News US To Convene a Constitutional Convention

[daveb]

Suppose they threw a Constitutional Convention Party and all of PF came as delegates. What rights, powers, or limitations on government, the market, or the People, (if any) would you espouse. In submitting your ideas, please don’t just say “the US Constitution – it’s perfect!” Specify a single aspect of the Constitution.

That’s not very helpful.

In submitting your ideas, explain (hopefully rationally) why it should be included (or not included), and what the consequences would be if your idea is not adopted. Please be realistic (no “everyone is entitled to $1000 a day, adjusted for inflation, even if they do nothing” type stuff). You don’t have to provide the specific language, just the idea.

I’ll start by allowing a national referendum, but referenda don’t pass unless it is approved by a 4/5 majority of those eligible to vote. The dangers inherent in such a process is that public opinion can be swayed such that the rights of the minority opinion can be suppressed easily by a simple majority or even a large majority of those who vote. However, a referendum is a first line of defense against a government that does not have the best interests of the people at heart.

 

[Proton Soup]

i would abolish the ability for a private bank to create the nation's money supply. the federal reserve would be outlawed, and only the government allowed to create money, and only the government be allowed to control the amount of money available in the economy. basically, Lincoln's greenback currency.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

i would abolish the ability for a private bank to create the nation's money supply. the federal reserve would be outlawed, and only the government allowed to create money, and only the government be allowed to control the amount of money available in the economy. basically, Lincoln's greenback currency.

And how would it be valued, the gold standard, GDP?

 

[SixNein]

The very first amendment I would bring up for adoption would be to include a separation between church and state. Unless the amendment was passed, the clergy would almost certainly return to power.

 

[SixNein]

i would abolish the ability for a private bank to create the nation's money supply. the federal reserve would be outlawed, and only the government allowed to create money, and only the government be allowed to control the amount of money available in the economy. basically, Lincoln's greenback currency.

The federal reserve is the government, and it does have tools to control money supply.

 

[Dotini]

I'm a retired Boeing employee. One of my former tasks was to ensure that our manufacturing designs, materials and processes as documented matched those actually used to make the airplane.

So it seriously bugs me that so much of what is accepted today as business-as-usual does not accord with what's in the Constitution. We are currently afflicted with problems of war and debt that seemingly just won't go away. So the first thing that needs fixing is Article 1, Section 8, which provides Congress with the right to declare war. Not since WWII has this power been used, yet our country has been almost continuously at war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is just as dead a letter as the Constitution itself. We have been let down by our representatives, and our system of government is compromised as a result.

We should say what we do, and do what we say.

Unfortunately, to convene a Constitutional Convention in today's polarized political hothouse could result in an outcome that could makes things far worse, so no responsible public official has the stomach to begin such an open-ended process.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[drankin]

I would propose that all real estate and businesses within our borders can only be owned by US citizens. Foreign entities can only own 49% of a corp or biz. I believe Mexico already does this, in fact.

 

[OmCheeto]

I would address the modern roots of corruption in America. The world has changed a lot since 1787, and much of the wording and ideas of the constitution, although anachronistic, are still considered sacred.

I just read the first 20 pages of Zephyr Teachout's "http://www.compliancebuilding.com/2009/01/16/the-anti-corruption-principle-in-the-us-constitution/" ". I do not recommend it to anyone other than lawyers or someone who needs to fall asleep. But there are some jewels of thought in there:

the real problem with corruption is that voters will stop voting, people will stop running for office, and citizens will stop making serious efforts to read the news and understand the public issues of their day, because they will believe that such efforts are futile

I also watched her and Monica Youn on http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01292010/watch.html" , in an interview regarding the personification of corporations by the SCOTUS. They both made some good points.

If you have Ford more focused on spending millions of dollars on trying to influence a congressional race, instead of making the best environmentally efficient car, we all lose. It moves towards a society where markets and freedom are confused, instead of both sort of separate values.

And in a system, you know, the preamble to the Constitution is all about "We the People." And it sets up a vision of representative self government. One in which the citizen is the sovereign and the citizen rules. And was "We the People" meant to include corporations, this artificial legal entity? I mean, should corporations now be able to vote? Should they be able to hold office?

The people of America should overrule the Supreme Court in this matter. The Ford Motor Company should not be allowed to run for president.

And although one of Zephyr's comments was imbedded in a larger frame, it struck me as the crux of what our constitution should establish:

...what kind of society do we want to live in?...

And that my friends, is the question I believe we should be answering, at the next Constitutional Convention! Yippie!

 

[SixNein]

I would address the modern roots of corruption in America. The world has changed a lot since 1787, and much of the wording and ideas of the constitution, although anachronistic, are still considered sacred.

I just read the first 20 pages of Zephyr Teachout's "http://www.compliancebuilding.com/2009/01/16/the-anti-corruption-principle-in-the-us-constitution/" ". I do not recommend it to anyone other than lawyers or someone who needs to fall asleep. But there are some jewels of thought in there:



I also watched her and Monica Youn on http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01292010/watch.html" , in an interview regarding the personification of corporations by the SCOTUS. They both made some good points.





The people of America should overrule the Supreme Court in this matter. The Ford Motor Company should not be allowed to run for president.

And although one of Zephyr's comments was imbedded in a larger frame, it struck me as the crux of what our constitution should establish:



And that my friends, is the question I believe we should be answering, at the next Constitutional Convention! Yippie!

I got into a very long argument once with some conservatives over the corporate ruling effectively granting citizenship to corporations. They believed it was perfectly acceptable. They framed their arguments around the idea that citizens are acting through corporations; therefore, they are exercising their rights.

 

[OmCheeto]

I got into a very long argument once with some conservatives over the corporate ruling effectively granting citizenship to corporations. They believed it was perfectly acceptable. They framed their arguments around the idea that citizens are acting through corporations; therefore, they are exercising their rights.

I didn't read the court's blurb after the ruling, so I can't say for sure that I know what it was about. Russ posted something quite a while back about a Supreme Court ruling. I, like most everyone else, read the press account of the whole thing, and sided with the liberal side. But after reading what the trial was actually about, I sided with the ruling. It was a no brainer. It wasn't even about what the press had said it was about.

I will have to find the blurb on the above ruling by the court in the morning after my dental appointment. I will let you know what I have decided.

Until then, "Decide what we want this country to be!"

 

[mege]

I would continue to emphasise the 10th Amendment regarding separation of powers between States and the Federal Government. The actual enumeration of powers for the federal government may neccessarilly change with a 'new constitution', but I feel that is a major source of policy overlap currently esspecially in cases of Federal Mandates for state-managed policies (or 'encouragements' - Welfare, Education funding, etc).


On corruption: I don't have a good solution. Everyone says 'term limits for congress!' (it seems) but that doesn't sit well with me. The Senate is supposed to be the 'professional' law makers, while the House is the everyman. I think something would need to change, neccessarilly, with the House, but term limits doesn't seem like it solves the right problem of 'being in campaign mode' the whole time. In fact, term limits creates lame duck situations with the house and could add to corruption.

I think the referendum idea may be a start to anti-corruption measures, but... look at California. Their referendum system is a mess to the point that they have laws constantly contradicting. Then there's the problem of court interference in both the CA Same-sex union case and MI with Affirmative action - those were both referendums which were 'overturned' by the courts. A new system would need to have a more stringent control in place to prevent that type of judicial activism.

 

[Pengwuino]

I would propose that all real estate and businesses within our borders can only be owned by US citizens. Foreign entities can only own 49% of a corp or biz. I believe Mexico already does this, in fact.

How is that a good thing? Can you actually show that such a concept would encourage economic growth as opposed to discourage foreign investment that inevitably create American jobs?

People should realize this is no longer the 18th century. We live in a global economy. Look at China and how Google interact. When China tries to be overlord and censor Google, we complain that China isn't encouraging free interaction with the world. Then in the next breath we want to push foreigners out of our country.

I got into a very long argument once with some conservatives over the corporate ruling effectively granting citizenship to corporations. They believed it was perfectly acceptable. They framed their arguments around the idea that citizens are acting through corporations; therefore, they are exercising their rights.

Corporations are taxed. Why should they get no voice in our government? They actually have a bigger right to a voice then say unions or the NRA or AMA or AARP in my mind.

I think the referendum idea may be a start to anti-corruption measures, but... look at California. Their referendum system is a mess to the point that they have laws constantly contradicting. Then there's the problem of court interference in both the CA Same-sex union case and MI with Affirmative action - those were both referendums which were 'overturned' by the courts. A new system would need to have a more stringent control in place to prevent that type of judicial activism.

Californias referendum system is indeed a joke. I remember a few years back, a series of around 7 measures were put to vote in order to save money in certain areas. What happens? Every measure is shot down. And of course, the election offices certainly didn't say "Well since nothing got passed, the election didn't cost any money"!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I got into a very long argument once with some conservatives over the corporate ruling effectively granting citizenship to corporations. They believed it was perfectly acceptable. They framed their arguments around the idea that citizens are acting through corporations; therefore, they are exercising their rights.

If I buy stock, do I implicitly agree to allow that company to speak on my behalf politically? No! When I buy stock, I am making a financial bet, not a political statement. I didn't sign away my rights to speak and vote for myself. They are allowed to protect my direct investment interests. That's it. This does not include landscaping the country to fit their political objectives in my name.

This notion that corporate actions are freedom of speech for stockholders is ludicrous and typifies the nonsensical right-wing brainwashing that made me turn on my own party; and now with a vengence! To me, this entire business is a betrayal of the Constitution - We the people - and requires a new amendment. Other countries have already addressed this issue and defined the difference between real people and virtual persons.

It may be that SCOTUS did their job and ruled according to the letter of the law. I can accept that. But that is a far cry from saying it shouldn't be changed. And it should. Problems like this are why we can amend the Constitution.

 

[SixNein]

If I buy stock, do I implicitly agree to allow that company to speak on my behalf politically? No! When I buy stock, I am making a financial bet, not a political statement. I didn't sign away my rights to speak and vote for myself. They are allowed to protect my direct investment interests. That's it. This does not include landscaping the country to fit their political objectives in my name.

This notion that corporate actions are freedom of speech for stockholders is ludicrous and typifies the nonsensical right-wing brainwashing that made me turn on my own party; and now with a vengence! To me, this entire business is a betrayal of the Constitution - We the people - and requires a new amendment. Other countries have already addressed this issue and defined the difference between real people and virtual persons.

It may be that SCOTUS did their job and ruled according to the letter of the law. I can accept that. But that is a far cry from saying it shouldn't be changed. And it should. Problems like this are why we can amend the Constitution.

In addition, it allows foreign entities to influence our political system via corporations.

I agree that an amendment is required to correct this problem. But there exists zero chance of that happening given the current political environment.

 

[drankin]

How is that a good thing? Can you actually show that such a concept would encourage economic growth as opposed to discourage foreign investment that inevitably create American jobs?

It is a good thing because it protects the US by not allowing outside entities to influence our industries and politics.

Encouraging economic growth by favoring our own industries without outside interests being an influence. No longer feeding on our lack of national self preservation.

Foreign investment will still be encouraged because we will continue to be the largest consumer of high end products.

 

[mege]

If I buy stock, do I implicitly agree to allow that company to speak on my behalf politically? No! When I buy stock, I am making a financial bet, not a political statement. I didn't sign away my rights to speak and vote for myself. They are allowed to protect my direct investment interests. That's it. This does not include landscaping the country to fit their political objectives in my name.

This notion that corporate actions are freedom of speech for stockholders is ludicrous and typifies the nonsensical right-wing brainwashing that made me turn on my own party; and now with a vengence! To me, this entire business is a betrayal of the Constitution - We the people - and requires a new amendment. Other countries have already addressed this issue and defined the difference between real people and virtual persons.

It may be that SCOTUS did their job and ruled according to the letter of the law. I can accept that. But that is a far cry from saying it shouldn't be changed. And it should. Problems like this are why we can amend the Constitution.

Where do you draw the line?

The motives of corporations, for their best interest, often align with a 'political' ideology. You don't think that GE lobbied for some of the green-subsidies 15 years ago knowing full well that they were already in a position to benefit from them? That was definitely in their best interest, and it was a political cause. What political motivations aren't going to affect a company's bottom line? The only instance I can think of is the amount of money that gets funneled in the name of 'non-profits' (which I feel that many are too political to be given 'non-profit' status). But again those type of contributions are often tax shelters, and the tax code encourages that type of donation (which I feel is wrong) - which affects the bottom line. Finally, what makes unions exempt from your proposed type of lobbying restrictions? They're basically super-corporations with a non-profit stamp.

Something that I am in favor of (not neccessarilly at a constitutional level, however) is that individuals aren't shielded just because of a corporation. I don't know how it'd look at a policy level, but being an actor for a company needs to carry some personal responsibility. I feel that too many people make unethical decisions just because their justification is 'for the company' without any personal recourse. Allowing an individual to be singled out, as an actor, of a corporation may increase the morals that many feel are lacking in the business world. It may cause more problems than it's worth, but still something I've always liked the idea of prima facia.

Combining my two previous points is something that's already a bit of a legal tangle - 'CEO donations' are being threatened to be made public. Are you going to eliminate an individual's right to financial and political privacy because they belong to a particular company? I own stock in GD and Google (two large government contractors), and work for the federal government - should my political donations be made public as well? I argue for more direct responsibility in my previous paragraph, but that doesn't equate to losing rights and privacy (which is why I think corporations are given certain protections that are personifications).

Lastly, I do agree that something needs to be done to combat political corruption. Decisions should be done with the best interests of the country, as a whole, in mind. However, I've never really heard of a good way to do it that both preserves the privacy of individuals and the integrity of our elected officials. Any proposal seems to harm the status quo by stripping liberties. While it may appear to be 'bad' maybe this is the best we can come up with.

(PS: I also caution against labelling Republicans as being the 'corporate party' esspecially since many of the nu-tech companies have very progressive ideals and lots of money to back them up. How much did the Democrat candidates spend in 2008 and 2010? I've seen a variety of numbers ranging from 1.5-2x the amount that Republicans did over that time span. Granted, most of that difference was the almost 2x that President Obama spend on his campaign compared to McCain. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html" over the last 20 years, what bigger corporate devil is there?!? Who's really getting the politically driven money thrown at them?)

 

[Drakkith]

I don't quite understand the "Corporate Entity" thing or whatever. If I own a business, and want to donate 10 million dollars to someone fund, that is my choice. How is that any different from a Corporation? Don't the people in charge have the right to use their money the way they want to?

This notion that corporate actions are freedom of speech for stockholders is ludicrous and typifies the nonsensical right-wing brainwashing that made me turn on my own party; and now with a vengence! To me, this entire business is a betrayal of the Constitution - We the people - and requires a new amendment. Other countries have already addressed this issue and defined the difference between real people and virtual persons.

Perhaps I don't know the details, so forgive me and educate me if I am wrong. Aren't the corporations controlled by the owners, or major shareholders, or whoever? Whenever the company has profit, isn't it they who are in direct control over it? As long as dividends and employees are paid, what is the problem with those people using their money?

 

[Dotini]

I don't quite understand the "Corporate Entity" thing or whatever. If I own a business, and want to donate 10 million dollars to someone fund, that is my choice. How is that any different from a Corporation? Don't the people in charge have the right to use their money the way they want to?

Perhaps I don't know the details, so forgive me and educate me if I am wrong. Aren't the corporations controlled by the owners, or major shareholders, or whoever? Whenever the company has profit, isn't it they who are in direct control over it? As long as dividends and employees are paid, what is the problem with those people using their money?

If corporate interests influence government through corruptions made possible by wide open spending, then that delivers government into the hands of corporations. This is one of several definitions of fascism, and is, or was, too authoritarian for most Americans.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Drakkith]

If corporate interests influence government through corruptions made possible by wide open spending, then that delivers government into the hands of corporations. This is one of several definitions of fascism, and is, or was, too authoritarian for most Americans.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Umm, that didn't answer anything I asked.

 

[SixNein]

I don't quite understand the "Corporate Entity" thing or whatever. If I own a business, and want to donate 10 million dollars to someone fund, that is my choice. How is that any different from a Corporation? Don't the people in charge have the right to use their money the way they want to?



Perhaps I don't know the details, so forgive me and educate me if I am wrong. Aren't the corporations controlled by the owners, or major shareholders, or whoever? Whenever the company has profit, isn't it they who are in direct control over it? As long as dividends and employees are paid, what is the problem with those people using their money?

A shareholder has limited ownership of a company, and he or she does not manage the company. In addition, he or she may not be aware of the political activities of the company.

 

[WhoWee]

Only taxpayers - that is people who pay federal income taxes - should be allowed to vote. Parents don't allow the children to make major spending decisions - do they?

 

[daveb]

Only taxpayers - that is people who pay federal income taxes - should be allowed to vote. Parents don't allow the children to make major spending decisions - do they?

The problem with this is that it leads to a plutocracy in several respects. First, it eliminates certain people from voting who earn little money due to religious (Jesuit priests and Buddhist monks, e.g.) or personal choice (Peace Corps volunteers).

Second, when coupled with the elimination of minimum wage laws (which you have seemed to support and which is an official platform of the libertarian party), or the ability of companies such as McDonalds to hire 20 people at 10 hours per week instead of 5 people at 40 hours per week (and even then they still might not make enough to exceed the poverty level) it means companies control who does and doesn;'t vote (to an extent).

 

[WhoWee]

The problem with this is that it leads to a plutocracy in several respects. First, it eliminates certain people from voting who earn little money due to religious (Jesuit priests and Buddhist monks, e.g.) or personal choice (Peace Corps volunteers).

Second, when coupled with the elimination of minimum wage laws (which you have seemed to support and which is an official platform of the libertarian party), or the ability of companies such as McDonalds to hire 20 people at 10 hours per week instead of 5 people at 40 hours per week (and even then they still might not make enough to exceed the poverty level) it means companies control who does and doesn;'t vote (to an extent).

What it does is eliminate persons who receive tax dollars from influencing how many dollars they receive - that is more than fair (IMO).

 

[daveb]

What it does is eliminate persons who receive tax dollars from influencing how many dollars they receive - that is more than fair (IMO).

Please don't tell me you ARE advocating a plutocracy??

 

[WhoWee]

Please don't tell me you ARE advocating a plutocracy??

Are you suggesting alien invasion (too many bugeyes IMO)

Is that a strawman you're posing?

 

[daveb]

No, I stated, in response to your advocacy of only allowing those who pay federal taxes to vote, that it could lead to a plutocracy. Your response to that was that it eliminates (I assume you mean from the voting rosters) persons who receive tax dollars from influencong how many dollars they receive. So I asked if you were advocating plutocracy? How is that an argument in any form (let alone a strawman)?

You do realize that corporations receive tax dollars (in the form of subsidies and tax breaks)? Does this mean corporations should not be allowed to vote, as Om-Cheeto quoted M. Youn as saying? Or should they not receive subsidies or tax breaks of any kind?

 

[WhoWee]

No, I stated, in response to your advocacy of only allowing those who pay federal taxes to vote, that it could lead to a plutocracy. Your response to that was that it eliminates (I assume you mean from the voting rosters) persons who receive tax dollars from influencong how many dollars they receive. So I asked if you were advocating plutocracy? How is that an argument in any form (let alone a strawman)?

You do realize that corporations receive tax dollars (in the form of subsidies and tax breaks)? Does this mean corporations should not be allowed to vote, as Om-Cheeto quoted M. Youn as saying? Or should they not receive subsidies or tax breaks of any kind?

Another strawman - this time corporate tax breaks? What exactly is a "tax break" - do you mean the $40+Billion tax credit GM received as part of the union bailout - or are we talking about GE not paying any taxes last year?

Welfare recipients should not be allowed to decide how much they will receive - is that clear enough?

 

[daveb]

Another strawman - this time corporate tax breaks?

Nice evasion (and strawman I would also say, by not answering my question and instead accusing me of using two strawman).

What exactly is a "tax break" - do you mean the $40+Billion tax credit GM received as part of the union bailout - or are we talking about GE not paying any taxes last year?

Both are tax breaks - I was against the bailouts and I am against the GE tax breaks.

Welfare recipients should not be allowed to decide how much they will receive - is that clear enough?

Yes, and I agree with this as well. Now that I've answered all of your questions directed at me, how about answering my single one. Are you advocating something (i.e., allowing only those who pay taxes to vote) that could potentially lead to a plutocracy? If not, please say so. If you think it wouldn't lead to a plutocracy, please tell me how it would not.

 

[WhoWee]

Nice evasion (and strawman I would also say, by not answering my question and instead accusing me of using two strawman).


Both are tax breaks - I was against the bailouts and I am against the GE tax breaks.


Yes, and I agree with this as well. Now that I've answered all of your questions directed at me, how about answering my single one. Are you advocating something (i.e., allowing only those who pay taxes to vote) that could potentially lead to a plutocracy? If not, please say so. If you think it wouldn't lead to a plutocracy, please tell me how it would not.

Isn't Plutocracy governance by the wealthy? I'm in favor of governance by the tax payers. Now, if only the wealthy will be paying taxes in the future - then I guess under those very strict circumstances - you got me?

 

[daveb]

Ah! Now I understnd the dissonance between us!

Plutocracy is not strictly a governance by the wealthy. It can also be "a controlling class of the wealthy" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plutocracy"
or "a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plutocracy"

No, I don't think such a move (about voting rights) would allow only the wealthy to control government. But I do believe they definitely would be able to exercise more power and influence simply by virtue of their wealth (OK the wealthy are able to do that now anyway, despite the fact that those who pay no taxes are able to vote).

 

[daveb]

By the way, how would you solve the disparity about priests, monks, Peace Corps volunteers, etc. not being able to vote by your system? Would exceptions be made for these folks?

 

[mege]

If corporate interests influence government through corruptions made possible by wide open spending, then that delivers government into the hands of corporations. This is one of several definitions of fascism, and is, or was, too authoritarian for most Americans.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

I always thought it was the other way around - Facism was the government exerting control over the corporations for nationalistic purposes?

 

[WhoWee]

Ah! Now I understnd the dissonance between us!

Plutocracy is not strictly a governance by the wealthy. It can also be "a controlling class of the wealthy" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plutocracy"
or "a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plutocracy"

No, I don't think such a move (about voting rights) would allow only the wealthy to control government. But I do believe they definitely would be able to exercise more power and influence simply by virtue of their wealth (OK the wealthy are able to do that now anyway, despite the fact that those who pay no taxes are able to vote).

Under your definition - I think we're already there and (Democrats) posture to use the "poor" and "labor" to maintain power. Conservative Republicans are easy targets because they want to limit spending and reduce Government and benefits (except when they acted like Democrats a few years ago) - the Left would say they're not very cool.

IMO - welfare should be a safety net - not a way of life. Also, nameless and faceless corporate influence should be kept in check. I consider myself an unrepresented angry independent - a small business owner and I'm not alone. We pay taxes and are steamrolled by administrative actions and legislation - like Obamacare. Ever increasing energy costs can not be passed on to consumers - yet the ideologues continue to discuss cap and trade (tax) and forced unionization (as if the current minimum wage didn't hurt enough small businesses).

President Obama was correct about one thing - he is forcing change - unfortunately for him he's speeding up the inevitable reversal of the welfare state mentality - again IMO.

 

[mege]

By the way, how would you solve the disparity about priests, monks, Peace Corps volunteers, etc. not being able to vote by your system? Would exceptions be made for these folks?

Wouldn't their virtue be their own reward? :p Why do they need to vote?!

Seriously though, I think WhoWee's real point is that individuals leeching from the system shouldn't have a say in how much they benefit. There's already precident when dealing with felons. They become wards of the state, don't contribute, and yet tax dollars go towards 30-40k/year for them. If someone cannot manage themselves to exit poverty, then why should they have a say in the government?

I don't know if I agree with this principle or not, but I see some of the principles behind it: esspecially where there is potential for some to be writing their own check.

 

[daveb]

Under your definition - I think we're already there and (Democrats) posture to use the "poor" and "labor" to maintain power. Conservative Republicans are easy targets because they want to limit spending and reduce Government and benefits (except when they acted like Democrats a few years ago) - the Left would say they're not very cool..

No disagreement there. I think it's despicable of some democrats to do this. Some republicans do it about democrat policy. I prefer reasoned debate. Demonizing helps no one.

IMO - welfare should be a safety net - not a way of life. Also, nameless and faceless corporate influence should be kept in check. I consider myself an unrepresented angry independent - a small business owner and I'm not alone. We pay taxes and are steamrolled by administrative actions and legislation - like Obamacare. Ever increasing energy costs can not be passed on to consumers - yet the ideologues continue to discuss cap and trade (tax) and forced unionization (as if the current minimum wage didn't hurt enough small businesses).

President Obama was correct about one thing - he is forcing change - unfortunately for him he's speeding up the inevitable reversal of the welfare state mentality - again IMO.

I would agree with most of this as well, except Obamacare, which (although I support) it's a sort of "cross my fingers and god I hope this works" type of support. While I agree businesses are getting steamrolled by it, I am of the opinion that something needs to be done, and no one else has proposed measures that (to my mind) have any hope of working.

Of course, I have a stake in Obamacare, since I have a girlfriend and another friend, both who have medical conditions that prevent them from getting any medical coverage, and even if they could, it wouldn't be affordable.

 

[mege]

No disagreement there. I think it's despicable of some democrats to do this. Some republicans do it about democrat policy. I prefer reasoned debate. Demonizing helps no one.



I would agree with most of this as well, except Obamacare, which (although I support) it's a sort of "cross my fingers and god I hope this works" type of support. While I agree businesses are getting steamrolled by it, I am of the opinion that something needs to be done, and no one else has proposed measures that (to my mind) have any hope of working.

Of course, I have a stake in Obamacare, since I have a girlfriend and another friend, both who have medical conditions that prevent them from getting any medical coverage, and even if they could, it wouldn't be affordable.

My favorite anti-ACA quote comes from Sen. Clinton during the 2008 campaigns: "Mandating that everyone buy health insurance to fix the health care system is like mandating that everyone buy a house to stop homelessness. It just doesn't work."

Mandating that everyone buy into a broken system doesn't solve anything, let alone the liberty consequences :/

 

[Dotini]

I always thought it was the other way around - Facism was the government exerting control over the corporations for nationalistic purposes?

Fascism has several definitions, all interesting. My favorite:

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
---Benito Mussolini

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Mandating that everyone buy into a broken system doesn't solve anything, let alone the liberty consequences :/

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that any viable scheme has to play the numbers. The more people we have in the system, the greater the chance that the cost per capita can be managed. It isn't a matter of buying into a broken system, it is a matter of fixing a broken system and how to do that. The first thing is to make the system economically viable by spreading the load.

 

[WhoWee]

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that any viable scheme has to play the numbers. The more people we have in the system, the greater the chance that the cost per capita can be managed. It isn't a matter of buying into a broken system, it is a matter of fixing a broken system and how to do that. The first thing is to make the system economically viable by spreading the load.

Actually, the first step is to determine what is broken - isolate the problem - fact find - then identify solutions - basic problem solving. That's why I keep posting with regard to applying the scientific method to the healthcare problem.

 

[mege]

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that any viable scheme has to play the numbers. The more people we have in the system, the greater the chance that the cost per capita can be managed. It isn't a matter of buying into a broken system, it is a matter of fixing a broken system and how to do that. The first thing is to make the system economically viable by spreading the load.

200million insureds versus 300million insureds makes the system viable? I think I'm missing something about economics of scale there... we're not talking a small insurance company of 1000 versus a million insureds. We're talking a 1.5x increase in the enrollment. If premiums are already rising, what is the fault? With adding more people costs go up as well, if the storys are all true and that's 100million that are flounding with lack of insurance because of prexisting conditions - then costs are going to go up a more than just proportionally with insureds.

How are economics of scale working out for the federal entitlements/psudo-insurance programs? Medicare/aid and Social security got ______ as additional folks started enrolling. I don't think the correct answer is better.

 

[WhoWee]

200million insureds versus 300million insureds makes the system viable? I think I'm missing something about economics of scale there... we're not talking a small insurance company of 1000 versus a million insureds. We're talking a 1.5x increase in the enrollment. If premiums are already rising, what is the fault? With adding more people costs go up as well, if the storys are all true and that's 100million that are flounding with lack of insurance because of prexisting conditions - then costs are going to go up a more than just proportionally with insureds.

How are economics of scale working out for the federal entitlements/psudo-insurance programs? Medicare/aid and Social security got ______ as additional folks started enrolling. I don't think the correct answer is better.

Take a quick look at what Jerry Brown is doing with Medi-Cal - they've already gone over the cliff.
http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2011/1/11/medical-faces-17b-in-funding-cuts-under-browns-budget-plan.aspx

 

[Ivan Seeking]

200million insureds versus 300million insureds makes the system viable? I think I'm missing something about economics of scale there... we're not talking a small insurance company of 1000 versus a million insureds. We're talking a 1.5x increase in the enrollment. If premiums are already rising, what is the fault? With adding more people costs go up as well, if the storys are all true and that's 100million that are flounding with lack of insurance because of prexisting conditions - then costs are going to go up a more than just proportionally with insureds.

How are economics of scale working out for the federal entitlements/psudo-insurance programs? Medicare/aid and Social security got ______ as additional folks started enrolling. I don't think the correct answer is better.

If you consider the table linked below, you will see that the most uninsured groups by age are the healthiest and most capable of paying. For example, in the 25-34 years age group, we find an uninsured rate of about 25%. Beyond cost containment generally, one problem is that as the cost of medical care and insurance skyrockets, people tend to avoid insurance until they need it. That is not a sustainable system.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032010/health/h01_001.htm

 

[WhoWee]

If you consider the table linked below, you will see that the most uninsured groups by age are the healthiest and most capable of paying. For example, in the 25-34 years age group, we find an uninsured rate of about 25%. Beyond cost containment generally, one problem is that as the cost of medical care and insurance skyrockets, people tend to avoid insurance until they need it. That is not a sustainable system.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032010/health/h01_001.htm

I suppose if the 25 to 34 year age group could find jobs - they would have employer group insurance?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I suppose if the 25 to 34 year age group could find jobs - they would have employer group insurance?

They tend to avoid insurance if not offered by the employer, which increasingly is the case and part of the problem. And the Great Republican Recession certainly didn't help.

But moving the goal post to a jobs argument won't change the fact that the current free-market model for our medical system is failing based on the minimum standards that we as a civilized society are willing to accept.

 

[WhoWee]

They tend to avoid insurance if not offered by the employer, which increasingly is the case and part of the problem. And the Great Republican Recession certainly didn't help.

But moving the goal post to a jobs argument won't change the fact that the current free-market model for our medical system is failing based on the minimum standards that we as a civilized society are willing to accept.

Come on Ivan, we both know the Government has had both hands on healthcare and insurance for a long time - Medicare is certainly not a strong and viable working model and Medicaid has become a political tool.

 

[daveb]

Come on Ivan, we both know the Government has had both hands on healthcare and insurance for a long time - Medicare is certainly not a strong and viable working model and Medicaid has become a political tool.

Yes, but the questions is, are skyrocketing health care costs because of Medicare and Medicaid? It certainly is the case that rising health care costs are responsible for the skyrocketing costs of Medicare and Medicaid, but is the reverse true? I haven't seen a convincing argument that this is the case.

I think Ivan's point is that many don't purchase the insurance since it's so expensive. If they were forced to purchase it, the insurance companies would have a net increase in revenue, allowing them to lower insurance costs across the board.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Y If they were forced to purchase it, the insurance companies would have a net increase in revenue, allowing them to lower insurance costs across the board.

Why would a company choose willingly to make less money?

 

[Drakkith]

So should a better question be "Why is healthcare costs so high?"

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, but the questions is, are skyrocketing health care costs because of Medicare and Medicaid? It certainly is the case that rising health care costs are responsible for the skyrocketing costs of Medicare and Medicaid, but is the reverse true? I haven't seen a convincing argument that this is the case.

Here's the starting point for discussion - all the insurance companies pay based on formulas related to this:
http://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/

"Overview
This website is designed to provide information on services covered by the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS). It provides more than 10,000 physician services, the associated relative value units, a fee schedule status indicator and various payment policy indicators needed for payment adjustment (i.e., payment of assistant at surgery, team surgery, bilateral surgery, etc.). The Medicare physician fee schedule pricing amounts are adjusted to reflect the variation in practice costs from area to area. A geographic practice cost index (GPCI) has been established for every Medicare payment locality for each of the three components of a procedure's relative value unit (i.e., the RVUs for work, practice expense, and malpractice). The GPCIs are applied in the calculation of a fee schedule payment amount by multiplying the RVU for each component times the GPCI for that component."

As for Medicaid - it's partly funded by the individual states - but recently expanded by the federal Government. Please take a look at "dual eligible Medicare Advantage Plans" .
Here's a few stats.
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparecat.jsp?cat=6

 

[daveb]

Why would a company choose willingly to make less money?

Well, they wouldn't choose. Perhaps a better way of stating it is that one insurance company charges a little less to attract new customers, so the rest have to follow suit, until insurance costs are manageable but still competitive.