Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness applies to Health Care Reform, too.
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness –“ this famous
phrase from the Declaration of Independence is the corner stone on which our nation was built. So what does this have to do with health care reform?
Being born with these rights suggests that all citizens of this country are to be given equal opportunities to live the life they have been given, freely, and in a way that pleases them so long as their actions do not interfere with the rights of others. Since a healthy life
contributes to happiness some may conclude that health care is a basic right. However, the Constitution does not promise a happy life rather it clearly states we have the right to pursue happiness. We must, therefore, make plans and take the actions to attain this goal.
The role of the government is to ensure no outside or internal influences take away our freedom to live. No matter how well intended, they cannot tell us what to eat or how much to exercise in order to conform to the government’s healthy norms. These well-meaning do-gooders would like to manage our lives and make us just like them. Haven’t they heard of genetics? It’s okay to educate us, but don’t try to mandate us. Legislating against or taxing lifestyles violates an individual’s right to choose, even if prevention might help improve the nation’s collective health. If this approach worked, no one would use drugs, or drink alcohol to excess, and we’d be a smoke-free nation.
What we need is a bi-partisan approach to the health care issue. It’s an enormous undertaking and fixing it will require more than one pass through this complex system that represents 15% of our annual GNP. Since 85% of the population has some kind of coverage, maybe we ought to look at those that don’t have insurance and address this problem first. Reforming coverage and costs for those with insurance can be studied and plans made to start implementation when feasible. Yes, this will take a few years, but the problem has taken decades to reach is current unacceptable state.
The people of this country must realize health care is not an entitlement. Rather it is something that improves the quality of life, and with that comes a price tag. Each citizen has the responsibility of participating in their own good health and in working to get the proper health care for their family and them. It is not the government’s job to interfere. Instead, everyone should be free to make their own decisions about life and choose the health plan that’s best for them, under their particular circumstances, and be ready to pay for this right, if not with money then with service. With everyone having a vested interest in the cost of coverage, chances are we’ll respect the way we use it.
One thing the politicians must remember, Americans are willing to pay for what they want. And, we’re not happy about losing what we have. Therefore, the goal should be to make health care available to everyone, through a yet to be determined program, but not to reduce the coverage of those who already have insurance and are paying for it.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=36f9d4c1-24bd-493e-8871-28723e0361b9)
I’m not sure I agree with your last paragraph, totally. I’m willing to give up some of what I have because much of what I have is as wrong as a National Health Care program. Free Government Schools, Social Security and Unemployment are “gifts” that society now treats as rights. When a National Health Care program is passed, it won’t be long before it’s considered a natural right, too.
Where are people with charitable hearts going to go when the government provides everything? And when is government going to recognize that charity, private enterprise and human nature will come to the aid when beckoned. Soup kitchens, scholarships, and small charities nationwide have been helping people with health care, school and simple things like food and shelter for years.
When did the world give up on their efforts and decide that eliminating them was better than bolstering them?
Dan,
Since when are schools, ss and unemployment free? Last time i looked at my paycheck there was a bunch of regressive taxes that i pay to cover those expenses. Full access should absolutely be a right. That doesn’t suggest that we shouldn’t pay for it through some mechanism. Why do so many conservatives relish a world that denies millions of people access to good health care (and a good eduction)? How does that make you feel good about yourself and your country?
And how do you extend the argument for access to health care, to “when the government provides everything”, or “socialism” as so many conservatives like to call “access to health care”?
We’re not talking about access to a nice TV. We are talking about access to life sustaining treatment and care.
“Soup kitchens”, are you kidding me? So when your family has no health insurance, and your wife unexpecdly is stricken with a chronic disease, you think it’s appropriate that you should have to starting begging at soup kitchens, or “some small charites”, for life sustaining treatments that could be required for the rest of your life?
How do argue that providing access to health care is “the world giving up on their efforts”? Tell that to someone that is underemployed, working 3 crappy jobs with slave wages, and no care benefits.
When are conservatives going to emerge from the jungle and evolve past the animal kingdom?
And Don,
I’m glad you quoted the Declaration of Independence, but i disagree with your suggestion that health care simply “*improves* the quality of life”. Maybe that is true for cosmetic surgery or getting prescription acne cream, but when you have a chronic disease then access to heath care is *required* for life.
I agree “good health” is not an entitlement. No one can legislate “good health”, it’s obviously not possible. And i agree that legislating healthy lifestyles is questionable. It should be up to me if i want to dig my own grave by smoking.
But *access* to heath should be an entitlement. How can we suggestion Man is equal, with the right of Life and Pursuit of Happiness, if you deny access to health care? And emergency room access is not health care. There is no Life or Happiness without access to treat chronic disease.
We should still pay to health care (and education). But we all must be capable of reasonably affording it within our means. Anything else would be denying ones access to healthcare, denying ones right to Life and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Max, here’s what I don’t understand about the other side. If I work my butt off in school and get good grades to get into a medical school, and then if I spend thousands of hours among 5 years studying, working late, and sacrificing everything I have to become a doctor – - – why is someone “entitled” to that mastery I have struggled to attain? Why can I not charge what I deem reasonable for my time?
If I start a pharmaceutical company and spend millions, at great risk, searching for the cure for cancer – and then one day find the cure for . . .neck cancer let’s say. . .why are people entitled to get that free? Had I not spent all that time the drug wouldn’t exist. It is because I labored that the drug exists. Maybe you think drug companies should get paid by the government so they can give this stuff away? Maybe Medical School should be free so the Doctor is obliged to give out his services. Maybe entrepreneurs like the lady that invented “Airborne” should be paid by the governement as well.
Surely the government can’t give away free what hard working Americans struggle to attain.
The government isn’t currently contemplating “access” to health care. They’re talking complete overhaul. Did you know that the Emergency Room is free if you can’t pay? Walgreens clinics are $30 to get a cold medicine prescription. The only thing that some people don’t have “access” to is the long term care associated with expensive disease. Why don’t they try to solve that problem and that problem only?
That would appease people who think disease and sickness are not just “part of life” and would still provide incentive for people to create new drugs.
And to answer your overall charge, the government does not have the right to provide Social Security, Education, Food Stamps, Affordable Housing, Health Care, Low income grants, low income scholarships. . . etc. No document has given them the right or authority to do these things – but they do.
And no one will ever be inspired to do anything if all this stuff is just plain free.
Dan Morris´s last blog ..3 Very Important Life Lessons. . .Including “. . .that’s my girlfriend”
Dan, I’m not sure why you why you are so stuck on the free thing? No one is forcing you to give away anything for free. Whether there is a public plan or not you would be dealing with an insurance company for compensation, even if the person is provided subsidized insurance.
And a pharma should be compensated for making a discovery, but it frankly it has to be regulated since it’s a monopoly (as far as the cure goes). Otherwise they could essentially extort any sum in exchange for your life. Or do you think that is ok?
I don’t think that pharma should be paid by the govt, but maybe the government could somehow leverage all the drug discoveries that they are currently funding through the 10 billion dollars a year of NSF funding. Why should pharma profit off of the research we are funding?
I’m not sure what the “Airborne” woman has to do with this? Next are you going to suggest that I’m a “socialist”? All i’m talking about necessary medical care.
I assume you and most conservatives think it’s perfectly fine if people are denied access to medically necessary care if they are unable to put up the cash?
>> Surely the government can’t give away free what hard working Americans struggle to attain.
There you go again. No one is suggesting that you provide free service. What I’m saying is that all people should have medical insurance. Everyone that can afford it would have to pay, and the others would have some degree of subsidized insurance.
>> The government isn’t currently contemplating “access” to health care. They’re
Yes, that is one of the primary objectives (cost control being another one). That everyone should have insurance. Have you actually read the proposals and goals? No one should be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, no one should have their insurance dropped because of illness, that people can keep their insurance independent of their employer, that there is affordable insurance for people that do not have the benefit of workplace insurance, like small business owners and people working for slave wages in the food and service industry, etc.
>> Did you know that the Emergency Room is free if you can’t pay?
I already brought that point up. Do you call the ER “health care”? You obviously do not have a chronic disease. Tell the 130 million people with chronic diseases that they should manage their lifetime, and life threatening, illnesses through the ER. And that is also a major reason why health care costs so much since we are forcing people to defer managing disease until it’s too late and they are forced to go the ER with serious and costly illnesses.
>> The only thing that some people don’t have “access” to is the long term care associated with expensive disease. Why don’t they try to solve that problem and that problem only?
People who are not currently chronically ill need the access for prevention and early detection to avoid “expensive disease” (about 2 in 3 people). Chronic disease patients obviously need to be treated (1 in 3).
There is no one that does not need access. Requiring everyone to be insured also make economic sense. Since it’s currently optional many people opt out because they are currently healthy, but scramble for it once they are more likely to be ill. That’s insane. Image if auto insurance was optional, and we could differ purchasing it until after a car accident. How expensive would it be? If insurance was mandatory for all from the time you are out of school, we would also reduce cost.
>> And to answer your overall charge, the government does not have the right to provide Social Security, Education, Food Stamps, Affordable Housing, Health Care, Low income grants, low income scholarships. . . etc. No document has given them the right or authority to do these things – but they do.
Sure they have the right. Are you suggesting that they are committing a crime? They are not obliged to under the constitution if that is what you are trying to say. It could also be argued under the constitutional right to “Life.. and the pursuit of happiness” that health access should be for all.
At the very least why are you so against a civil society?
>> And no one will ever be inspired to do anything if all this stuff is just plain free.
You’re really fixated on “free”. What is free? And if I’m underemployed and require subsidized health care access, then how does it follow that I will be uninspired to do anything?
Ask anyone that is working two or three jobs if medical access is going spoil them? It just does not make any sense.
Max, I hate to say this but you are a Socialist. And while you seem to use that word with disdain, I say it as objectively as I would call you a democrat or a boy scout or a grocer. When you believe the government should provide for you – you’re a Socialist. But I do apologize if technically you are a Marxist – they are essentially the same to me.
Perhaps I have clung to the term “free” too much, but that’s because 57% of this country pays no taxes. Food stamps. Social Security. Tax Refunds. Low-Income Housing. Roads. Hospitals. Utlities. These things are ALL free to the 57% that don’t pay taxes. I thought the Constiution said “pursue happiness” not “happiness shall be brought to your doorstep by the labor of others”.
Did you know that the President is not allowed to sit on the Supreme Court? That’s because the Constitution dictates what the Executive Branch is allowed to do. Amazingly it also dictates what the Legislative Branch is supposed to do. Since Eisenhower that has been effectively erased. Little by little politicians have been promising more and more to get elected.
Today, that has extended to supreme health care. It’s not like we don’t have free clinics, county hospitals, ER’s and so forth. Just another a politician has convinced 51% of the nation should be a right. Tomorrow you will hear that not everyone has a car, but the right to go to work should be extended to everyone. And again, people will jump on the bandwagon and will agree that cars SHOULD be provided to everyone.
In fact, some will use your argument that it makes economic sense since public transportation is so expensive. And if people can actually get to work, that will mean more tax money for the government. And what if people get hurt while on the city bus? We can eliminate those expenses.
And then someday it will be Cable TV and Microwaves and DVD Players. Mr. Max – this is the road we are one as long as people believe everything is a RIGHT and no one should be responsible for themselves.
But guess what, someday the 5% that pay half the taxes are going to get up and walk away. And when we do that, this Garden of Eden that is being created by politicians is going to crash.
I may harp on FREE too much, but as I see it there are a whole lot of people paying nothing for an unbelievable menu of services. And no one in charge is holding a calculator.
Dan Morris´s last blog ..The January NAMS (Niche Affiliate Marketing System Workshop) – The Action Plan!
Max, I have enjoyed our chat thus far and found your latest post the most amusing. Let’s definitely focus on health care, but like any Presidential debate, I can’t help but clear up some issues in the last question first.
-
Socialism. I understand that you don’t want to be “demonized” (is that the word you used?) by being called a Socialist. I would have you know though, that there is nothing demonic about socialism and it isn’t even a bad word. It’s really just a political philosophy. You resorted to the clinical definition of Socialism, which is admirable, to prove that you’re not a socialist – but if everybody resorted to the clinical definition, Catholicism would have ended long ago.
-
If you’re going to use your own definition of free-enterprise, then you can’t use the real definition of socialism. Socialism has morphed over the years and it doesn’t mean the ’state ownership of all property’ any more. Now, a socialist is really just someone who thinks the government should do things for them, someone who considers the government their mommy.
-
(Pssst. . . the free enterprise definition does not include things about regulation, subsidization or any of the “basic social rights” you quote. That reminds me, how about you show me in the Constitution where these ‘basic social rights’ are guaranteed by our form of government. )
-
I think you said “unfettered free-enterprise is destructive” and needs to be regulated by our government. You seem to have a deep rooted idea that the government is our mommy and we all need to have our hands held. (That’s a little creative license, there.)
-
But if you think about it, what you are currently reading is the product of free-enterprise. When did the computer industry become destructive? What about car insurance? Will it become destructive too and we’ll need some government mommy to provide it for us?
-
But you are not alone, there are others like you. Here’s a link to an article that talks about that free TV thing I was talking about. Our government mommy decided that TV is a “right” and has given every American $40 to get a free converter box so they can watch CSI Miami and Wheel of Fortune. And they’re working on Cable TV subscribers, too. http://www.techdirt.com/articl.....1244.shtml
-
And someone else who thinks they should make decisions for us decided to give every American $4,500 so they could get a new car and get rid of that “old, yucky” one. No one’s mom wants their son to be seen in Clunker. And since we won’t go out and get our own new car, the government decided to take it from some taxpayers and give it to other tax payers. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05......html?_r=1
-
What about those guys in government who thought, we should pay everyone to get “energy efficient” windows. Again, they decided let’s take tax money from all of us and give it back to some of us. I think they give you $1,500 to install these windows. Left alone, wouldn’t the window manufacturers eventually make more affordable windows? Not now.
-
And then there’s the guys in government who thought, we can’t let people’s feelings get hurt because their bankers didn’t have a good contingency plan. Let’s buy those banks to make sure no one gets hurt. If you’re hurt, how are you going to Constitutionally pursue “happiness”? Nothing happy about losing money. http://www.cnbc.com/id/27163622
-
And to fulfill the last part of your request, here’s where the government thought we can’t let companies that produce inferior products go out of business, we must help them. We must use the tax dollars from good paying citizens and buy this car company that doesn’t know what it’s doing. We know better than them, because we’re the government. And don’t call us Socialists for buying and running car companies, the clinical definition is “all property, industry and commerce, we don’t control everything, yet.” http://business.theatlantic.co.....motors.php
-
So to answer your question, there are people out there who think everything should be provided and should be free. People are already grasping at things other than health care. If there’s a way for the government to give it to us free – there’s someone out there lobbying for it. Maybe you disagree with some of these folks, but when you put yourself into a room with all of them – we’ll get $4,500 for a car, $40 to watch Wheel of Fortune, $1,500 for windows, free health care, bankers and car guys will get to keep their jobs and everyone will be pursuing ‘happiness’. Ahh. . the American Dream! You don’t even have to work anymore. You just have to live here.
-
Now, I used to work for Mr. Buffett. For real, I managed a stadium he co-owned. Since you brought him up, let me pass on some info. He exploits the system as well as anyone can. Did you know he makes sure that he doesn’t pay a lot of taxes by keeping his salary below $197,000 each year? Did you know that he lives like a billionaire and just expenses everything to the company, not to himself? Maybe if he claimed his expenses the way most people did, he wouldn’t be in the 17% bracket OR if everyone else learned the benefits of owning your own business – they’d pay less too. (But they don’t teach that in government run schools – do they?) http://everythingwarrenbuffett.....alary.html
So you asked wouldn’t these rich guys have left already? So far, they’ve been able to play by the rules and keep a good portion of their money. But those times are changing. Our President vowed to tax these folks even higher in the coming months. And since we just spent our great-great-grandkids retirement, someone’s going to have to pay for that too. You think it will be the bottom 38%? When the richest make up only 5% of the voters – who do you think the politicians will try to please?
-
And yes, I did pull the 57% number out of thin air. In a debate, it’s best to use the number your opponent comes up with. I figured a ridiculous number would have you doing some research to prove I was wrong and then we’d have a number that couldn’t be debated. 38%, eh? 300,000,000 people in the U.S. That’s $114,000,000 people not paying income tax. Stop me when the outrage begins. . . Now according to the Bureau of Labor Stats, at a 9.4% unemployment rate – that’s 14.5 million people who aren’t paying those social security, medicare, unemployment taxes either. And those other taxes are local – so they wouldn’t support your national health care system anyway.
So I don’t mean to harp on FREE, but seriously that’s a ton of people getting a lot for FREE. Maybe I’m not paying my fair share, but I’m in the 36% bracket and am not willing to pay more. I’d be willing to give up a lot of things though.
-
So, let’s get back to your “un-socialist”, ideas about this regulated and subsidized free-enterprise health care system that won’t be free because we all pay taxes.
-
Is it fair to compare health insurance to car insurance? If not, I’ll have to come up with something else. But if you agree they’re both necessary “insurance” plans that operate in the same free enterprise system, then I’d say this:
-
Auto insurance is regulated, but it is not restrictive. I can buy a policy in Alaska if I want. Right now I live in TN but have an auto insurance company out of TX. That means there’s lots of competition. Have you seen a Geico commerical? How about autoinsurance.com? These companies are forced to keep the prices low because they compete. This is a good system. Not everyone can afford it, but it’s not a ‘right’ either. If you can’t afford it, work close enough to home to ride your bike.
-
Did you know that it is mandatory to have auto-insurance in most states, but it’s also mandatory to carry un-insured motorists coverage? Hmm. . I say that because you think health insurance should be mandatory – and yet we can’t get everyone to even carry auto insurance. Again it is mandatory to have auto-insurance, but it is also mandatory to cover the people who don’t have it.
-
And there’s not nearly the free government perks in the auto-world than there are in the health care world.
-
Are there free clinics where you can get County Auto-insurance? No. How about Free Body Shops for when you’re in an emergeny? No. How about Planned Car-Ownerhood or Nurses for Newborn Car Owners to go with your sensitive car questions? No. How about advertisements that tell you driving is bad for your health? No. How about public service ads telling you that once you start driving, you probably won’t quit? No. Are there car-health classes in school where they teach you about putting the wrong gas in your car? No.
-
If you think having your chronic disease cured is a basic social right, should it also a basic right to have facial reconstructive surgery after a car accident? What if you didn’t cause the car accident? What if you did? Is it a basic social right to have a boob job if it makes you pursue happiness greater?
-
When, in your world, does the free-enterprise system that operates car insurance become so destructive that you’ll be advocating our government mommy take it over? Will you advise exploiting other options before we get to that point? When is it OK to ask the government to step in and do things for us vs. figuring out how to take care of ourselves?
-
Getting free brain surgery (or a $30 co-pay) by the 28 year old who spent that previous 20 years studying to be a brain surgeon and has $150,000 in student loan debt to cover – is not a right. Brain surgery is not a ‘basic social right’. Your social rights – as given to us by our government are to life, liberty, property, justice, and your individual pursuit of happiness. That’s IT! That’s all the government is allowed to do for you whether they do more or not.
-
If you want free health care, talk to the United Way, or the American Cancer Society. They have figured out amazing ways to do amazing things with the money, trust and love of Amazing Americans without requiring the government to get involved (and screw it all up).
-
While it seems unfair the rich get premium health care and the rest of us get something else – that’s because FAIR is not a basic social right either. Let the government govern, and if you really want to help – redistribute your wealth to someone who can’t afford the insurance you can. If you really feel that people need help, why is it you go straight to your government mommy? Did every charity, church and private citizen say ‘no’ to you already?
-
Life is not easy. You do not have the right to live a flu-free, cold-free, disease free existence. You do not have the right to live free of tornadoes. You do not have the right to live without kidney stones, without throwing up, without needing an iron lung. NOPE. You do not have the right to 20/20 vision. You do not have the right to a perfect running stride. You do not have the right to live to 88 years of age.
-
You are not given these rights by anyone. Not even God. In fact, God would have you believing that he does everything for a reason. The suffering of One benefits us all somehow.
-
Dan Morris´s last blog ..Letters From dan
Dan, i’m not sure how, but my last post you were responding to has disappeared? I’m assuming it was a technical problem, otherwise hopefully the moderator will leave a note. For the benefit of anyone that may read this thread (unlikely;-) i will repost so your reply does not look out of context (but of course the order will be mixed up).
.
I’m hoping to get some time soon to respond to you. It never ceases to amaze me how people can have such fundamentally differing opinions on the role of government. But i’m listening, and i wish you all the best Dan.
.
………………..~08/28/09……………………………………………………………
.
Dan, either you do not know the definition of a “Socialist” or you are a liar for trying to suggest that i support Socialism. You seem like a decent, well meaning guy, so i will assume you are just ignorant.
.
I, and any democrat that i know, are not in any way advocating state ownership of all property, industry, and commerce. Where did i mention anywhere in this thread that i believe capitalism should be abolished?
.
I have no disdain, but what is disappointing is that a rational discussion can not take place without some conservatives resorting to distortion of facts, flat out lies, misinformation, FUD, generic talking points repeated adnauseum, and child-like name calling that attempts to label and demonize people that they don’t agree with.
.
It was very predicable that you would call me a Socialist, as would many conservatives. Where does that come from? They can’t all be as ignorant as you? I guess the rest are liars. It also doesn’t help that most can’t think for themselves, and instead regurgitate the nonsense spewed daily from neocon entertainers like Rush, Hanity, Beck, Ingram, etc…
.
>> But I do apologize if technically you are a Marxist – they are essentially the same to me.
.
Well thanks again for your non-constructive, and yet-again ignorant, opinion. But like so many conservatives, you have utter disdain for truth and facts. For you, opinion and fact are one and the same.
.
.
If you care for the truth, i am a business owner, and i love free enterprise. I believe people should be rewarded for their efforts, and there is nothing wrong with being wealthy. But i do believe that unfettered laissez-faire economics is destructive. That some amount of regulation and basic social rights need to be protected.
.
In this case i believe every citizen should be required to have health insurance. Everyone should pay for it, but if it can not be afforded, then some degree of subsidization should be provided. I addressed the economic argument for doing this since moral arguments are meaningless to you, so i was trying to speak to your singular concern about retaining every cent of the money in your pocket.
.
It’s a separate discussion, but i also believe that a quality education should be a right for all.
.
But that’s where i, and most democrats draw the line.
.
All you are doing is misdirecting the debate when you try to suggest that some faceless group of people will rise up and fight for “free cars” and “free cable TV” and “free Microwaves” and “free DVD Players”.
.
And these same unidentified people believe “everything is a RIGHT and no one should be responsible for themselves”.
.
Dan, can you please provide a URL reference to any democrat that is lobbying for a Marxist society where “everything is a RIGHT”, including “free TV’s, DVD Players, etc…”, and that “no one should be responsible for themselves”.
.
Is this just more distortion and FUD, or are you referring to real people?
.
Speaking of facts, where do get this idea that 57% of people pay no taxes? Did you just pull that out of thin air? Why do so many conservatives feel comfortable being talking-pieces for uber-rich rightwing entertainers like Rush, that fart out these lies, rather than thinking for themselves and looking up the facts?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfa.....ay_no.html
.
And of the *38%* of people that pay no *income tax*, they all pay employment tax, medicare, social security, gas taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes, realestate taxes, and the millions of other hidden taxes.
.
So no one is getting anything for FREE. I hope that makes you feel a bit better.
.
Btw, do you think you are fully compensating the public for your use of public roads, public utilities, public electrical grid, public parks/lands, public schools, public universities, public research and development, NASA, NSF, EPA, NIH, USPS, and the hundreds of other public organizations that benefit you?
.
You’re not even scratching the surface of the true cost of these benefits that have been amortized over generations of public contribution.
.
And do you honestly believe that if we abolished all these public institutions, including medicare, social security, public schools, public access to hospitals, etc., then we would be better off?
.
I guess you do believe we should abolish all public involvement, otherwise you would be a Socialist/Marxist.
.
Then i guess it follows that if a child is poor, they should go without an education? Or if a family can not afford health insurance, they may just die as a result of illness rather than being provided care?
.
That is what you are saying right?
.
I’m guessing you will suggest that you are “compassionate conservative”, so you will allow the poor to beg charities for help?
.
.
>> But guess what, someday the 5% that pay half the taxes are going to get up and walk away.
.
If they were going anywhere, don’t you think they would have left by now? Are they waiting for some formal invitation to leave?
.
You’re not going find anyone more rich than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and both not only have no problem living in the US and paying their share of taxes, but they believe they should be paying more.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nyti.....air-share/
http://trustsestateslaw.com/20.....state-tax/
.
Buffet goes so far as to honestly expose the fact he is paying a 17.7% effective tax rate vs. his secretary’s 30% rate.
.
.
Dan, why don’t you stick to the topic of Health Care Reform instead of talking about nonsense FREE Cable TV’s and Microwaves?
.
Conservatives can’t even plainly state what they stand for. Are you embarrassed?
.
Do you believe that a person should be denied ongoing treatment for chronic disease (about 130 million people in this category) if they can not afford health insurance? (trick question since you will be a Socialist if you disagree)
.
If you do believe that people should have access, then what is your solution? Talk about solutions rather than wasting time talking about FREE cable TV.
.
If you do believe that a person without means to pay is SOL, then there is nothing more to say.
Hi Dan, yes quite enjoyable.
>> clinical definition of Socialism, which is admirable,…
.
Dan, i’m glad you think it’s admirable that i have resorted to using the actual meaning of a “socialist”, rather than the Rush-BS-definition that you quoted.
.
You calling me a socialist is as accurate as me calling you a fascist. I could claim that “fascist” has morphed over the years to mean a republican, but it’s not true.
http://www.google.com/search?h.....an+fascist
>> if everybody resorted to the clinical definition, Catholicism would have ended long ago.
.
OK, then you go tell the Pope that you know better what the true definition of a Catholic is. Tell him that Rush has “morphed” the meaning in his new Rush-BS-Dictionary.
.
>> Pssst. . . the free enterprise definition does not include things about regulation, subsidization or any of the “basic social rights” you quote.
.
free enterprise is about private business competing in an open market with little regulation, not *no* regulation. Again, your quoting out the Rush-BS-Dictionary. And free enterprise is an economic concept, not a political or social one.
.
>> That reminds me, how about you show me in the Constitution where these ‘basic social rights’ are guaranteed by our form of government. )
.
How about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? But we obviously disagree.
.
>> I think you said “unfettered free-enterprise is destructive” and needs to be regulated by our government. You seem to have a deep rooted idea that the government is our mommy and we all need to have our hands held.
(That’s a little creative license, there.)
.
Well you are all for the US burning about 1 trillion dollars a year (about half of the worlds total military spending) to “protect” us, but you call regulation to control financial robbers “hand holding by mommy”.
.
Conservatives just love content-free hyperbole. So i assume you also love all these corporate fiascos that keep happening over and over again? Enron, big tobacco, Exon, savings-and-loan, Worldcom, Tyco, Global Crossing, Madoff, execs making tens of millions in compensation while their companies are bleeding loses, and of course our current financial and economic meltdown. You would love to remove all regulation and let the cats loose.
.
How is it that government is so esteemed and admired by you when it comes to the war machine, but when it comes to protected innocent citizens from corporate crime, you call it “mommy hand holding”?
.
>> But if you think about it, what you are currently reading is the product of free-enterprise. When did the computer industry become destructive? What about car insurance? Will it become destructive too and we’ll need some government mommy to provide it for us?
.
Dan, you’re starting to make stuff up again.
.
>> But you are not alone, there are others like you. Here’s a link to an article that talks about that free TV thing I
.
If someone takes away your ability to get a TV signal over the air, what’s wrong about giving it back (in this case with cheap converter box)? It’s not like they are buying them an extra TV? And the cable TV thing is BS, nice try.
.
>> they should make decisions for us decided to give every American $4,500 so they could get a new car and get rid of that “old, yucky” one…
.
Wow, it takes a republican to spin a wildly successful stimulus program into a “govt decision to give *every* American a new car to get rid of their ‘yucky’ one”. Including the multiplier-effect, the program likely generated over 200 billion in economic activity. There’s nothing yucky about that, but keep on making stuff up if it makes you happy.
.
>> Left alone, wouldn’t the window manufacturers eventually make more affordable windows? Not now.
.
How are they going to make cheaper high-efficiency windows without a market? You need economies of scale to bring down prices. Industries can get kickstarted by incentives to help start the process of driving prices down. Ask anybody in the solar or electric/hybrid industry if their products just magically get cheaper over time.
.
>> Constitutionally pursue “happiness”? Nothing happy about losing money.
.
Well it’s you beloved Bush govt that started that policy, and i guess you would rather have the world living in a depression? OK.
.
>> And to fulfill the last part of your request,
.
Sorry Dan, but you really have not answered anything.
.
>> And don’t call us Socialists for buying and running car companies, the clinical definition is “all property, industry and commerce, we don’t control everything, yet.” http://business.theatlantic.co…..motors.php
.
OK, that’s a new Rush-BS-Definition. Again, pres Bush started that policy, and no one would have done that if we weren’t in the midst of an economic meltdown.
.
Btw, the day will not be too far off when the auto loans get paid back with interest.
.
>> So to answer your question, there are people out there who think everything should be provided and should be
.
Sorry Dan, but you certainly did not show me anyone who believes “everything should be free”.
.
>> If there’s a way for the government to give it to us free – there’s someone out there lobbying for it.
.
If anyone’s lobbying, it’s the hordes of corporate vultures that finance republicans in exchange for favors. Health insurance industry, drug companies, the oil industry, are just a few of the friends of conservatives these days.
.
>> Now, I used to work for Mr. Buffett.
.
so?
.
>> He exploits the system as well as anyone can.
.
Of course he does?! What do you expect?!? He plays by the rules like everyone else. If there is a break, a person will take it. And the mega-rich know how to exploit every hole that has been handed to them. Of course the average Joe has no option but to just pay his fair share.
.
But you would rather there be no regulation or rules at all, so the mega-rich would pay no taxes at all (which many of them already get away with).
.
>> if everyone else learned the benefits of owning your own business – they’d pay less too.
.
OK, whether you care or are capable of being a business owner or not, you better be one, or we will financially rape you. OK, good policy Dan.
.
>> Our President vowed to tax these folks even higher in the coming months.
.
He’s talking about letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Right now we are in deep, and to get out we need to either cut or increase revenue. Realistically we’re going to have to do both. Of course you would like to just cut, but there is not enough savings by cutting alone. Why don’t we start by slashing the trillion dollar/year war machine?
.
>> And yes, I did pull the 57% number out of thin air.
.
Of course you pulled that out of thin air. No good republican cares about facts. It’s just like the meaning of a words. Fact and word definitions are whatever you want them to be.
.
>> That’s $114,000,000 people not paying income tax.
.
How can you pay income taxes, when you’re not making any income?? You would just love to tax the hell out of someone living in poverty. Now i know why conservatives have all the “moral authority”.
.
>> I’d be willing to give up a lot of things though.
.
Of course you are willing to give up things, because you can afford alternatives. Lets strip your income to 20k/year, then lets see you give up your health and education benefits.
.
>> If you can’t afford it, work close enough to home to ride your bike.
.
If you had access to heath care if only you lived close enough to a dr. i would be happy.
.
What if you were not permitted to work without car insurance? Would it be ok if people that could not afford car insurance were not allowed to work?
.
>> If you think having your chronic disease cured is a basic social right, should it also a basic right to have facial reconstructive surgery after a car accident? What if you didn’t cause the car accident? What if you did? Is it a basic social right to have a boob job if it makes you pursue happiness greater?
.
Dan, your going to the Rush school of BS again. I never said a chronic disease cure should be a social right. Only access to treatment. Boob jobs are not medically necessary.
.
>> Getting free brain surgery (or a $30 co-pay) by the 28 year old who spent that previous 20 years studying to be a brain surgeon and has $150,000 in student loan debt to cover – is not a right. Brain surgery is not a ‘basic social right’. Your social rights – as given to us by our government are to life, liberty, property, justice, and your individual pursuit of happiness. That’s IT!
.
Dan you keep contradicting yourself. If you have an operable tumor in your head that will kill you if left to progress for the next few years, then preventing the removal of that tumor will deny you your right to life.
.
>> If you want free health care, talk to the United Way, or the American Cancer Society. They have figured out amazing ways to do amazing things with the money, trust and love of Amazing Americans without requiring the government to get involved (and screw it all up).
.
Dan, you seem to have a deep rooted hate for government. Govt is not some foreign alien race, it is the people of the US. The leaders are providing public service, and govt employees work hard and earn an honest living. I don’t hear you bad mouthing government soldiers, or govt police, or firemen…
.
>> that’s because FAIR is not a basic social right either.
.
Any form of fairness really seems to bother you.
.
>> Life is not easy. You do not have the right to live a flu-free, ….
.
I agree with you on those points, though they have nothing to do with what we are talking about.
.
>> You are not given these rights by anyone. Not even God. In fact, God would have you believing that he does everything for a reason. The suffering of One benefits us all somehow.
.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say there Dan? Are you trying to suggest that it’s divine that some of us should needlessly suffer, especially the poor and weak? Check out some of Jesus’ teachings on the poor and weak.
.
Dan, you still did not answer the fundamental question. It only takes one line.
.
1. Do you think a person should be denied access to health care if they can not afford insurance? Especially in the case of chronic disease?
.
A little unrelated, but another interesting question…
.
2. Do you believe a child should go without a good education if they can not afford it?
.
They really are just yes/no answers, nothing to do with mommy. Just be straight up.
.
Thanks Dan.
Max,
Your last post helped me understand where we differ. But I think we have a mis-communication on the health care thing. What do you mean by “access”? This is going to sound trite, but do you mean “transportation to the hospital”? Do you mean “living in a city that has hospitals?” Do you mean “financial ability to pay for healthcare?” I sincerely am not sure where you’re coming from. (no sarcasm, no disdain, I just don’t know what you mean yet)
-
In my opinion health care is a human right, but not one protected by our Constitution. When the government was set-up the founders wanted to make sure the government couldn’t take your property, couldn’t take your life, and couldn’t take your freedom. That and free speech, the right to congregate peacefully, the right to vote, the right to justice – those are our Rights. It never says the government will protect your right to have treatment for disease. To me that means if you want to be treated, you must figure out some way other than government. Church, charity, friends, neighbors, higher paying job, etc. . .
-
No, you shouldn’t be denied health care if you can’t afford it. And there are places like St. Jude’s Hospital in Memphis, TN that provide 100% free care to patients through donations. You shouldn’t be denied coverage because there should be people out there helping you. Unless you make that an amendment to the Constitution, the government should not be one of those people. It has a different job.
-
Which brings me to the role of government, also where we differ. You brought up the Defense Budget for some reason. I believe the government has the duty to “provide for the Common Defense” as it says in the first sentence of the Constitution. It also says “insure domestic tranquilitiy” – that’s the firemen, police, National Guard, etc. Again, that’s not a conservative view point, that’s the role of the government as spelled out in the document that created it.
-
You said “what’s wrong with giving people back TV when it was taken from them”. That’s a nice sentiment, but again for me it is not the role of the government to make sure you can get all the stations on your TV set. If you no longer get Channel 2 because it’s on a new frequency, then either don’t watch TV, call Sony and get your money back, or get a new TV. There’s nothing that says the government protects your right to TV. And when you bought the TV, no one guaranteed you the frequency would always be the same. TV’s just an extra if you want to do so. (And yes, they’re trying to subsidize Cable TV, too:
http://www.techdirt.com/articl.....244.shtml)
-
And that goes for the stimulus program. Even if it is successful, it’s not a good way to spend taxpayers money. Again, this is a situation where the government is deciding what to do with taxpayer money. While everyone is eligible, not everyone had a clunker. So they’re taking money from everyone and giving it to a select few. That select few was decided based upon the car they drove.
-
What if they said “we’re going to stimulate the economy by giving white people over 5′10″ tall $4,500 to buy a car.” It’s the same thing. The government decides to give $4,500 to car buyers and then they decide who they’re going to give it. One way was by the kind of car you owned and the other by how tall you are. Either give everyone $2,000 or do something else.
-
Even if the government gets paid back triple what they spent to bail out the banks (who in your world are all rich, republican thugs), buying private companies is not what the government is supposed to be doing.
-
What would you have thought if the government had decided not to spend that money and instead just given everyone their tax money back from last year? The government has the right to levy taxes, change taxes, reduce taxes. That would have been a good use of government because it would have involved something they are charged to do. In that case, they would merely be lowering the 2008 tax rate to 0 and giving back what you overpaid. That would have been a stimulus, no? And it would have been fair to boot.
-
The corporate fiascos are part of our economic system. Capitalism sorts that stuff out. Nobody was forced to buy Enron, Exxon, Madoff, etc. . . And because people think the government will protect them next time -they won’t educate themselves on how to avoid that kind of thing. If the government wasn’t there – you bet people would know exactly what to ask, what to look for and what we should have learned from those examples.
-
Think about it this way, if you buy a cell phone and a button breaks, do you make sure to check and see if the button is loose on the next one? Or do you assume the store is “managing that risk” for you and will check all the buttons? Because stores don’t do that, we assume it is our responsibility. With government intervention – that feeling of being responsible for ourselves goes away.
-
Capitalism, in my opinion, solves those kinds of problems on its own in the end.
-
So I think we differ on what “Rights” a person has. Please pareuse the Constitution, that’s the only thing that spells out what Rights we have. I think you WANT health care to be a right, which is fine, but it is not. The current reform plan doesn’t include a Constitutional Amendment to make Health Care a Protected Right. If it did, I’d switch sides. Since it doesn’t, I don’t want any tax money going to things the government is not supposed to be doing.
-
Especially putting pencil pushers in charge of something as important as health care.
Dear Don,
I found this blog completely by accident as I’ve been pursuing a concept for health care reform I call the AURA(R) Plan.
I’ve been trying to get some publicity for an article I’ve submitted to numerous publications which I call the Declaration of Health Care Independence. Here are two versions of the article:
http://www.navben.us/Pubs/Decl.....ndence.pdf
http://www.navben.us/Pubs/We%2.....ndence.pdf
As a benefit advisor and an actuary, I have been quite involved with national health care reform through volunteer work with the American Academy of Actuaries. You can learn about these volunteer efforts at our site (www.navben.us) under the Discover section.
I’d been hoping to create and use a YouTube video to communicate the concepts articulated in the Declaration for Health Care Independence and was provided Ray Stevens’ newest “We The People” video which I believe will serve the purpose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc_-L4fyLUo
It was through this video and trying to provide YouTube links to what I’ve been doing that I came across your work. Would welcome any thoughts or observations you have on how I might further efforts to improve health care financing.
Sincerely
Tim