Curse

Winterclaw · Oct 06, 2009, 08:44 PM // 20:44

karunpav, the modern meaning of welfare was not the meaning of welfare at the time of the constitution, hence the need for originalist interpretations.

For example: here it suggests that around the time of the constitution the term welfare meant this:

Quote:

2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

If that is the case, it is hardly the same thing as handouts to the poor.

If you consider the fact that the US had just successfully rebelled against an intrusive and heavily taxing society, and you add to it the fact that neither Washington, Adams, or Jefferson took any effort to create a massive social welfare state as seen in the 20th century, you would have to reason that welfare in terms of the constitution meant something else. Likewise as there is no specific mentions of social welfare in article 8 (like it mentions congresses military and taxation powers) nor in the bill of rights, logically it would follow that welfare has more to do with keeping the peace and not being tyrannical than it does with handouts. Things like lower tribunals to try criminals were more or less what welfare meant back then. Likewise if you were to reread the section you quote, you would see it read general welfare of the united states, and in no place mentions the people.

Thus general welfare of the United States means for keeping the States peaceful and civil and does not give power of social welfare for the people or individuals.

Eskimoz · Oct 06, 2009, 11:18 PM // 23:18

So we should toss the idea of socialized health-care aside because some dead guys didn't put it into the constitution?

Shursh · Oct 07, 2009, 03:06 AM // 03:06

^ It's certainly no reason to put into law something that is:

A. not thought out (or even read, for that matter)
B. not wanted (I've yet to see, from either side of the table, definitive statistics on the amount of public support this bill has)
C. not fair (why should some have their taxes raised to pay for someone else's healthcare? and don't compare it to highways, roads, etc. because at least I can use those. I can't use YOUR healthcare.)

To put it bluntly, this whole "well that's not a reason NOT to do it" attitude that so many seem to have is extremely dangerous and reckless.

Snow Bunny · Oct 07, 2009, 05:36 PM // 17:36

I'm all for charged rhetoric and forceful replies, but if you can't construct your arguments in a logical, analytical, and semi-mature manner, despite the fact that I'm no moderator, I'm going to suggest you get the hell out of here.

Despite my holding an opinion on this topic, I find both sides of the issue very persuasive, and I don't want immature idiots on either side ruining what should be an intelligently continued dialogue.

I actually sort of believe that this should be a states-legislation issue, namely because the demographics are so vastly different state-to-state that some very dire problems are foreseeable if this is laid out on a generic basis.

Rocky Raccoon · Oct 07, 2009, 05:41 PM // 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

I actually sort of believe that this should be a states-legislation issue, namely because the demographics are so vastly different state-to-state that some very dire problems are foreseeable if this is laid out on a generic basis.

I can agree with a state by state implementation, but I fear that would leave some citizens of poorer states with less coverage than those of wealthier states.

A11Eur0 · Oct 07, 2009, 06:12 PM // 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

You worked hard for your money? So do I with a double degree, fantastic insurance, and putting in 60+ hours a week. Means nothing now because I pay between 10-15k a year for medical. Out of pocket. Every... single... year. With no end in sight. That's on top of living expenses. I'm pleased that you feel you can take 15k cash out of your take home salary every year and it doesn't have much effect on you. That's over $1000 a month I pay in just medical bills alone on top of my health insurance payments/deductibles/out of pocket/co-pays (you don't realize how much that 'great' medical insurance you have doesn't cover). But for those of us who face the broken medical and insurance system every single day... I welcome anything then the thought of all MY HARD EARNED money going toward a medical system that is so overpriced and expensive that I will probably one day be destitute.

And only then will the medical care for free.

All I have to say about that is this: Darwin. it seems cold, but if you're in that bad of a medical state and don't have the ability to pay for your care, that's not my problem. What's next, I have to pay for food for every starving child in Africa?

It's NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY to pay for your well-being, especially when I get nothing in return. It's that simple. If you have two degrees and worked 60 hours a week, and still don't have enough money set aside for your care, you mismanaged. No situation should be "unforeseen". You should always plan for the worst.

When I'm 92 and in need of large sums of money to keep me alive, I'll hope to have saved enough of my OWN EARNED MONEY to do it, otherwise I'll take my own life to relieve my family and loved ones of the burden. This is a decision I've already made consciously. If I ever have a terminal illness and cannot function to pay for my care, I'll finish up doing what I want to do, make sure I have enough money set aside for the funeral, then go gracefully of my own volition. And I'll have a smile on my face in the process.

Inde · Oct 07, 2009, 06:26 PM // 18:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

All I have to say about that is this: Darwin. it seems cold, but if you're in that bad of a medical state and don't have the ability to pay for your care, that's not my problem. What's next, I have to pay for food for every starving child in Africa?

It's NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY to pay for your well-being, especially when I get nothing in return. It's that simple. If you have two degrees and worked 60 hours a week, and still don't have enough money set aside for your care, you mismanaged. No situation should be "unforeseen". You should always plan for the worst.

When I'm 92 and in need of large sums of money to keep me alive, I'll hope to have saved enough of my OWN EARNED MONEY to do it, otherwise I'll take my own life to relieve my family and loved ones of the burden. This is a decision I've already made consciously. If I ever have a terminal illness and cannot function to pay for my care, I'll finish up doing what I want to do, make sure I have enough money set aside for the funeral, then go gracefully of my own volition. And I'll have a smile on my face in the process.

Not meant as a criticism but rather a wish that I could hold to those 'ideal' and 'visions of grandeur' once again. To know exactly how this world works. To be able to judge and pass down my sentencing knowing that "I'll never be in that position". To not even know how much medical care costs, to think that you can "plan for the worst".

That was me too. Talk to a younger version of myself and I'd have given nearly every one of those arguments. Honestly though, take just a few minutes and think about a 92 year old. The weak, helpless, frail 92 year old stuck in a nursing home. What power do you have to take your own life? You can't even go to the bathroom by yourself. You can hardly move. Every movement of your joint, every turn of your head is painful. Yet you'll possess the power to do what exactly? You'll end it before it gets to that point? Saying and doing are entirely different. And I would hope that being young, yes even myself, that I am not so naive as to possibly think I can know what I will want or how I will react in 50 or 60 years from now.

And as for "No situation should be "unforeseen".

Quote:

Don`t worry about the future; or worry, but patiently know that obscenely worrying is as effective as factually trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubblegum. The real troubles in your life are apt to mistakenly be things that never crossed your worried mind; the kind that blindside you at 4pm on some idle Tuesday."

Fril Estelin · Oct 07, 2009, 06:28 PM // 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

If you have two degrees and worked 60 hours a week, and still don't have enough money set aside for your care, you mismanaged. No situation should be "unforeseen". You should always plan for the worst.

As I quoted in message #201: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...rovision-us-uk
(the key part for replying to your message being "Fellow doctors failed to diagnose him")

How can anyone foresee a cancer or an Alzheimer's? It would include a will that includes an euthanasia clause, with cost of trip to states/countries allowing it, including "foreseen" rise of the cost of life (which foresees all possible economic crysis in the coming years ofc) etc.

Winterclaw · Oct 07, 2009, 06:48 PM // 18:48

Inde, people reaching 92 years of age are the execption and not the rules. We already have medicare and social security (I'm not saying the federal government should have those things but they do), instead of adding a whole new system to bring in 45 million people or whatever the number turns out to be, for them you can tweak social security and medicare.

Most people believe in some kind of safety net and if the common person wouldn't plan to live much longer than the average life expectancy then it might be reasonable to expand the safety net. It still should be done by the states though and not the federal government.

Inde · Oct 07, 2009, 06:54 PM // 18:54

I understand what you are saying about bringing it to a state government level but you have to realize all states are going to follow something similar. They would have too. If one state has better coverage then the next you can guarantee people are going to jump-ship to go to that state to receive their better medical. Which would then tax that state's medical care coverage as a flood of people come in. Look at Steve Jobs. He went to Tennessee specifically because he could receive a liver transplant faster in that state then in his own home state. It raised a huge outcry with people wondering why someone rich can jump to the front of the line. That they can be evaluated and placed on multiple transplant lists because they can afford to:

Quote:

According to the most recent estimates, the cost of a liver transplant is $519,600 -- a price tag that excludes roughly one-third of Americans because they don't have sufficient insurance (or any insurance), Caplan estimates. According to data collected for UNOS, only about 5 percent of liver transplants are paid for out of pocket.

"What your insurance covers is very different from everyone else's," says Anne Paschke, a spokesperson for UNOS. Some insurance companies won't cover evaluations at multiple transplant centers, Paschke explains, and in at least one case, an insurance company has restricted its coverage to a single transplant center that the company itself owned.

Running it at a state level would be great but take 1 state that has better coverage then the rest and people will move there and overtax their system.

Rocky Raccoon · Oct 07, 2009, 06:58 PM // 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

Inde, people reaching 92 years of age are the execption and not the rules. We already have medicare and social security (I'm not saying the federal government should have those things but they do), instead of adding a whole new system to bring in 45 million people or whatever the number turns out to be, for them you can tweak social security and medicare.

Not so in the near future.

http://www.ajc.com/health/content/sh...e-/631574.html

Winterclaw · Oct 07, 2009, 08:38 PM // 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

I understand what you are saying about bringing it to a state government level but you have to realize all states are going to follow something similar. They would have too. If one state has better coverage then the next you can guarantee people are going to jump-ship to go to that state to receive their better medical.

Not necessarily. First of all you have to consider costs. That state with great coverage might have a huge amount of taxes in order to pay for it. Or they might try to cover more than they can afford and run into a situation where the state is going to bankrupt itself (sort of like California).

Then you have to worry about a diseconomy of scale (which you mentioned). Basically not all things get more efficient as you add more people into the system and all those people jumping ship could wreck the system of the other state.

Finally there is the fact that different states would have different feelings and thoughts of how to do it. Some might pay for it by taxes. Others might require all employers to have a certain level of coverage. Others might try tort reform to lower the cost of insurance or require patients to pay for low-end expenses out of pocket with insurance picking up the more pricey things. Some might include illegals into their insurance while others might ban illegals and their children from getting a state-level public insurance.

Eventually systems would start borrowing from each other as one state has a good idea that everyone copies, another state tries too much or too little and has to change, etc.

But at least letting the states do it on their own means that where one state can screw it, it won't hurt the entire country. If there is a national health care system and Washington doesn't get it right, they've just screwed it up for 300+ million people.

Since each state has its own needs and its own tolerances reform at the state level would more likely fit that state has a whole better. Likewise if some people decide to leave that state for another, I don't think that is such a bad thing either. It would allow each state and its people to cultivate their own identity and build upon and reinforce their own traditions. Since I live in Florida, the best thing for my state might be to focus on emergency care, for tourists in case there's an accident and all the bad drivers we have, and care for the elderly. However a state that is younger and has less tourists and better drivers might want to and need to focus on another issue.

Also think of it like this Inde: right now the US is running a huge deficit. Let's say the Obama package is too ambitious in it's coverage and like cash for clunkers runs out of money in a week instead of 3-4 months like it was supposed to. Also because the Obama package is so great too many people stop using private insurance and switch over to the government plan. This in turn hurts the private industry and overloads the public industry. What would happen in that hypothetical situation is that all Americans would be screwed when it comes to health insurance and would either have to pay everything out of pocket or wait until the government can budget for their care.

Or think of this scenario. Let's say the Obamascare package starts off very small and modest. Then next year someone adds a little bit more to it. Then in 2 years it gets expanded again. Then little additions keeps happening for the next 10-20 years to the point where the system is overburdened and underfunded. At that point the people who have come to rely on the system would then be screwed and it would be impossible to trim it back because everyone wants everything and would refuse to let go of that one coverage thing they want. Again the system would be ruined for everyone.

That's why the state system is more prudent in my perspective. It would allow some states to screw it up without screwing it up for everyone. And when one state screw it up, it would enable others to learn from their mistakes and keep it from happening. Sure in whole everyone might not get the same as they would under a national system but that would also protect them all from a greater calamity as well.

A11Eur0 · Oct 07, 2009, 08:52 PM // 20:52

It's the position of one with money to not want others to have it if they don't work for it.

It's also the position of one without money to want what someone else has.

It's the perversion of that second position to DEMAND that money because you somehow DESERVE it, or that the person is REQUIRED TO SHARE what he's got with people less fortunate. That's quite simply not the case.

It doesn't matter what this country was founded on, or what's in the Constitution. It matters what this HUMAN RACE was founded on: survival of the fittest. Back in the day it was the man who could win the fight who got the rewards. Now it's the man who can gather the most money, in any way he deems fit as it follows the law of the land. The problem here is that people who are not able or willing to work for it are DEMANDING that the laws be changed to FORCE hard working intelligent, crafty, or lucky individuals to give of their fortune to "help" those less....ambitious. my position remains that those who worked for what they got in one way or another should have the choice to give, not be ordered to.

Put yourself in the opposite position, of someone with money to spare. Not BILLIONS, not even MILLIONS of liquid wealth...just someone with a comfortably buffered bank account. This number can vary depending on that person's lifestyle and location, but let's say this individual has the arbitrary hypothetical sum of $500 thousand dollars saved in a bank account, with an income of $150k/year and normal expenses of $100k/year. (This isn't as uncommon as it might sound) This person is saving a third of his income to retire and live comfortably and has private insurance that works for him, instead of cheap HMOs that are only there to make money. He worked for his money, was responsible enough to save a sum of that money for a rainy day/year/decade, and didn't overextend his credit. He was SMART, living well within his means and preparing for unforeseen circumstances. 500 grand is enough to deal with any shortfalls which he might encounter in his life, and he's got years ahead of him to save even more.
Does this man who worked hard and will continue to work hard his entire life deserve to have his savings and income taxed to the hilt just to pay for your medical issues? What does he get out of it, other than the feeling that working hard is pointless, because if one is unfortunate, lazy, needy, etc, the government will take from someone else who has an appreciable work ethic and deserves every cent saved and give it to him. How can anyone sit back and seriously claim that this is at all fair?

Here's a point I've been trying to make:
The proper way to overhaul the health care system is NOT to tax the wealthy to pay the poor. "He who taxes Peter to pay Paul can always rely on the support of Paul." The proper way to overhaul the health care system is to change the way that insurance companies do business. Increase competition by allowing companies to expand their business outside of state lines. This will decrease the cost per policy, and hopefully give the companies the incentive to not deny coverage because they're able to recoup those costs much more readily by selling more policies. Decrease frivolous lawsuits that increase the cost of health care and decrease the doctor's willingness to give a patient a break by not conducting dozens of tests, for fear of missing the true condition and being sued for malpractice. Decrease cost of health care, decrease cost of insurance, these will increase the number of policyholders, and increase the amount of money going into the system. Doctors will not leave this market. Aspiring doctors will continue their education and enter the market, without fear of losing their very expensive license and education due to a mistake and a well-planned attack by a team of lawyers representing some freeloader looking to make a quick buck. Hospitals will have the money to hire more doctors, expand facilities, take on more patients, perform more tests which reduces the costs of these tests.

The way this health care reform bill is structured, none of the actual problems are being solved, just covered up by handing out more money to the less fortunate by taking it from the more fortunate, and eliminating private sector business altogether. The private sector has a way of self-balancing, if the proper controls are in place. Right now, the wrong controls are in place and are being ignored altogether.

Inde · Oct 07, 2009, 10:18 PM // 22:18

The biggest problem A11Eur0 is that you assume it's someone's "fault" for not having money for medical care. Let me tell you of some actual situations I have with friends or acquaintances right now.

A 23 year old working off their college loans, in your eyes, should have 500k in the bank all ready to be able to deal with any medical situation that may pop up?

A 40 year old executive with 1 million+ in the bank has a child with serious health problems, they have reached their lifetime cap of 2 million dollars for health insurance. So they now have to pay out of pocket while quitting his job to find another just to restart their health insurance. All the while their savings are slipping away. I've seen their medical bills, they are staggering. In 4 months they topped $300k. This is an executive, what would a middle class family possibly do in this situation? They wouldn't qualify for help because they have done as you said... saved their money and lived within their means. And yes, this executive would gladly give up 50% of his income (yes 50%) to pay into a medical system that would cover everyone. Why? Because it would cost them LESS then what they are having to pay now. That and he realizes how lucky he is to even be able to afford as much as he has.

A 75 year old couple with 2 million in the bank, watch their money drain away because they can't qualify for Medicare to pay for anything until they are destitute from their medical bills.

Do you know how much medical care costs? I have to assume at this point in the conversation that you don't. You think $500k is enough to cover you if you had a chronic health condition? You think all your great insurance covers every medical need that you might have need of in the future? You assume that if you have a chronic health condition you will be able to keep working to keep your great health insurance? But wait, I'm assuming you don't have a family as well. What happens if you and say your wife now has medical problems? Or a child? You think 500k + medical insurance is enough to cover you for how long?

All it takes is 1 accident. 1 diagnosis. I don't have to educate myself on the issue. I live it. You really won't be able to argue all your well-meaning and yet flawed arguments because you don't live with it every day. You don't spend hours and hours with insurance, hospitals, doctors, surgeons, specialists. You aren't immersed in the flawed system every day.

You assume it's illegal immigrants, leeches, freeloaders, unemployed and more who would be taking your hard earned money. You talk of fairness to people who have such debilitating conditions they can't function. They deal with life and death every day. And you would speak of fairness?

I don't think you realize that you currently pay into programs that you will not be able to use BECAUSE you work hard and pay your taxes. Medicaid, state run insurance programs, child health insurance programs, welfare programs, food stamps... the list goes on. Maybe the injustice of it all is that the government expects you to become destitute before they'll step in and help you.

I don't believe there is a proper solution out there right now, but the way the current system works is ridiculous. Maybe I'm just trying to make some of you realize that the situations I'm listing aren't as far-fetched as you think. That you and those close to you are not invincible and that life can change in the blink of an eye. That life is certainly not fair and that you are one step away from being throw into this broken system before opening your eyes.

Rocky Raccoon · Oct 07, 2009, 10:37 PM // 22:37

This should not be happening in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjARi...eature=related

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/story/1267787.html

Eskimoz · Oct 07, 2009, 11:26 PM // 23:26

Quote:

What's next, I have to pay for food for every starving child in Africa?

SURPRISE!

You already do!

Quote:

Despite my holding an opinion on this topic, I find both sides of the issue very persuasive, and I don't want immature idiots on either side ruining what should be an intelligently continued dialogue.

Heh....It's FAR too late for that....

Snow Bunny · Oct 07, 2009, 11:39 PM // 23:39

...

So, consider these possible solutions, possible all worked in together, and give me some feedback if you believe that it would solve this crisis. Just for my curiosity.

a. Make it significantly more difficult to sue doctors. As in, they have to be guilty of gross negligence for you to be able to sue them.

b. Institute a new tax on all US citizens - $3000/yr/individual, with families paying $1000 on their children until age 18.

c. Slightly raise sales tax on all items to California's 10%.

d. Unilaterally deny illegal aliens/immigrants medical coverage without them paying for it fully out of pocket.

e. Place much more stringent regulations on the insurance companies that would require them ultimately to make their coverage broader.

go.

Inde · Oct 08, 2009, 03:45 AM // 03:45

a. Agreed, but maybe for different reasons. We are losing doctors at a very fast pace, especially ob/gyn's (take hormonal women who have just lost a child and it's a disaster... they need to blame someone) for the sheer fact that their insurance can easily cost 1/2 their salary. This is now affecting even Nurses.

b. Well, with the child tax credit at $1500 a child I'm not sure why counter-acting that would make sense. Seems to work against each other. Or are you suggesting that instead of paying Health Insurance this would be implemented instead? Which would essentially be a program where every man/woman/child is required to hold health insurance (I agree with that by the way).

c. Oregon would probably scream at you, but sure, why not. I all ready pay 8% where I live. But this isn't really feasible considering that sales tax goes to the county and state.

d. Agree to an extent. I firmly believe that every person should have to carry medical insurance. How that's implemented I don't know. There are things to consider like foreign visitors, etc.

e. Again, agree but in order for insurance companies to be profitable this would require everyone to have insurance.

Shursh · Oct 08, 2009, 01:20 PM // 13:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

...

So, consider these possible solutions, possible all worked in together, and give me some feedback if you believe that it would solve this crisis. Just for my curiosity.

a. Make it significantly more difficult to sue doctors. As in, they have to be guilty of gross negligence for you to be able to sue them.

b. Institute a new tax on all US citizens - $3000/yr/individual, with families paying $1000 on their children until age 18.

c. Slightly raise sales tax on all items to California's 10%.

d. Unilaterally deny illegal aliens/immigrants medical coverage without them paying for it fully out of pocket.

e. Place much more stringent regulations on the insurance companies that would require them ultimately to make their coverage broader.

go.

A - agree

B - agree

C - this seems like overkill. if you truly had 3k from EVERYONE coming in, plus the 1k from each kid, you would have more than enough money to cover everyone. another thing to consider is the burden on families with more than one child - they get hit extra hard with the increase in sales tax as they are paying for more groceries, clothing, etc. added in with the extra 1000 for healthcare per kid. of course as with all things, there are limits - if you have 10 kids running around, maybe you SHOULD be taxed more.

D - agree, assuming it is STRICTLY enforced.

E - agree, but what do you mean by "broader"? insurance companies have to cover/accept people with pre-existing conditions, or can't drop someone if they become seriously ill and/or non-compliant with doctor-recommended post-surgery rehab?

Burst Cancel · Oct 09, 2009, 04:17 AM // 04:17

Quote:

You really won't be able to argue all your well-meaning and yet flawed arguments because you don't live with it every day.

Non sequitur. The entire category of arguments beginning with "you can't understand what it's like ..." (to be ill/poor/disabled/etc.) is worse than useless; it clouds reasoned thought about issues with appeals to emotion. Pity and guilt make poor foundations for rational policy-making.

As I've said above, health care is a limited resource, and limited resources are the root cause of much misfortune. The terminally ill in this country, though worse off than those around them, should thank whatever gods they believe in that they were not born in a country where even clean water and food, let alone health care, are unavailable. And consider which is a more effective use of funds: saving one person using an exorbitantly expensive medical treatment, or saving many by providing them basic necessities? In short, how could we justify paying for $15k/year treatments when the same money could save hundreds of others? People die every day from lack of resources, and nothing makes the plight of any of those individuals more or less significant than any other.

Certainly, great good can be done if we simply ignore the costs. Think of the lives that could be saved if all discretionary income were confiscated to pay for entitlement programs and foreign aid? After all, how could anyone justify spending money on anything above the barest minimum required to live, when there are those that cannot manage even that?

Life simply deals out a lot of bad hands, and the argument that everyone should be saved (from any number of things) is idealistic and useless.