It was a question, just being pointed about it. People like you won't stop at nationalizing health care. Where will you stop?
Communistic bas .
"Health care works fine in the free market"
You Lie.
For-profit health insurance is an inhumane disaster.
Health providers are vastly overpaid, so that USA pays twice for health care vs other industrial countries, and they provide universal converage, and get better health results
Lying bas .
private enterprise works fine in many places.
the financial sector and health care sectors are totally ed up, and they love the profits from being ed up. Only the govt can solve those situations.
So you support the communistic takeover of all free market activities then, right?
I mean, really. This was your take.
Maybe in your fantasy world it does.
How about turning it into a government-provided service?
Would that acquiesce your concerns? I somehow doubt that it will.
Consider bouton's normal MO, and think again.
Some is necessary. If you look back, this starts when i argue against the term "public option" stating that the free market should be the standard. Not the government. We already have a "government option."
TBH, I expect better from you than to lower yourself at that level of irrationality. Perhaps my expectations are unfounded.
And I disagree. I think the free market as we know it has much different goals than the caring, well-being of the population. A role that the government already has taken in a number of other services provided to the public (IE: police force, education, etc).
In most things, I will contend government is the problem. Not the solution.
Has the Department of Education done anything worth while that justifies the ever increasing rising costs of education? You can apply it to most any government program. It is ineffective, and becomes a means for political forces to control the masses.
Do you believe in the tenth amendment, or not?
I like to analyze on a case by case basis.
By and large education spending increases can be traced back to increases in population and the fact that certain things such as technology in the classroom is a requisite in the formation of today's kids.
What's the Department of Education to do about that?
Is there some form of wasteful spending in that system? I don't know first hand, but it wouldn't shock me if you found some.
Ultimately, it might be the price to pay to have genuine interest in the education of our children. Tell me how a corporation that has a fiduciary duty to to maximize earnings to their shareholders will prioritize the children over the shareholders. It's a fallacy. In the same vein, I see the same conflict of interests brewing on the health insurance business, and the la ude of control they're been afforded in medical decisions.
What does the 10th amendment has to do with services provided by the government? If this is an attempt at a strawman, it's really badly played.
A Federal Department of Education by its very existence is wasteful spending. They don't educate a single student. Education is historically a local issue and should stay a local issue.By and large education spending increases can be traced back to increases in population and the fact that certain things such as technology in the classroom is a requisite in the formation of today's kids.
What's the Department of Education to do about that?
Is there some form of wasteful spending in that system? I don't know first hand, but it wouldn't shock me if you found some.
Yep. ElNono won't admit it, but doesn't believe in States Rights.
I wouldn't have a problem with a State-run Dept. of Education. Still a government en y.
Don't run away from my post. We're discussing services provided by the government (which can be at any level as far as I'm concerned), versus your free market solutions. It's interesting how you decided to respond by proxy without addressing the points I brought up in my post.
But I have to gather from your post that you would be OK with a state-run healthcare service for it's residents? Somehow I don't think that's what you mean.
Neither would I, or should I say not as much as the federal bureaucracy.
The federal government does too much that should be reserved for the state, or the people.
Ultimately, that's your opinion. Certainly respectable, I should add.
That said, Congress is not violating any laws or rights by ins uting federal en ies, and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
To clarify, my biggest complaing is federal government programs. Not state. Now as I disagree with many state run programs, at least it isn't one all encompassing blanket.
Yes, and no. I will acknowledge the states rights to do it. I will maintain it is uncons utional for the federal government to do it.
Thing with being a republic is we aren't suppose to have everything dictated by one governmental bureaucracy. We can have in essence 50 different experiments going on at once. If something actually works, then by choice, each state can adopt the policy. Let the free marketplace of ideas work, with the best ones winning, and the bad ones being scrapped. With one "fit everyone" scenario, what do we have to compare it against?
Now I will still disagree with single payer health care, or mandatory insurances. Again however, at least I will acknowledge states rights.
We disagree on that. They do too much under the guise of interstate commerce that I will contend, was never meant to be within their power.
Please read the tenth amendment carefully.
I read the Supreme Court interpretation of it, which eventually it's what gives it it's weight:
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Cons ution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.....
Pretty clear cut I'd say.
...
Well, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your legal interpretations with any degree of seriousness.
It's interesting that you point this out, because a public service doesn't preempt private services. The fact that you want to prohibit a different 'idea' from competing with the other ideas out there is very anti-free market actually... If you have little doubt that private services are so superior and will win out on the merits, then what are you scared of?
It's really irrelevant which layer of government runs it as far as I'm concerned. What's important to me is that their priority is with the general population, not a small group of shareholders.
Free market is great for some things.
Preying upon the sick for profits should not be one of them. The health care industry should be a non-profit industry. Period. Only keep what they need to run operations and expand facilities for more medical care.
The rest of any earnings made should go back into funding research and development. The Health care industry would fund the nation's/world's medical breakthroughs instead of all that money going into already wealthy heads who want to buy another 10 million dollar yacht.
The right to access medical care so that you can go to work, live your life, and be happy should not be a debate.
Nobody should be allowed to raise the prices of medical care in order to turn profits.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote