Too Bad

[franklin]

If costs are what you are worrying about, government mandates on what insurance must cover, improved technology, having a middle man (insurance or government), an open border, an increasingly older population, a litigious society, and risky lifestyle choices all contribute to increased health care costs. Change any/some of those things and you can reduce costs.

I've found that most people want 21st century health care @ 19th century prices, though.

Improved technology has consistently raised prices, not lower them. Hence you're 21st century @ 19th century prices conclusion. More technology will likely raise costs higher. It costs a lot to try and cure everything. Nothing government or the market does will change that anytime soon. Government never. The market has a shot, but I'd bet on another century or better.

Allow doctors to use "stone age" 1990's technology and you'll find clinics that are pretty damned cheap popping up left and right.

 

[PearlWatson]

As with all things related to the Constitution: that's not really black and white in meaning.

Does that mean that the methods by which interstate commerce is conducted are regulatable? (Generally yes)

Does that mean Congress can regulate persons and things that travel through interstate commerce? (Generally yes)

Does that mean Congress can regulate activities which substantially affect interstate commerce? (Generally yes, through the necessary and proper clause because otherwise the power would be functionally meaningless)

It's just not that simple. The type of legal trashing advocated by the Tea Party and their ilk is a true "baby out with the bathwater" solution with no understanding of why things came about to be the way they are.




It has limits. Those limits have been pretty clearly elucidated via Lopez and Morrison.

Here's the reality: The Tea Party doesn't love the Constitution as it's been understood for most of America's history. What they want is the Articles of Confederation where the central government is weak, states do whatever they feel like, and it's impossible for the federal government to fund itself. We've seen both how that worked out as a practical matter and what the founding fathers, who the Tea Partiers revere cartoons of, did about it.

Clearly elucidated? Hardly.

LOPEZ: Judge Garwood made clear that if Congress had simply mentioned interstate commerce, there would have been no question as to the Act's constitutionality...But for the incredible sloppiness of Congress's bill drafting and Judge Garwood's willingness to take advantage of it, this exciting event would not have occurred.

MORRISON: The Violence Against Women Act similarly regulated conduct that was non-economic, had no express jurisdictional element (in that it applied to all gender-motivated violence against women), and had an attenuated connection with interstate commerce. Surely the most significant aspect of Morrison, distinguishing it from Lopez, was that this time Congress played the game of pretending to be concerned with interstate commerce. Congress held extensive hearings about the effects of gender-motivated violence against women on interstate commerce and found that such violence affects interstate commerce "by deterring potential victims from traveling interstate, from engaging in employment in interstate business.... diminishing national productivity, increasing medical and other costs, and decreasing the supply of and demand for interstate products." (88) These findings did not save the statute, however, because the asserted effects were too "attenuated." (89) Were such findings--of diminishing national productivity, for example--accepted as sufficient, Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed out, Congress could "regulate any crime" so long as the nationwide, aggregated impact of that crime has substantial effects on "employment, production, transit, or consumption." (90) Congress would even be able to regulate family law and other areas of traditional state regulation. (91)

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lope...federalism+in+the+Rehnquist+Court-a0179033117

Here's the reality: Liberals don't love the constitution as it was intended. They have sapped its foundations little by little so that anything that congress wants to do is acceptable by precedent (<---one judge got away with it in the past). "To reinterpret the constitution to mirror our devolving society corrupts the document and it ceases to be one."

Thomas Jefferson said:
On every question of construction, carry yourself back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past.

What was the founders' purpose for including the commerce clause? I'm sure it was never intended as a tool to force individuals to buy a specific product, but to overcome obstacles to free trade between states.

 

[PearlWatson]

Improved technology has consistently raised prices, not lower them.

Yes I know. That is why I included it in the list of things that "all contribute to increased health care costs."

 

[babe]

Who believes that? Who is trying to prevent people from buying placebos (homeopathy), unneeded and unhelpful drugs (nutritional supplements), or unregulated and inconsistent drugs (natural supplements)? Now, lots of people want the manufacturers of these products to acknowledge their ineffectiveness, but you don't mind that, right?



*chortle* What percentage of drug trials do you think result in usable products?



Who doesn't believe in free speech? Who has had their free speech rights taken away?



*guffaw*



Who is in the "PC culture"?



These things come and go, especially in bad economies. When the economy is up again, the Tea Parties will all but disappear.

As I stated in my little rhetorical exercise, it is "those of you who do not believe in freedom" who I feel are missing the boat. Nothing personal. Most progressives personally think they believe in freedom, but for some reason also believe there is some need for the government to disallow specific freedoms as I've enumerated.

If there are challenges we face as a world, a nation, or as people in general, we need to clarify our reasons for thinking "the government" is the answer.

I have followed Lyndon LaRouche whom most democrats won't give room for on their primary ballots. In Utah I tried to get him on the democratic primary ballot about ten years ago, and was told by the state dem party chief that the Democratic Party is a private organization and they just won't allow him on the ticket. His supoorters are in majority blacks, and include some prominent civil rights names, and he consideres FDR the "true" example of leadership we should emulate.

After seeing that go down, I decided the democratic party is a sellout on human rights. I've been forced to just hope we can curtail the fascists in both major parties and get people more interested in taking care of themselves.

In regard to the FDA, I could say a whole lot more. But for now, just consider my point that the Federal government should not be in the business of establishing medical protocols any more than it should be in the business of prescribing the correct religion.

 

[franklin]

No offense babe, but LaRouche is no human rights advocate. I see him more of a cult leader than anything. You may have a grip on sanity but a solid chunk of his following does not. They are a following in every sense of the word. I'm curious why you chose to state you "have followed Lyndon LaRouche".

It's a good thing you were unsuccessful. The far right also tries to get Bircher types on the ballot and are rightfully turned away all-the-same. LaRouche is just the leftist version. No thank you.

 

[One Brow]

Anyway, I know you miss my salvos, One Brow, so I'll continue asking why you hate free choices of Americans and prefer 2nd-best policy that seeks to limit those free choices?

If the residents of Illinois want some feature of Arizona policies that are not available in Illinois, they can make that clear to their legislators. The reverse of your rhetoric would be saying that I'll keep asking why you hate self-determination and the rights of citizens to decide collectively how to run their society.

 

[One Brow]

Here's the reality: Liberals don't love the constitution as it was intended.

There was no single intention. Even among the founding fathers, interpretations of various passages differed.

Also, conservatives, Tea Partiers, etc. are no more enraptured of the "original intentions" than liberals. They just re-interpret different parts.

 

[One Brow]

But for now, just consider my point that the Federal government should not be in the business of establishing medical protocols any more than it should be in the business of prescribing the correct religion.

Medical protocols can be based on scientifically collected evidence. Religion can't. They are very different things.

 

[franklin]

If the residents of Illinois want some feature of Arizona policies that are not available in Illinois, they can make that clear to their legislators.

It's good to learn you're for small, decentralized government held to the extremes. Now if you'd only apply your rule consistently. But surely you see the contradiction in arguing for local control of purchasing power then arguing for nationally forced purchases? There must be some way to make sense of it all without ambiguously adopting your personal preferences on a case by case basis. If you'd only get into something substantive along those lines...

The reverse of your rhetoric would be saying that I'll keep asking why you hate self-determination and the rights of citizens to decide collectively how to run their society.

That's hardly on par, One Brow, and far too low a rung on the whole philosophical ladder for you to be so hung up on. Let me know when you catch up and decide to either answer a question or two or make a point at least semi-regularly. For now, I'll defer to the well used cliches that were drug around following the American Revolution. Ya know, liberty, freedom, property rights, etc., then move on to the issue of mob-rule and slavery. Yes, having the majority decide what's good for a society is so much better than equal protection for all. You would make the slave holding states proud. They loved the mob majority deciding "how to run their society". Yes I get it. One Brow is not for hard slavery. You're a constant advocating voice for the soft slavery version.

I do want to congratulate you on contradicting yourself within a single sentence yet again (hint: see the sections I put in bold font).

 

[One Brow]

It's good to learn you're for small, decentralized government held to the extremes.

I'm in favor of effective government, and not of attemping to apply universal principals to different areas of life. Some things are best left to individuals, some to local governments, some to state governments, some to the federal government.

Now if you'd only apply your rule consistently. But surely you see the contradiction in arguing for local control of purchasing power then arguing for nationally forced purchases?

I see national regulation as being higher on the scale than state regulation, sure.

There must be some way to make sense of it all without ambiguously adopting your personal preferences on a case by case basis.

Real life is messy, and neatly drawn categories based on simple principles almost invariably fail.

If you'd only get into something substantive along those lines...

Health maintainance insurance (as opposed to catastrophic health insurance) can not be successfully, affordably offered in a free market. If your medical needs cost $400/month, why would an insurance company cover you for $350? By contrast, if your needs are $20/month, why would you pay $350? The numbers don't work out for insurance companies on individual policies. This is way the primary customers (as opposed to beneficiaries) of insurance companies are employers and other groups of people. The larger the group, the easier it is to create policies that work for both insurance companies and beneficiaries.

That's hardly on par, One Brow,

Actually, it is the same rhetorical tactic, being used for point you don't support. It's much easier to see how hollow and empty the tactic is when used to support something you disagree with, I should think.

Let me know when you catch up and decide to either answer a question or two or make a point at least semi-regularly.

If you really want an answer, fine. I doubt you'll extend the same courtesy to my question.

Anyway, I know you miss my salvos, One Brow, so I'll continue asking why you hate free choices of Americans and prefer 2nd-best policy that seeks to limit those free choices?

I like free choices when they are the best policy, and prefer the best policy even when that limits free choices.

For now, I'll defer to the well used cliches

You have something else?

One Brow is not for hard slavery. You're a constant advocating voice for the soft slavery version.

Slevery is a feature of every fully unregulated market. To prevent people from selling themselves (either legally or functionally), you have to regulate it. So, as opposed to your favoring hard slavery, I do prefer the soft kind.

I do want to congratulate you on contradicting yourself within a single sentence yet again (hint: see the sections I put in bold font).

That you saw a contradiction shows your own lack of understanding.

 

[GVC]

America is broken. Have fun, y'all.

 

[franklin]

I'm in favor of effective government, and not of attemping to apply universal principals to different areas of life. Some things are best left to individuals, some to local governments, some to state governments, some to the federal government.

Sure, but who is to decide which? Surely you see the elitist complaint many have with this. Who is anyone to pretend what should be arbitrarily decided at which level without any controlling "principals"? Mob rule?

Real life is messy, and neatly drawn categories based on simple principles almost invariably fail.

That's why "simple principles" weren't used to construct finely nuanced power boundaries. The failure of continuous government encroachment government into the lives of its citizens is evident. Hence the obvious need for checks (or principles as you have chosen to call them).

Health maintainance insurance (as opposed to catastrophic health insurance) can not be successfully, affordably offered in a free market.

Aren't both sides making this argument? At some point an adult conversation must be had that realizes the hazards of life cannot be successfully, affordably insured against in any environment. Resources are limited no matter how badly we would like everyone to have everything their hearts desire.

If your medical needs cost $400/month, why would an insurance company cover you for $350? By contrast, if your needs are $20/month, why would you pay $350? The numbers don't work out for insurance companies on individual policies. This is way the primary customers (as opposed to beneficiaries) of insurance companies are employers and other groups of people. The larger the group, the easier it is to create policies that work for both insurance companies and beneficiaries.

By this you mean the easier it is to spread the costs and coverage around uniformly and unfairly. If you need $20/month insurance then you are still charged the group rate, regardless.

If you really want an answer, fine. I doubt you'll extend the same courtesy to my question.

The question?

I like free choices when they are the best policy, and prefer the best policy even when that limits free choices.

We all must give up something; that's not the point. Please define "best policy". Without doing so I must assume you mean what you decide or what the mob decides is best. This is nothing more than legislating morality, and again, fails to protect the rights of each individual uniformly.

You have something else?

Touche. I'd give you rep for the low blow if you were into it.

Slevery is a feature of every fully unregulated market. To prevent people from selling themselves (either legally or functionally), you have to regulate it. So, as opposed to your favoring hard slavery, I do prefer the soft kind.

I like to think fully unregulated markets devolve into a form of feudalism, which flips it to effectively full regulation. I'm not advocating Laissez Faire induced human usury. I'm addressing the other extreme you seem to be advocating which is mob rule (and also has a quaint history of devolving into a form of feudalism).

Now back to TICC and Vinylone screaming the sky is falling.

 

[VINYLONE]

America is broken. Have fun, y'all.

Probably the best post in this whole thread.

 

[GVC]

now back to ticc and vinylone screaming the sky is falling.

yes!

 

[One Brow]

Sure, but who is to decide which? Surely you see the elitist complaint many have with this. Who is anyone to pretend what should be arbitrarily decided at which level without any controlling "principals"? Mob rule?

Representatives, answerable to the voting public. Not a great way, but I don't know of a better one.

That's why "simple principles" weren't used to construct finely nuanced power boundaries. The failure of continuous government encroachment government into the lives of its citizens is evident. Hence the obvious need for checks (or principles as you have chosen to call them).

I agree that in many areas we are seeing too much government encroachment. Health care is not one of them.

Aren't both sides making this argument? At some point an adult conversation must be had that realizes the hazards of life cannot be successfully, affordably insured against in any environment. Resources are limited no matter how badly we would like everyone to have everything their hearts desire.

Absolutely. Who should I trust to marshall and direct such resources? Someone who answers directly to the population as a whole, or directly to people seeking primarily a profit?

By this you mean the easier it is to spread the costs and coverage around uniformly and unfairly. If you need $20/month insurance then you are still charged the group rate, regardless.

The difference bewteen $20/month and $400/month is often one thing you can't control, such as a bad cold that kicks up your allergies (happened to me when I was 42). I don't see allowing people to suffer/die who could otherwise be productive members of society as being a good or healthy thing for our culture.

The question?

Why you hate self-determination and the rights of citizens to decide collectively how to run their society?

Please define "best policy".

One that best guarantees our population the stability, adaptability, and diversity that helps populations thrive.

... what you decide

No one person has the detailed knowledge necessary nor time to learn it all.

... or what the mob decides

This would require everyone to acquire such knowledge.

This is nothing more than legislating morality, and again, fails to protect the rights of each individual uniformly.

By one reckoning, failure to legisilate on moral issues is itself a moral position, and all laws/freeedoms are moral statements. So, you're statement has more emotion than substance.

I'm addressing the other extreme you seem to be advocating which is mob rule (and also has a quaint history of devolving into a form of feudalism).

I agree that mob rule is something to be avoided, although every choice has good and bad points to it.

 

[franklin]

Representatives, answerable to the voting public. Not a great way, but I don't know of a better one.

This hardly provides equal protection to all and is nothing more than advocacy for mob rule.

Absolutely. Who should I trust to marshall and direct such resources? Someone who answers directly to the population as a whole, or directly to people seeking primarily a profit?

Resources such as doctors, nurses, and intellectual property are not yours to marshal or direct. Neither is the production of a free populace. Your response here is borderline support for hard slavery.

The difference bewteen $20/month and $400/month is often one thing you can't control, such as a bad cold that kicks up your allergies (happened to me when I was 42). I don't see allowing people to suffer/die who could otherwise be productive members of society as being a good or healthy thing for our culture.

I don't see how providing incentives to become unproductive freeloaders will not be a drag on our society. Talking about safety nets is one thing, and bleeding hearts and providing moral hazard are another.

Why you hate self-determination and the rights of citizens to decide collectively how to run their society?

I don't, but again, reread mob slavery discussed earlier if you didn't pick it up the first time.

I love the rights of individuals to live a happy and fulfilling life with as few chains shackled onto them by those who want to control their production and legislate morality. The requirement of checks and balances of power is a necessary trade-off to avoid over-encroachment.

One that best guarantees our population the stability, adaptability, and diversity that helps populations thrive.

That's hardly a definition, unless you happen to be a pseudo-scientist looking for talking points.

By one reckoning, failure to legisilate on moral issues is itself a moral position, and all laws/freeedoms are moral statements. So, you're statement has more emotion than substance.

Hardly. So you're perfectly happy accepting legislated morality that is against your opinion? There's nothing wrong with pure democracy deciding what's right and what is wrong as long as there's a perceived representative element present? You don't want any protection from over-encroachment? No thank you.

I agree that mob rule is something to be avoided, although every choice has good and bad points to it.

You say so yet your responses are consistently as supportive of mob rule as Rush Limbaugh is of near-anarchy (whether he admits it or not). This is where I'm getting hung up on contradictions, so I guess I'll ask all my question again.

 

[One Brow]

This hardly provides equal protection to all and is nothing more than advocacy for mob rule.

Elected representatives are not mobs. Equal protection comes from a culture, not a government system.

Resources such as doctors, nurses, and intellectual property are not yours to marshal or direct.

I didn't volunteer. They will be marshalled and directed, though. They question is whether it will be by government or corporations.

Neither is the production of a free populace. Your response here is borderline support for hard slavery.

Empty rhetoric.

I don't see how providing incentives to become unproductive freeloaders will not be a drag on our society. Talking about safety nets is one thing, and bleeding hearts and providing moral hazard are another.

I hold down 2 full-time jobs. If I had no access to my medication, I would not have been able to keep either. I have to have the medication first, before I can work. I guess that makes me an unproductive freeloader, in your eyes.

I don't, but again, reread mob slavery discussed earlier if you didn't pick it up the first time.

The original question, like yours, was rhetorical.

I love the rights of individuals to live a happy and fulfilling life with as few chains shackled onto them by those who want to control their production and legislate morality.

Me too.

The requirement of checks and balances of power is a necessary trade-off to avoid over-encroachment.

Exactly.

That's hardly a definition, unless you happen to be a pseudo-scientist looking for talking points.

It listed the features that would make it "best". What type of definition were you looking for?

Hardly. So you're perfectly happy accepting legislated morality that is against your opinion? There's nothing wrong with pure democracy deciding what's right and what is wrong as long as there's a perceived representative element present? You don't want any protection from over-encroachment? No thank you.

Not being all-knowing, I accept that other people, who have studied such issues, might understand them better than I.

You say so yet your responses are consistently as supportive of mob rule as Rush Limbaugh is of near-anarchy (whether he admits it or not). This is where I'm getting hung up on contradictions, so I guess I'll ask all my question again.

Rhetoric will just lead to rhetoric. Ask a serious question, get a serious answer.

 

[franklin]

Elected representatives are not mobs. Equal protection comes from a culture, not a government system.

A government system lacking equal protection disincentivizes the populace and culture quickly devolves.

I didn't take volunteer. They can be marshalled and directed, though. They question is whether it will be by government or they're allowed free association.

Fixed that for you. I didn't know doctors are corporate controlled. Even if it were true, it's funny you are not interested in a more comprehensive legislation bill focused on protecting these poor individuals who are currently being manipulated and controlled by evil corporations. What happened to protecting freedom? It's not really about that, is it?

Empty rhetoric.

Sore spot? Be honest. You don't need to hide your intentions.

I hold down 2 full-time jobs. If I had no access to my medication, I would not have been able to keep either. I have to have the medication first, before I can work. I guess that makes me an unproductive freeloader, in your eyes.

A. This isn't about you.
B. Thanks to miraculous modern technology, made possible via free America, one can easily consume more medical help in 30 days than one can produce in an entire lifetime. Justifying socialized medicine with a human capital offset is a pretty easy straw man to shoot down. Again, resources are limited. Modern medical technology is more expensive as a buffett than society can afford. That adult conversation must be had at some point, hopefully before bankruptcy is shot for.

It listed the features that would make it "best". What type of definition were you looking for?

Your definition was nothing more than an appeal to pseudo-scientists who would love nothing more than to pretend they know what makes societies most viable, etc. It's pretty easy to argue scientifically that either survival of the fittest combined with population control and diversity protection at all costs are the best route. The key word there is control. A real scientist wouldn't dream of pretending to know what is best for species propagation. Again, no thank you. Worshiping genetic diversity never really hit the spot for me.

Not being all-knowing, I accept that other people, who have studied such issues, might understand them better than I.

I've studied crowd control and guerrilla warfare. Which professional opinion would you prefer to follow? BTW, society is nothing more than a giant crowd. This isn't our first date, but we're also not really quaint, but can my elitist expertise mold your clay anyway?

Rhetoric will just lead to rhetoric. Ask a serious question, get a serious answer.

Punt. Why are you refusing to address the issue of mob control? You know it causes slavery, but why pretend it won't? That's what I'm really curious about. Why do you want to submit yourself to the will of "society" so badly? Do you worship Galapagos Islands err somethin'? Come on, One Brow, open up a little. What is it with you're schtick?

 

[One Brow]

A government system lacking equal protection disincentivizes the populace and culture quickly devolves.

Government can pass laws that are supposed to apply equally, but only citizens can actually apply them equally. Government can pass laws that are unfair, but only citizens can use those laws unfairly.

Fixed that for you. I didn't know doctors are corporate controlled.

Learn more about the healthcare industry. If you include government insurance programs, doctors often have 95+% plus of their patient load covered under insurance programs, and have to follow the dictates of the particular plan for each individual to get reimbursed. They are controlled by their pocketbook.

Even if it were true, it's funny you are not interested in a more comprehensive legislation bill focused on protecting these poor individuals who are currently being manipulated and controlled by evil corporations.

Limiting what the corporations can and can not do does help the doctors as well as the patients.

What happened to protecting freedom? It's not really about that, is it?

People who are starving don't feel free.

Sore spot?

No.

A. This isn't about you.

I'm not to be included in the people you are offering "freedom" to?

B. Thanks to miraculous modern technology, made possible via free America, one can easily consume more medical help in 30 days than one can produce in an entire lifetime.

If you can get someone to pay for it, or offer you credit.

Justifying socialized medicine with a human capital offset is a pretty easy straw man to shoot down. Again, resources are limited. Modern medical technology is more expensive as a buffett than society can afford. That adult conversation must be had at some point, hopefully before bankruptcy is shot for.

I agree. Where we differ is whether this conversation will be had by government official, who answer to the electorate, or corporations, who answer to shareholders.

Your definition was nothing more than an appeal to pseudo-scientists who would love nothing more than to pretend they know what makes societies most viable, etc.

If you have a better definition, I will try to emulate it. If not, then why should I care that you don't like mine?

Worshiping genetic diversity never really hit the spot for me.

Yet, it is a key indicator of long-term survival among populations.

I've studied crowd control and guerrilla warfare. Which professional opinion would you prefer to follow? BTW, society is nothing more than a giant crowd.

A giant crowd with a set heirarchy and social structure.

Punt.

Of course.

Why are you refusing to address the issue of mob control?

It's not relevant to the USA.

 

[babe]

No offense taken

No offense babe, but LaRouche is no human rights advocate. I see him more of a cult leader than anything. You may have a grip on sanity but a solid chunk of his following does not. They are a following in every sense of the word. I'm curious why you chose to state you "have followed Lyndon LaRouche".

It's a good thing you were unsuccessful. The far right also tries to get Bircher types on the ballot and are rightfully turned away all-the-same. LaRouche is just the leftist version. No thank you.

But perhaps you have not read much of his writing. When I said I had "followed" him it is in the sense of having spent a substantial amount of time studying the literature they put out. I have also met him personally and some of his prominent staff members.

They run a tight ship internally and ask for a lot of money which I couldn't provide.

It is interesting that there is so much of an effort to shut him down or marginalize him with epithets which are simply off base. I can see where some might rush to the judgment of it being a sorta "cult", but I don't think so.

Lyndon LaRouche is a catholic who expends a lot of effort trying to make the case that protestants and the British have left the true gospel of the rennaisance typified by Leonardo Da Vinci and some leading catholic cardinals of that age who exerted leadership towards ending the Hundred Years war. He delves into mathematics, a subject where I can actually appreciate his views that the British dominance in education has given short shrift to some very talented mathematicians who approach things in a more intuitive and less dogmatic way. . . . with useful results.

I like his science and technology view, in favor of promoting a better life for mankind by improving the way we do things, the infrastructure that makes our efforts more effective. . . . . such things are prominent in his thinking.

He regularly calls out the mainstream political hacks for policies that are genocidal, such as the ban on DDT which is causing a resurgence of malaria across the third world and costing millions of lives annually. . . . .

It's easy to throw out labels. Sometimes people know they are lying to protect their own little niche in the political system, and sometimes it's just ignorance.

I don't sit at his feet to believe everything he says, I just look for good ideas. I think that is what he wants people to do generally.

He made a good economic call when I heard him speak in 2004. He said we had a bubble economy with real estate prices out of line, being bolstered by bad government policies and greedy bankers feeding the rising prices, and said gold should be at the $1250 range.