BudMcLovin
Active Member
I applauded because CaRNiFReeK has a hell of an impressive grasp on economics. And if were going to change 1/6 of our nations economy we should do it in a way that actually improves things.
Is healthcare a right?
- Thread starter NoDrama
- Start date
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
[youtube]LVltOSC0JMQ[/youtube]
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
How did the government acquire this "responsibility" ? Did you and everybody you know consent to this?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
if they voted then yes..
CaRNiFReeK
Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior got it right. Something about having to drink water that is contaminated with industrial waste makes the people look to the government to regulate. I dunno.
The responsibility of the US government to regulate interstate commerce came in 1886 with the United States vs. Wabash case which responded to the robber barons of the railroad industry. What you might call "settled law" after more than 100 years on the books. Of course, this paved the way for the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, Social Darwinism, The Interstate Commerce Commission, Sherman Anti-Trust Act,The National Labor Union, Federation of Labor, Knights of Labor, The Gilded Age, and others, not necessarily in that order. All of these things answering the question of "Whose responsibility is it to regulate business?"
Of course US v Wabash was based on a constitutional question. So really, the government has had the responsibility since 1776; Or depending on your school of thought, 1770; or 1781 when actual independence was won.
blazin256
Well-Known Member
i think what would be better than govnt regulation would be the people storming the offices of the company doing the dumping and have them a hanging. ok maybe not a hanging but a ass kicking would suffice. why dont we the people do the regulating and not the greedy govnt? ill tell you why. we're too glued to the tv sets to care. we'll get upset but want other people to take care of it.
CaRNiFReeK
Well-Known Member
The greedy government. Hahaha! I don't mean to laugh, but this is a gross misconception. Our $14 trillion dollar economy is distributed like this: 70% Consumer consumption, 19% government, 17% investment, and -6% exports. 19% seems like a lot but 0f that 19%, the federal government spends only 7% Total GDP. State and local government spends the other 12%. Of the 7% GDP that the federal government spends, it only spends 4.2% on the military. All of the rest: Federal, State, and Local government spending provides private-sector goods and services (infrastructure). What makes the politicians fabulously rich is when the consumer (labor unions, corporation, or other private sources) give money to give them incentive to regulate their industry in a way that they (the consumer) find favorable.
The -6% exports is negative because the United States consumer imports 6% more than it produces. In the US, it is the consumer that is greedy. NOT the government.
Source: US Department of Commerce
CaRNiFReeK
Well-Known Member
4.2% of 14T equates to 588 billion. With your forgiveness, I should admit that I am quoting 2007 GDP because that is the economic data I am feeding you, (it is what is in my textbook). In 2008, however, when the stimulus was passed, GDP was at $16T. 4.2% of 16T is 672B. That get us any closer? I mean really... What is 13 billion between friends?
Lol, I see your point. All I can say is that I trust the numbers because I try not to be paranoid about it. I am trying to learn this stuff, and I find it harder to learn if I let my mind wander into conspiracy theories. I know that seems like a poorly thought out answer, but... there it is. I will ask my ECON professor on Monday why we should trust these numbers. I'm more than a little curious myself.
Regardless of the GDP, the way the pie is distributed has not really changed much in the last 100 years. The way each slice allocates it's share has changed a little, though.
Yeah you can lose a lot of weight by eating a high fat diet. BTW there is more than one kind of fat, not everything is transfat. Sugar is the main culprit in peoples visceral fat, which is the worst kind of fat to have on your body, the kind around your belly. Without some fat intake your brain and life itself will cease. Fat in and of itself is not the main culprit and it is unfair to think of all fat is being bad for you, it simply is not so. Of course the Healthcare business wants you to think its all bad for you, then they can sell you all kinds of drugs to make you lose weight, the only side affects being loss of sexual appetite, headaches, breast enlargement on men and anal leakage. Somehow I see the new and improved government run healthcare business being sidelined by medical quackery.
ganja girl
New Member
No, healthcare is not a right. The government should get out of the way of free enterprise and allow policies to be written across state lines. That would lower premiums significantly.
Also they should go back to the way healthcare used to be bought. You could buy a policy to cover your doctor bills and a separate policy for hospital bills. You could mix and match no problem. But our politicians decided that we should not have choices.
Back in the 1960's if you didn't have insurance and you needed surgery or medical care you got it free if you were willing to allow an intern to learn from your case. You were treated by a real MD and the intern came along for the ride, kinda like House. Actually multiple interns. I know because I was treated that way when I was a little kid.
People, please, stop sucking from the nipple of socialism. There really are answers other than ObamaCare.
Also they should go back to the way healthcare used to be bought. You could buy a policy to cover your doctor bills and a separate policy for hospital bills. You could mix and match no problem. But our politicians decided that we should not have choices.
Back in the 1960's if you didn't have insurance and you needed surgery or medical care you got it free if you were willing to allow an intern to learn from your case. You were treated by a real MD and the intern came along for the ride, kinda like House. Actually multiple interns. I know because I was treated that way when I was a little kid.
People, please, stop sucking from the nipple of socialism. There really are answers other than ObamaCare.
CaRNiFReeK
Well-Known Member
Yeah. I wasn't speaking against fat. I have heard of no measures that are going to tax fatty foods. I have heard of places that are planning to outlaw and/or tax trans fats, (the bad fats) and sweets. I thought I was specific. I'll have to go back and re-read.
Damn right!
Free? I'm suspicious of anything I get for free. Since interns don't get paid, I would not have a problem with that. I'm not interested in receiving free goods needed to perform that service, though. Incidentally, I'm not interested in paying $15 bucks for a band-aid, either.
Once again, DAMN RIGHT!
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Interesting. If voting is the way to acquire the ability to control another persons life, is it acceptable to use force on those that would prefer not to participate in the outcome of the vote? In other words what if a person falls in the minority, must they accept the outcome of the vote? In all cases? Does this bring any unintended consequences?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
In 1781 "when independence was won". Are we still "independent" ? If we are, wouldn't that mean people would choose whether or not they purchase something?
The Interstate Commerce clause is very abused, in my opinion it has been used to justify the unwarranted expansion of power by government. Perhaps you are familiar with the Wickard decision, wherein the government decided what an "independent" farmer could and could not grow? Because you are on this website, I'll assume that you are aware there are other plants that the government has deemed unacceptable. That doesn't make me feel very independent, not being able to choose what I cangrow without being harmed.
It would be horrible if people were forced to do anything, certainly making somebody drink contaminated water would be outrageous. Ever wonder who is responsible for "contaminating" much of the soils and water in the World?
It appears we have a different opinion on the value of government. Do you believe a government using force is an acceptable thing?
Pretty sure they read the whole thread and read every one of your posts and decided you have an opinion that they (and I) do not agree with.
I'm pretty sure if they read the thread they addressed none of what I've said and responded with tired talking points from the 1950's.
ganja girl
New Member
I was self-employed until I sold out in 1999. All employees were offered Blue Cross, the best BC policy I could find, after 90 days. Yes, I was covered under the same policy.
I had an employee that I paid $15/hour with 2 weeks paid vacation and offered her Blue Cross. She declined and I gave her the money that I would have paid for health insurance in her paycheck. A few months later she discovered she had breast cancer. She is still alive and doing well, thank goodness. She has received care through her doctor and that doctor knows how to work the system. She had surgery and continued chemo off and on for 12 years. She has not paid one penny for her own health care.
She could easily of had the coverage I offered, but her choice was to go for the money. Now we are all paying for her poor decision.
Edit - She could of signed up for BC after the discovery of cancer and still decided not to. Of course, her cancer would not of been covered for the next 12 months. But after that full coverage. And yes, she is still uninsured and still working for the company I sold out to.