News US To Convene a Constitutional Convention

[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.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

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.

This process would work for something like light bulbs, but switching insurance companies is a hassle. I won't want to be switching every year just to save $10. I'd like to hear other opinions. I'm also not sure why this wouldn't be relevant now. It's not like insurance companies are barely treading water. What would be done about annual rising premiums too? I know mine has doubled in just 4-5 years. Base starting price doesn't seem so meaningful anymore.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

I've disclosed my professional participation in the insurance industry in other threads. I would not expect rates to decrease by adding even 100 million people to the insured list.

There are two primary reasons - IMPO.
1.) Many of the people in this group have pre-existing conditions and will cost the insurance companies more to cover.
2.) The insurance companies won't know their maximum exposure to claims for a number of years - given open lifetime limits.



Here's a pro-Obama link that explains these "benefits".
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201103230001

 

[Drakkith]

This process would work for something like light bulbs, but switching insurance companies is a hassle. I won't want to be switching every year just to save $10. I'd like to hear other opinions. I'm also not sure why this wouldn't be relevant now. It's not like insurance companies are barely treading water. What would be done about annual rising premiums too? I know mine has doubled in just 4-5 years. Base starting price doesn't seem so meaningful anymore.

The problem is that as you age it is almost a gurantee that you WILL require healthcare. I purchased a 30 year policy (I think it was 30 years) a year or two ago that has a set premium that will not increase. I'm only 27. But I realize that if I don't do so now, purchasing a policy 10-15 years down the road will cost me far more. (Hopefully I read all the rules correctly and didn't get screwed)

The only real way to not worry about healthcare is to simply try to stay as healthy as possible to avoid having very expensive long term healthcare for something preventable. And it won't work for everyone. Accidents happen, bad things happen, and people aren't perfect. It is each persons responsibility to plan for their own future in my opinion.

 

[edpell]

What would I choose to change? Well..

I would focus more on how the constitution gets enforced. The current scheme seems to have zero enforcement.

I would limit wealth of individuals and massively limit corporations (with more employee control, complete transparency, no speech rights, no personhood, no right to insure their board of directors and senior management against lawsuits, etc...)

I would outlaw income tax. I would outlaw standing armies. I would require a balanced budget. I would require that the states have more military power than the federal government. I would limit the federal budget to less than 10% of GNP. I would make the house elections be on a national basis so minor party candidates can get elected. I would allow recall by 30% of those who voted for the candidate. I would forbid foreign aid in the constitution.

I would strengthen the right to be secure in ones person and home and car. Signed search warrants always required. I would require the budget of any spy agency to be public record.

I would require that the use of any military force outside the country require a 2/3 vote of both houses and be valid for only 90 days when it must be reauthorized.

I would forbid anyone from contributing more than 10x the minimum wage to politics per year. That is not per candidate that is total. I would forbid anyone from owning an interest in more than one media outlet and limit that interest to less than 1% of the company. I would forbid the ownership of many things by foreigners like media outlets, land, roads, ports, buildings, fishing rights, corporations, etc...

I would limit immigration to less than 1/10 of one percent per year. That is total legal and illegal. If illegal is not controlled than the legal limit would be 1/10 of one percent - the illegal rate or zero whichever is bigger.

I would place a $20,000 tax on the birth of a third child, $60,000 on the fourth, $180,000 of the fifth, ...

 

[Drakkith]

Well, I'm glad you aren't in charge edpell lol.

 

[Proton Soup]

i'd amend the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text"

it's time we correct this and remove incentives to put more people in prison.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude[STRIKE], except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,[/STRIKE] shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWg-rLYcO7o