states suing over a bill they get money for
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
...then it perhaps should reflect the aspiration of the present rather than bury itself in the past.
As I said earlier, the principles of the Constitution aren't the problem. It's the fact that the American people - politicians especially - have drifted away from those principles. The Constitution is timeless and will never become outdated. It was written to be so.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
It could be argued that if the populous and your elected representatives have drifted away from those principles that you mentioned, then perhaps the US Constitution is in fact dead and need of a wholesale re-write that addresses these new principles. OR, the US Constitution IS a living breathing statute that must adopt itself to its present environment. The US Constitution, as written a couple hundred years or so ago, by its authors, were reflecting on that epoch. However, I do note that no longer do you travel usually by horseback to and from work, thus a revolution has occurred, and why so not for such a document.
-
I'm not for any government regulations on insurance companies. The only place government has in this matter is enforcing the contract you signed with your insurance company. With all of the extra money that would be flowing through the economy if the government would just back off, people would be more charitable to private organizations which would take care of those in need. Instead the government forcibly confiscates our money, and creates political weaponry by buying votes and subsidizing degeneracy. They have nearly everything now, banking and financial industry, healthcare, education, transportation, and they are working hard on communications (ie internet). Everything down here turns to crap while the controllers fly high above in jets like this. This is a private jet of an african dictator.[^]
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They have nearly everything now, banking and financial industry, healthcare, education, transportation, and they are working hard on communications (ie internet).
Don't get me wrong, I'm a small-government kind of guy. But we do have a serious problem with our health care delivery. I'm a diabetic and a heart patient, so I know a little about that. But we won't have ideas without discussion. And stuff like this forum is a good place for a lot of us to get together and raise a little hell and toss ideas back and forth. I don't subscribe to your dark conspiracy stuff, but I do recognize that the country has drifted too far to the left. This nonsense of gov't health care in America is a symptom of that leftward drift. If the rest of the world wants it, that's their business. It has no place here.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
It could be argued that if the populous and your elected representatives have drifted away from those principles that you mentioned, then perhaps the US Constitution is in fact dead and need of a wholesale re-write that addresses these new principles. OR, the US Constitution IS a living breathing statute that must adopt itself to its present environment. The US Constitution, as written a couple hundred years or so ago, by its authors, were reflecting on that epoch. However, I do note that no longer do you travel usually by horseback to and from work, thus a revolution has occurred, and why so not for such a document.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
US Constitution is in fact dead and need of a wholesale re-write that addresses these new principles
"New principles" aren't the problem. It's the general lack of principles in DC that's pushing us into the gutter. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of the US Constitution. It does not provide a list of rights for the people. What is does is provide a list of limitations on government. Our government needs to be reigned back in so that it remains within those limits.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
US Constitution is in fact dead and need of a wholesale re-write that addresses these new principles
"New principles" aren't the problem. It's the general lack of principles in DC that's pushing us into the gutter. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of the US Constitution. It does not provide a list of rights for the people. What is does is provide a list of limitations on government. Our government needs to be reigned back in so that it remains within those limits.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
More specifically, it provides a list of rights for the federal government... The basic premise is that the people hold all of the rights/power, and we grant certain rights/power to the states, and certain rights/power to the federal government. Not really disagreeing with you... Just a point of semantics. In effect, it is setting limits for the federal government, but it's stated to say that "By default, the federal government, would have no power at all, but we're letting you do X, Y, and Z." As opposed to "You can do anything as long as you don't do A, B, or C."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
US Constitution is in fact dead and need of a wholesale re-write that addresses these new principles
"New principles" aren't the problem. It's the general lack of principles in DC that's pushing us into the gutter. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of the US Constitution. It does not provide a list of rights for the people. What is does is provide a list of limitations on government. Our government needs to be reigned back in so that it remains within those limits.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Fire Department: "Sorry, your neighbor didn't pay their fire coverage bill, so we're not allowed to put it out... Yes, I know it's spreading to your house, but if we act before it crosses the property line, we could get sued."
Most fire departments are volunteers supported primarily by donations and grants. And the gov't money they do receive is generally from either the county or the state. Once again, local issues, not federal. I'm not arguing with you, just thought I'd point that out for... the sake of argument? :)
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
Not how it works in my neck of the woods (NYC), at least I don't think so... But yeah, I remember back when I lived in the suburbs, we had a volunteer fire department. Not sure how much of the money came from the government and how much from elsewhere. Still, I don't think a fire department would function, in most places, without some government funding. The hardware they use isn't cheap.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
More specifically, it provides a list of rights for the federal government... The basic premise is that the people hold all of the rights/power, and we grant certain rights/power to the states, and certain rights/power to the federal government. Not really disagreeing with you... Just a point of semantics. In effect, it is setting limits for the federal government, but it's stated to say that "By default, the federal government, would have no power at all, but we're letting you do X, Y, and Z." As opposed to "You can do anything as long as you don't do A, B, or C."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
...As opposed to "You can do anything as long as you don't do A, B, or C."
Exactly. You said it better than I did. And that comes back to my original point a fews screens back: The whole issue boils down to whether the fed has the right under the Constitution (via the commerce clause) to force people into a private sector purchase. I do not believe gov't has this power, as such things have always been the purview of the states. And if may get mildly pissy for a moment, I am sick and tired of the damn government meddling in my life. Every time I read the news, there's some new thing the gov't plans to inflict upon the people. Enough already!!! (ok, got that off my chest :laugh:)
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Thank you Alan. A most interesting discussion :) Should you be so interested, this private members forum exists http://www.codeproject.com/Members/Soap-Box-1-0[^]. I am happy to sponsor your membership.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I am happy to sponsor your membership.
Sounds good. Thanks. :)
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They have nearly everything now, banking and financial industry, healthcare, education, transportation, and they are working hard on communications (ie internet).
Don't get me wrong, I'm a small-government kind of guy. But we do have a serious problem with our health care delivery. I'm a diabetic and a heart patient, so I know a little about that. But we won't have ideas without discussion. And stuff like this forum is a good place for a lot of us to get together and raise a little hell and toss ideas back and forth. I don't subscribe to your dark conspiracy stuff, but I do recognize that the country has drifted too far to the left. This nonsense of gov't health care in America is a symptom of that leftward drift. If the rest of the world wants it, that's their business. It has no place here.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
Alan Burkhart wrote:
But we do have a serious problem with our health care delivery.
That is due to all of the government regulations. You really should check out this documentary by Milton Friedman called Free to Choose. Here is a post I made with a description and set of links for that documentary.[^]
Alan Burkhart wrote:
I don't subscribe to your dark conspiracy stuff
I don't know what you mean. Are you denying that the government wants more control and is in the (mostly successful) process of seizing control over major economic and societal infrastructure? Do you deny that the government (and those involved with the government such as the UN) want to disarm the public? Are you denying that our fundamental rights are being eroded such as the right to privacy, and property rights, and our right to choose what kind of healthcare is best for us as an individual? Your right to choose what kind of education your children receive? Hmm?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I am happy to sponsor your membership.
Sounds good. Thanks. :)
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
...As opposed to "You can do anything as long as you don't do A, B, or C."
Exactly. You said it better than I did. And that comes back to my original point a fews screens back: The whole issue boils down to whether the fed has the right under the Constitution (via the commerce clause) to force people into a private sector purchase. I do not believe gov't has this power, as such things have always been the purview of the states. And if may get mildly pissy for a moment, I am sick and tired of the damn government meddling in my life. Every time I read the news, there's some new thing the gov't plans to inflict upon the people. Enough already!!! (ok, got that off my chest :laugh:)
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
Yeah, I think that's at least a gray area, if not a bit over the line. The trouble is... what's the solution? It's a clash between economics and morals, really. The root of the problem is that, as an example, John Doe can crawl into the ER with a gunshot wound, and even though he has no money and no insurance, the hospital has to save his life. That treatment costs money, and that means the rest of us are paying for it. Now, unless you want to change that policy, and have the hospital ask for an insurance card before they even put you on the gurney (Morally questionable at best), this means that lower-income people/families have an incentive NOT to get insurance. Why bother? If the hospital tries to bill them, they can just declare bankruptcy... Their credit rating sucks anyway. More importantly, since they don't have insurance, it costs them a non-trivial amount of money to get a regular checkup, which they might well decide they can't afford. I think it's pretty well-proven that preventative care is, in the long run and in aggregate, cheaper than emergency room care. In other words, getting those people to go in for regular checkups, even if we're paying for them, is cheaper than the emergency care they'll need later. Just like requiring a yearly car inspection is cheaper than cleaning up the mess when your brakes fail. So given those assumptions (Correct me if I'm wrong on any of them), what's the best solution to minimize those expenses?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Not how it works in my neck of the woods (NYC), at least I don't think so... But yeah, I remember back when I lived in the suburbs, we had a volunteer fire department. Not sure how much of the money came from the government and how much from elsewhere. Still, I don't think a fire department would function, in most places, without some government funding. The hardware they use isn't cheap.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)One of my best friends is a volunteer fireman in Mendenhall, MS. Just his fire suit costs several thousand dollars. They get donations from individuals, businesses and charitable orgs. Their gov't money comes in the form of grants from the county. Pretty funny how people who would NEVER think about donating suddenly empty their wallets once good old Station 7 saves their house. Station 7[^]
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Click the link I gave, apply, your application is awaited by the moderator as I write ...
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Click the link I gave, apply, your application is awaited by the moderator as I write ...
Clicked the Apply button, and the next page said "JoinGroup" was successful. Couldn't access the homepage just yet.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Click the link I gave, apply, your application is awaited by the moderator as I write ...
Clicked the Apply button, and the next page said "JoinGroup" was successful. Couldn't access the homepage just yet.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Yeah, I think that's at least a gray area, if not a bit over the line. The trouble is... what's the solution? It's a clash between economics and morals, really. The root of the problem is that, as an example, John Doe can crawl into the ER with a gunshot wound, and even though he has no money and no insurance, the hospital has to save his life. That treatment costs money, and that means the rest of us are paying for it. Now, unless you want to change that policy, and have the hospital ask for an insurance card before they even put you on the gurney (Morally questionable at best), this means that lower-income people/families have an incentive NOT to get insurance. Why bother? If the hospital tries to bill them, they can just declare bankruptcy... Their credit rating sucks anyway. More importantly, since they don't have insurance, it costs them a non-trivial amount of money to get a regular checkup, which they might well decide they can't afford. I think it's pretty well-proven that preventative care is, in the long run and in aggregate, cheaper than emergency room care. In other words, getting those people to go in for regular checkups, even if we're paying for them, is cheaper than the emergency care they'll need later. Just like requiring a yearly car inspection is cheaper than cleaning up the mess when your brakes fail. So given those assumptions (Correct me if I'm wrong on any of them), what's the best solution to minimize those expenses?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
So given those assumptions (Correct me if I'm wrong on any of them), what's the best solution to minimize those expenses?
There's no easy answer. Allow me to share a couple of things here: Like most people I've had to visit the ER a few times over the years. I broke my right ankle and fibula(sp?) last February. Hurt like crazy. I drove myself to the ER and they met me outside with a wheel chair. Service was courteous but lukewarm until I laid the Blue Cross card on the admissions counter. Then I was suddenly the most important guy in the world. It was MY hospital. I swear, it was almost like a hotel. Two yrs ago I had a mild heart attack (even the mild ones don't feel mild) and ended up getting a stent. The day after the surgery I was lying in bed and a nurse walked in and casually inquired as to how I felt. I told her I had a slight headache and requested a Tylenol. Mind you, not a severe headache. Just mildly worrisome. Moments later they were poking my head into this monster machine for a scan. I was in a rage, and pointedly asking them if they'd be doing this if I did not have insurance. Blue Cross was equally furious and refused to pay for the scan, as did I. I never did get my Tylenol. My point is this: Hospitals are painfully expensive to operate. And with so many people not paying their bills, they end up gouging other patients and insurance companies to take up the slack. This is wrong of course, but if they didn't do it they might end up O-O-B and then there wouldn't be a hospital. This practice also has the effect of driving up premiums for you and me. This increases the likelihood of people dropping their coverage, which just continues to feed the vicious cycle. Several west coast hospitals have CLOSED their ERs because they just plain ran out of money. The problem? People (mostly illegal immigrants in this case) using the ERs for "free" primary care. They'd just come in with a sniffle, get treated and leave. No intention of ever paying the bill. As to a solution, I am unsure. If I had one I'd shout it from the rooftops. I believe that a system in which gov't subsidizes catastrophic illness and injury and leaves private sector insurance to handle the rest might be an option. That should help keep premiums cheaper, allowing more people to voluntarily buy insurance. The Democrats' current plan (which I've studied quite a bit) is sure to drive costs upward and degrade the quality of care. They're just taking on t
-
I'll look forward to it. Awaiting approval at the moment.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So given those assumptions (Correct me if I'm wrong on any of them), what's the best solution to minimize those expenses?
There's no easy answer. Allow me to share a couple of things here: Like most people I've had to visit the ER a few times over the years. I broke my right ankle and fibula(sp?) last February. Hurt like crazy. I drove myself to the ER and they met me outside with a wheel chair. Service was courteous but lukewarm until I laid the Blue Cross card on the admissions counter. Then I was suddenly the most important guy in the world. It was MY hospital. I swear, it was almost like a hotel. Two yrs ago I had a mild heart attack (even the mild ones don't feel mild) and ended up getting a stent. The day after the surgery I was lying in bed and a nurse walked in and casually inquired as to how I felt. I told her I had a slight headache and requested a Tylenol. Mind you, not a severe headache. Just mildly worrisome. Moments later they were poking my head into this monster machine for a scan. I was in a rage, and pointedly asking them if they'd be doing this if I did not have insurance. Blue Cross was equally furious and refused to pay for the scan, as did I. I never did get my Tylenol. My point is this: Hospitals are painfully expensive to operate. And with so many people not paying their bills, they end up gouging other patients and insurance companies to take up the slack. This is wrong of course, but if they didn't do it they might end up O-O-B and then there wouldn't be a hospital. This practice also has the effect of driving up premiums for you and me. This increases the likelihood of people dropping their coverage, which just continues to feed the vicious cycle. Several west coast hospitals have CLOSED their ERs because they just plain ran out of money. The problem? People (mostly illegal immigrants in this case) using the ERs for "free" primary care. They'd just come in with a sniffle, get treated and leave. No intention of ever paying the bill. As to a solution, I am unsure. If I had one I'd shout it from the rooftops. I believe that a system in which gov't subsidizes catastrophic illness and injury and leaves private sector insurance to handle the rest might be an option. That should help keep premiums cheaper, allowing more people to voluntarily buy insurance. The Democrats' current plan (which I've studied quite a bit) is sure to drive costs upward and degrade the quality of care. They're just taking on t
Alan Burkhart wrote:
There's no easy answer.
From an American point of view, I would probably agree. But from a country that has a public funded (from taxation) National Health Service, the size of your bank balance or the colour/style/name of any card you might be carrying is wholly irrelevant. If you need A&E treatment, then it is ALWAYS free at the point of delivery. A millionaire will be treated no differently from a pauper. Don't matter what ails you - broken bone(s), coronary heart disease, kidney problems, motor vehicle accident - the cost to the patient is £NIL. As you suggest, it is expensive, as are the drugs budget within a hospital environment. But, within the UK there also exists privatized care where you can purchase BUPA insurance and have your hip replacement a little quicker than through public funded NHS hospitals. And arrangements exist where NHS patients can be treated by private care at public expense. In terms of "preventative" measures, in many cases that exercise is wasteful in terms of time (yours and their's) and money, yet other measures such as eye tests can highlight a problem before it becomes a proper problem.
-
You say "Rush Limbaugh" like it's a bad thing. He's a tad obnoxious, but he's dead-on accurate about 95% of the time.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Tim Craig wrote:
If he ask you politely, you can politely say no. Get over it.
I never said I wouldn't be polite. Where'd that come from? :confused:
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Thank you Alan. A most interesting discussion :) Should you be so interested, this private members forum exists http://www.codeproject.com/Members/Soap-Box-1-0[^]. I am happy to sponsor your membership.