. You will teach me nothing but your own views on history, as we all have them. I am not blown away by your extensive knowledge of the Federalist Papers or the Constitution and generally do not agree with your view of the world.

If you would take some time to read my posts you will see I am not an advocate of government controlled health care, I am a proponent of government regulated healthcare. If you would like me to explain the difference, I would be more than happy.

 

[Navy1960]

Let me bring this conversation into the non-wig wearing Americans for our newest member of USMB as our founders and the constitution they created seem to make he and or she somewhat a little upset because it does not translate into the modern day. So in your honor..

"As Americans, we can take enormous pride in the fact that courage has been inspired by our own struggle for freedom, by the tradition of democratic law secured by our forefathers and enshrined in our Constitution. It is a tradition that says all men are created equal under the law and that no one is above it.” Barack Obama

If you and others believe for one moment that the wisdom of those that created the very foundation this nation is built upon is somehow outdated and does not translate into our times then you are sadly mistaken. As suggested, it may do you and others a lot of good to read about your nation and it's founding to have a good understanding as to what kind of nation you actually live in. Then you may find out that looking to a Federal Govt. to solve your problems for you or expecting them too is what they had in mind.

 

[Navy1960]

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?

It seems I've discovered another person that spent too much time in social studies class and too little time in history class. The very reason , I started this thread is to give people some pause for thought that perhaps the Amendment process within our framework of Govt. is the best way to accomplish the goals they daily preach on. As you have not been on USMB and have not had the chance to read any or my previous posts, I will take a moment to give you a little background. On most of these types of threads , I have long advocated that the Amendment process would be the best avenue for those that wish things like Universal healthcare and the so called "healthcare is a right" crowd. I do have a suggestion though, in the future perhaps you may want to actually read a little of your nations history to understand exactly where it's going before you take the time to judge others ability on the matter. If that proves too difficult for you, then of course your always welcome to continue to read my posts to expand your knowledge on your nations history and gain the knowledge that you were obviously not taught in school.

I have a BA in History and Political Science from Syracuse University. You will teach me nothing but your own views on history, as we all have them. I am not blown away by your extensive knowledge of the Federalist Papers or the Constitution and generally do not agree with your view of the world.

If you would take some time to read my posts you will see I am not an advocate of government controlled health care, I am a proponent of government regulated healthcare. If you would like me to explain the difference, I would be more than happy.

Then perhaps you should not make that same assumption of others based on your limited experience here. While I respect your position and am a strong advocate that the Govt. has the power under the commerce clause to regulate healthcare costs. I have long stated that the Govt. is well within it's constitutional powers to do just that. I am not an advocate of Govt. run healthcare or controlled healthcare. In fact I believe that Govt. can and should use their powers to regulate commerce to the point where prices can be brought under control therefor making healthcare available to those that need it and want it. You need not explain the difference as I am well aware of the difference and hopfully after this posting you will see we are not so far apart, other than the fact I happen to believe that those that founded this nation have a lot to offer in terms of wisdom to today's debate when it comes to exactly what type of Govt. they envisioned and as you can see I don't suscribe to Hamiltons view of what "general welfare" means.

 

[pflynn001]

Right. As I suggested before, bigger picture. Maybe the Federal Reserve can hike up the interest rates a little and make some jobs that pay more than $7.50 an hour. Maybe if they hike up interest rates it will stop these giant banks from having a mortgage monopoly. Maybe it will even get the Chinese out of our stock market. Actually, that's probably a bad idea. If they sell all of their stock we are really screwed.

The free market allows large companies to sodomize the average American. It is stone age economic policy and it does not work.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Right. As I suggested before, bigger picture. Maybe the Federal Reserve can hike up the interest rates a little and make some jobs that pay more than $7.50 an hour. Maybe if they hike up interest rates it will stop these giant banks from having a mortgage monopoly. Maybe it will even get the Chinese out of our stock market. Actually, that's probably a bad idea. If they sell all of their stock we are really screwed.

The free market allows large companies to sodomize the average American. It is stone age economic policy and it does not work.

If the Federal Reserve hikes up the interest rate they're going to make the recession far worse than it's already been, so they're not going to do that. I agree that interest rates certainly do need to go up, but it's not going to happen. What we need is to let the market set the interest rates rather than the Fed.

Yes, clearly the free market does not work when it's our highly regulated market that gave us the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 70's, Nasdaq bubble, and our current recession.

 

[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?

It seems I've discovered another person that spent too much time in social studies class and too little time in history class. The very reason , I started this thread is to give people some pause for thought that perhaps the Amendment process within our framework of Govt. is the best way to accomplish the goals they daily preach on. As you have not been on USMB and have not had the chance to read any or my previous posts, I will take a moment to give you a little background. On most of these types of threads , I have long advocated that the Amendment process would be the best avenue for those that wish things like Universal healthcare and the so called "healthcare is a right" crowd. I do have a suggestion though, in the future perhaps you may want to actually read a little of your nations history to understand exactly where it's going before you take the time to judge others ability on the matter. If that proves too difficult for you, then of course your always welcome to continue to read my posts to expand your knowledge on your nations history and gain the knowledge that you were obviously not taught in school.

I have a BA in History and Political Science from Syracuse University. You will teach me nothing but your own views on history, as we all have them. I am not blown away by your extensive knowledge of the Federalist Papers or the Constitution and generally do not agree with your view of the world.

If you would take some time to read my posts you will see I am not an advocate of government controlled health care, I am a proponent of government regulated healthcare. If you would like me to explain the difference, I would be more than happy.

Has the government ever gotten its hand on a program etc, and not screwed it up? The government is a necessary evil that should be limited. I prefer to wipe my own butt than have the government regulate my life. In my opinion, we have too much government as it is. What ever happened to personal responsibility and accountability?

 

[Navy1960]

"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.

Abolished no, however I do think that things such as funding for schools especially is a state matter and should be left to the states. As for highways, well that depends, highways fall under interstate commerce and Govt. is empowered to regulate highways under the constitution and so I don't have much of an issue what that. As for insurers, this is an interesting question, if you take into consideration that most of the founders took a very wary view of coroprations at out nations founding i.e. East India Trading company and the laws at the time regarding corporations had such things as limited charters, barring corporate ownership beyond what they are chartered to do. Then one can make a pretty good argument that insurance companies being well regulated would be not be that much of a historical precedent. I have no issues with the Govt. regulating those companies that provide services from state to state and doing so in a fashion they are empowered to do. Where I tend to part company with most on this issue is this notion that is somehow empowered under the "general welfare clause" to offer Govt. healthcare to every citizen and mandate lifestlye choices to it's citizens. IMHO this is a giant leap beyond the boundries of what Govt. is empowerd under the constitution to do and as I have said, under the 10th Amendment many of the things being talked about recently are clearly state matters. I would have no issue let's say with a state that wished to offer it's citizens universal healthcare, because that is the will of the people of that state. However when it comes the Federal Govt. its my belief that the founding fathers envisioned a limited from of Govt. and took a very dim view of a Federal Govt. that operated beyond it's constitutional powers.

One more thing, on the Department of Education, I'm of the opinion that the Federal Govt. can and should offer the states if they so choose block funding for the states to use such funds as they wish for education with no strings attached other than the states must pay the money back. I do not believe other than on civil rights issues that the Federal Govt. is empowered to mandate standards to schools simply for offering funding because it is a stretch to say that this fudning somehow falls under the commerce clause.

 

[pflynn001]

I apologize and realize I did jump to conclusions Navy 1960.

Seeing as we already do have socialized healthcare (ie. Medicare, Medicaid), and these have with the aging population and growing reliance on social assistance (for reasons I'm sure we can debate later) gotten to a point where they are no longer sustainable. What is your view on providing the elderly and less fortunate with healthcare? Should they be required to purchase "regulated" insurance or prescription medicines out of pocket? If so, Should the elderly be allowed to use social security and the less fortunate be allowed to use welfare to purchase these things?

This is assuming the "public option" is taken off the table and the gov't is forced to find another way to regulate these companies.

 

[pflynn001]

Yes, clearly the free market does not work when it's our highly regulated market that gave us the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 70's, Nasdaq bubble, and our current recession.

Highly regulated? We are living in the same country right? In any case, I think we can agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Navy1960]

I apologize and realize I did jump to conclusions Navy 1960.

Seeing as we already do have socialized healthcare (ie. Medicare, Medicaid), and these have with the aging population and growing reliance on social assistance (for reasons I'm sure we can debate later) gotten to a point where they are no longer sustainable. What is your view on providing the elderly and less fortunate with healthcare? Should they be required to purchase "regulated" insurance or prescription medicines out of pocket? If so, Should the elderly be allowed to use social security and the less fortunate be allowed to use welfare to purchase these things?

You might be somewhat surprised with my answer on this one as it tends to run a little south of my position normally. I feel that a society is measured by the way it cares for its seniors and those unable to care for themselves. I have long felt that Social Security and Medicare could be strong programs with proper management and oversite. I tend to look upon these programs like I do DoD purchasing which I have more than a little experience in. There is so much waste and abuse and outright mismanagement in these programs that it's not surprising that they are looking at being insolvent. It's my opinion that those with social security should be managed according to income levels. for example, if a person let's say has a pension of 7,000.00 a month and is drawing 100% benefits and additional 2000.00 a month from Social Security then to me thats mismanagement. Social Security should be a program based on income level at retirement. Those on Medicare should be required to follow the same set of rules as well. The other issue is for too many years Social Security has been used as a money pool the Federal Govt. borrows from and promises to pay back, this needs to stop. Its my opinion that the Govt. can make these programs viable for many years to come if they take the time to regulate them and put rules into place that must be followed such as the one's I suggested above. I believe that Seniors on Medicare should be allowed some freedom to choose their own Doctors under well regulated guidelines. The bottom line is that Social Security and Medicare can be fixed with the application of a little common sense to the programs. On the issue of the poor and those less forutnate , it's my opinion that individual states have an obilgation to it's citizens to provide basic medical care to them, now this can be funded in whatever way a state so chooses, but the bottom line to me it is a state matter. One of things I am really excited about and think is a good idea is to loosen the regulations and allow individuals, small business, farms etc. to form health insurance co-ops. One if the best ways to regulate this is to require interstate insurance companies to offer group coverage to co-ops at corporate rates based on numbers of individuals. Still other things that can be done is though regulation, is require insurance companies to provide on a percentage basis low-income care to under served area's and heres a thought, how about providing SBA loans to companies willing to act as startups to offer health insurance. It's my opinion there are any number of things the Govt. can do, but as far as Social Security and Medicare go, I see them both as solvable issues much like I do the DoD and the Air Force Tanker I have been banging my head against a wall for years with "laughs*

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Highly regulated? We are living in the same country right? In any case, I think we can agree to disagree on this one.

Yes, our economy is highly regulated.

 

[Shogun]

without diving into the econ fight.....


Hey, Navy.. lemme ask you this: Knowing that Ben Franklin organized a firefighting club where non-members were not covered, and how this directly correlates with your take on founding fathers and gov provided health care, are you ready to ALSO give up government provided fire protection? If not, why? We see a specific example of our founding fathers letting non-member's property burn, yes? If originalism is so great then why are we collecting taxes for fire trucks?

 

[Navy1960]

without diving into the econ fight.....


Hey, Navy.. lemme ask you this: Knowing that Ben Franklin organized a firefighting club where non-members were not covered, and how this directly correlates with your take on founding fathers and gov provided health care, are you ready to ALSO give up government provided fire protection? If not, why? We see a specific example of our founding fathers letting non-member's property burn, yes? If originalism is so great then why are we collecting taxes for fire trucks?

Let me put it too you this way, I believe that Fire protection for communties is a state and local issue as well as the funding for it, with the exception of Federal properties. I do not believe that the Federal Govt. should collect taxes to fund state and local fire protection no. If for example you have the Forest Service that is chartered to fight fires within Federal properties such as the Grand Canyon, then of course the Federal Govt. is empowered to levy taxes to fund this. It's my opnion only Shogun that states are the best place for a lot of the things that the Federal Govt. steps its feet upon. Let's say for example your state wantes to levy a statewide tax to fund firefighting and police services then they are well within their rights to do so. Why because the services they provide are used by the residents of that state. You may be surprised that I'm not a complete old stodgy let them eat cake type. What I believe is that in order to effect change we have a wonderful document that let's us do that. In fact we have many ways to do that. It's long been my contention that if people wish things like healthcare to be a right or other things of that nature then do so, make it one then you will get no argument from me. One other thing and this is the best way ,especially in the healthcare debate I believe for those that advocate it to go is to get your various states to adopt the healthcare you desire. When enough states have healthcare that others do not, then you never know what change that might bring about , see what I mean? Getting back to your question though, no I do not believe that the Federal Govt. should levy taxes for Fire protection on a state and local level. They should however, levy taxes for Fire protection on Federal property and leave the rest to the states. They can however, because the fire equipment is sent from state to state regulate the contents of it i.e. types, safety etc. Hopefully that makes my position clear enough.

 

[Shogun]

BUT, not to throw a wrench in your gears there, Ben Franklin's city and state didn't colelct taxes for fire protection, eh? Neither did his federal gov collect taxes to pay for the fire protection of wilderness areas, yes? How does your opinion gel with the historic fact of Ben's "let it burn" example and at what point do you see the authority for forest fire protection at the federal level if Ben's example specifically tells us that only members get protected? If you can fathom fed proetection without a specific amendment (I daresay, I've not read it in the constitution) of forests from fires then why not health care without the benefit of a specific amendment?

Cultures change, dude. This is why the Constitution is a living document. Are you ready to tell me that the Emancipation Proclimation was invalid, hence the righteous refusal of the confederacy, because Lincoln didn't have an amendment passed?

 

[Darkwind]

WAIT a second! when did you get here?

(*(*(*(*(BasicGreatGuy)*)*)*)*)*) Good to see you!

Howdy Jen. I forgot to take that left turn at Albuquerque and wound up here. Good to see you.

At least you managed to make it through Mississippi.

 

[Darkwind]

without diving into the econ fight.....


Hey, Navy.. lemme ask you this: Knowing that Ben Franklin organized a firefighting club where non-members were not covered, and how this directly correlates with your take on founding fathers and gov provided health care, are you ready to ALSO give up government provided fire protection? If not, why? We see a specific example of our founding fathers letting non-member's property burn, yes? If originalism is so great then why are we collecting taxes for fire trucks?

firefighting and policing falls under the authority of the States, not the Federal Government. The states are autonomous in how they fund themselves and adhere to their own State Constitutions.

So, now that your red herring has been thrown back into the river, lets stick with discussing what authority the Federal Govement has to promote, fund or legislate any 'entitlement' law.

 

[Darkwind]

Yes, clearly the free market does not work when it's our highly regulated market that gave us the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 70's, Nasdaq bubble, and our current recession.

Highly regulated? We are living in the same country right? In any case, I think we can agree to disagree on this one.

Do you realize that there are literally, 10's of thousands of laws regarding business and how business can be conducted.

 

[Shogun]

without diving into the econ fight.....


Hey, Navy.. lemme ask you this: Knowing that Ben Franklin organized a firefighting club where non-members were not covered, and how this directly correlates with your take on founding fathers and gov provided health care, are you ready to ALSO give up government provided fire protection? If not, why? We see a specific example of our founding fathers letting non-member's property burn, yes? If originalism is so great then why are we collecting taxes for fire trucks?

firefighting and policing falls under the authority of the States, not the Federal Government. The states are autonomous in how they fund themselves and adhere to their own State Constitutions.

So, now that your red herring has been thrown back into the river, lets stick with discussing what authority the Federal Govement has to promote, fund or legislate any 'entitlement' law.

um, you've never heard of federal disaster relief for wildfires in California? Again, what laws were in place during Ben's lifetime that validated the collection of taxes at ANY level? I bet you trip over yourself crying red herring at all the tough questions. After all, using Ben's specific example, California wildfires should ahve just been allowed to burn if that state didn't ahve the resources to quell the flames, eh buddy?






It's funny when you people want to talk about original intent but then balk at specific examples.