News What are other countries doing that the U.S. should be doing?

[Mech_Engineer]

By the way, I do like the idea of helathcare plans being attached to the family, not the employee's employer/job.

 

[turbo]

Coverage premiums (like any insurance) should be based on the person's odds of requiring expensive medical care.

There's the rub, IMO. How do you know that your child is liable to come down with pancreatic cancer? If (s)he does, under current laws, the insurance company can drop your family under arcane rescission rules, and you won't possibly have the money or legal resources to prevail against them.

IMO, we all need to share the costs of health-care, and we all need to share the risks. I never had any children, yet fully 50% of my property taxes every year for the last 35 years have gone to educate other peoples' kids, since Maine uses property taxes to fund our educational system. Is it "fair"? I don't know, but it's workable, and education is just as valuable IMO as infrastructure.

If I only drive a couple of thousand miles a year (yes, this is my situation), should I pay the same road-use taxes that everyone else does, even if they put on 20-30K miles a year? I have a 2010 Honda Ridgeline that will be pristine (and hopefully antique!) when I am long-gone. The cost of monitoring/rationing usage of public resources like this would be too high, so I'm resigned to paying my fair share. I feel the same way about health-care.

 

[WhoWee]

What policies/actions are other countries implementing to grow their economies that the U.S. could learn from and emulate? Emphasis on fast-growing developing countries, such as China, India and Brazil.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43359312/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/"

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2043235,00.html"

I don't see any evidence that universal healthcare is the secret to their success - can we get back on topic please?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

There's the rub, IMO. How do you know that your child is liable to come down with pancreatic cancer?

That's what actuaries are for.

If (s)he does, under current laws, the insurance company can drop your family under arcane rescission rules, and you won't possibly have the money or legal resources to prevail against them.

I don't think someone should be dropped from coverage they have if/when they develop a problem. It's worth looking into fixing this loophole (if it exists). What "arcane recission rules" are you specifically referring to?

IMO, we all need to share the costs of health-care, and we all need to share the risks.

That's the very definition of insurance- everyone pays premiums for coverage against an expensive problem. The point is that everyone needs to pay their required share based on their added risk to the group (take for example car insurance, people with lots of speeding tickets pay more).

I never had any children, yet fully 50% of my property taxes every year for the last 35 years have gone to educate other peoples' kids, since Maine uses property taxes to fund our educational system. Is it "fair"? I don't know, but it's workable, and education is just as valuable IMO as infrastructure.

I'm just going to leave this. As it is, this thread is going to get completely bogged down in healthcare alone.

If I only drive a couple of thousand miles a year (yes, this is my situation), should I pay the same road-use taxes that everyone else does, even if they put on 20-30K miles a year? I have a 2010 Honda Ridgeline that will be pristine (and hopefully antique!) when I am long-gone. The cost of monitoring/rationing usage of public resources like this would be too high, so I'm resigned to paying my fair share. I feel the same way about health-care.

Sounds to me like you're arguring for a Fair Tax. What are your feelings on it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

 

[Al68]

IMO, we all need to share the costs of health-care, and we all need to share the risks.

Nothing Marxist or socialist about that ideology at all, is there?

But you left out the most important word: force. We're talking about using force against people to compel them to "share". Unless you were just advocating asking nicely?

 

[Ryumast3r]

Nothing Marxist or socialist about that ideology at all, is there?

But you left out the most important word: force. We're talking about using force against people to compel them to "share". Unless you were just advocating asking nicely?

I believe the difference here is that if you don't put into the healthcare system, it hurts everyone else. People who don't have health insurance and end up getting an expensive procedure done that can't afford it get off paying relatively little, which in turn raises the prices for everyone else. If everyone pays into the insurance pool, the amount of money that doesn't get paid becomes very little, and the price of everything drops as a result since now hospitals/doctors/the businesses aren't having to fork out the money that wasn't paid for through insurance/cash.

I advocate free market (with regulations) in a lot of things, but there's a few things I prefer the socialist way, those things include military, healthcare, and public safety.

And yes, it IS Socialist. LE GASP, I SAID IT. Get over it. It's just another ideology that has extremes, and good ideas, just like every other ideology.

 

[WhoWee]

I believe the difference here is that if you don't put into the healthcare system, it hurts everyone else. People who don't have health insurance and end up getting an expensive procedure done that can't afford it get off paying relatively little, which in turn raises the prices for everyone else. If everyone pays into the insurance pool, the amount of money that doesn't get paid becomes very little, and the price of everything drops as a result since now hospitals/doctors/the businesses aren't having to fork out the money that wasn't paid for through insurance/cash.

I advocate free market (with regulations) in a lot of things, but there's a few things I prefer the socialist way, those things include military, healthcare, and public safety.

And yes, it IS Socialist. LE GASP, I SAID IT. Get over it. It's just another ideology that has extremes, and good ideas, just like every other ideology.

We already have "Obamacare" - it hasn't fixed the economy - nor will it - again IMO. Can we please return to the OP?

 

[Al68]

I believe the difference here is that if you don't put into the healthcare system, it hurts everyone else. People who don't have health insurance and end up getting an expensive procedure done that can't afford it get off paying relatively little, which in turn raises the prices for everyone else. If everyone pays into the insurance pool, the amount of money that doesn't get paid becomes very little, and the price of everything drops as a result since now hospitals/doctors/the businesses aren't having to fork out the money that wasn't paid for through insurance/cash.

I advocate free market (with regulations) in a lot of things, but there's a few things I prefer the socialist way, those things include military, healthcare, and public safety.

And yes, it IS Socialist. LE GASP, I SAID IT. Get over it. It's just another ideology that has extremes, and good ideas, just like every other ideology.

Well, you get points for honesty. I have never understood the need to espouse socialist policy then object to the word socialist. My response was specific to turbo-1 who routinely objects to the words "socialist" and "Marxist" to refer to such beliefs. And it's irrelevant and silly, anyway. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

As to your point, the cure doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse. The people who aren't paying their medical bills are the same people to be subsidized by the cure, not the people being forced to buy something they don't want or need, who currently have medical insurance. And I'm referring to the requirement to buy a comprehensive Cadillac health plan, not just basic medical insurance, which is outlawed by Obamacare.

But all that has been discussed extensively in other threads, the bottom line is that no matter what advocates say, I, and many others, never joined the "healthcare system" you speak of. Never have, never will (which in no way means uninsured, it means not part of a government system). It only means uninsured in the future because "non-system" medical insurance will be outlawed.

It's interesting that so many people have so little value for individual liberty. So little value that they dismiss it out of hand instead of addressing it. So little that they justify the use of force to control people, instead of voluntary peaceful transactions, simply because they think what is being forced on people is "better", as if that made liberty an irrelevant concept.

To many of us, liberty and peaceful co-existence is better than any "healthcare system' socialists can think up to impose on people by force.

 

[AlephZero]

But you left out the most important word: force. We're talking about using force against people to compel them to "share". Unless you were just advocating asking nicely?

It doesn't need any force, only leadership.

Here's a deal: you have 3 choices.

1. You can pay a fixed rate of $100 a year to "share", and what you get back is determined by what you need, not what you pay in.
2. You can pay protection money. This starts at $200 a year. Half of that goes straight into the pockets of the racketeers (sorry, the health insurance administrators etc) and you will only get anything back if the racketeers can't find a reason to stop the payments. Note, if you DO get some money back, your protection payments will be increased to make sure the nice racketeers don't lose any more money in the long term.
3. You can pay nothing, and take your chance on being able to afford any bills as they arise.

Oh, and once option 1 is actually up and running, anybody bone headed enough to choose options 2 and 3 gets no bail out from option 1. Let them die in the streets and bury them in a mass grave, if they can't afford anything better.

Of course the problem in getting from here to there is obvious: the racketeers don't like the idea of being put out of business by option 1. Oh dear, what a pity, never mind, stay as you are then. The rest of the world doesn't care that your life expectancy is going down while theirs is going up.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Well, you get points for honesty. I have never understood the need to espouse socialist policy then object to the word socialist. My response was specific to turbo-1 who routinely objects to the words "socialist" and "Marxist" to refer to such beliefs. And it's irrelevant and silly, anyway. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Apologize for the rough way it came out, had an argument right before I posted that so I was a little on edge, haha.

Anyway: I disagree with using Marxist, simply because most people see that in the context of communism, as opposed to general socialism, but that's neither here nor there really.

As to your point, the cure doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse. The people who aren't paying their medical bills are the same people to be subsidized by the cure, not the people being forced to buy something they don't want or need, who currently have medical insurance. And I'm referring to the requirement to buy a comprehensive Cadillac health plan, not just basic medical insurance, which is outlawed by Obamacare.

(cutting out the rest since it goes along with this)

I don't really agree with the ins and outs of the Obamacare health insurance mandate, mostly that it has to be a comprehensive plan. I do like though that it requires people to buy insurance, because a lot of people who don't have insurance aren't those who can afford it and just don't, they're people that want it, but can't get it either because market forces said "no" or because they simply couldn't afford it. Putting these people in the pool (and paying some money monthly, as opposed to basically nothing - ever) would be an improvement.

I do advocate multiple plans, one reason why I like the french system as opposed to the British or Canadian is that it offers insurance options as opposed to healthcare. I also think that there is something to be gained by having companies do insurance as opposed to the government, but I also see value in having the government provide an option or two as well, as long as it "competes" fairly with the market forces (so it can't borrow from the general treasury funds and has to do things like a company - on its own). If the government does it, corporations would have to be careful to not "get in bed together" so to speak to drive people out of the market (pre-existing conditions/etc) like they have in the past, since everyone would be able to just go with the government plan - therefore making the company lose business, things like that.

Liberty and peaceful co-existance are great ideas, and great ideals for a society, but there's a reason Anarchy hasn't become a wide-spread thing in society, and it's the same reason why I advocate government getting its grubby hands in companies/economics - people get greedy and, face it, **** happens.

The previous system with the insurance companies and healthcare industry running things hasn't seemed to keep the cost down at all, and kept people with "Pre-existing conditions" with their feet to the fire so to speak, so maybe it's time for a new idea.

 

[WhoWee]

It doesn't need any force, only leadership.

Here's a deal: you have 3 choices.

1. You can pay $100 to "share", and what you get back is determined by what you need.
2. You can pay $200 protection money. Half of that goes straight into the pockets of the racketeers (sorry, the health insurance administrators etc) and you will only get the other $100 back if the racketeers can't find a reason to stop the payments.
3. You can pay nothing, and take your chance on being able to afford a $100,000 bill arriving at random.

Oh, and once option 1 is actually up and running, anybody bone headed enough to choose options 2 and 3 gets no bail out from option 1. Let them die in the streets and bury them in a mass grave, if they can't afford anything better.

Of course the problem in getting from here to there is obvious: the racketeers don't like the idea of being put out of business by option 1. Oh dear, what a pity, never mind, stay as you are then. The rest of the world doesn't care that your life expectancy is going down while theirs is going up.

Again - no evidence this would boost economic growth on par with China (OP).

 

[Al68]

It doesn't need any force, only leadership.

Here's a deal: you have 3 choices.

1. You can pay a fixed rate of $100 a year to "share", and what you get back is determined by what you need, not what you pay in.
2. You can pay protection money. This starts at $200 a year. Half of that goes straight into the pockets of the racketeers (sorry, the health insurance administrators etc) and you will only get anything back if the racketeers can't find a reason to stop the payments. Note, if you DO get some money back, your protection payments will be increased to make sure the nice racketeers don't lose any more money in the long term.
3. You can pay nothing, and take your chance on being able to afford any bills as they arise.

Oh, and once option 1 is actually up and running, anybody bone headed enough to choose options 2 and 3 gets no bail out from option 1. Let them die in the streets and bury them in a mass grave, if they can't afford anything better.

In the absence of force, I could reject all three in favor of obtaining whatever insurance and health care I choose privately. Call it option 4: the no force option.

 

[Al68]

Liberty and peaceful co-existance are great ideas, and great ideals for a society, but there's a reason Anarchy hasn't become a wide-spread thing in society, and it's the same reason why I advocate government getting its grubby hands in companies/economics - people get greedy and, face it, **** happens.

Nobody's talking about anarchy. Government protecting liberty instead of infringing on it isn't anarchy, it's classical liberalism.

The previous system with the insurance companies and healthcare industry running things hasn't seemed to keep the cost down at all, and kept people with "Pre-existing conditions" with their feet to the fire so to speak, so maybe it's time for a new idea.

Nobody is talking about insurance companies and the healthcare industry "running" anything, except their own respective businesses. Again, equating individual liberty with being "run" by government ignores the concept of liberty. You just can't refer to people "not being managed" as if it were a just another form of being managed, ignoring the concept of human liberty.

As far as pre-existing conditions, the purpose of insurance is to protect against future conditions, not pre-existing ones. By definition, covering pre-existing conditions isn't "insurance". And free people choosing which transactions to engage in, or not, isn't keeping peoples' "feet to the fire".

That's the thing about metaphors, they can be used to misrepresent reality without actually making false statements about reality.

 

[WhoWee]

Nobody's talking about anarchy. Government protecting liberty instead of infringing on it isn't anarchy, it's classical liberalism.Nobody is talking about insurance companies and the healthcare industry "running" anything, except their own respective businesses. Again, equating individual liberty with being "run" by government ignores the concept of liberty. You just can't refer to people "not being managed" as if it were a just another form of being managed, ignoring the concept of human liberty.

As far as pre-existing conditions, the purpose of insurance is to protect against future conditions, not pre-existing ones. By definition, covering pre-existing conditions isn't "insurance". And free people choosing which transactions to engage in, or not, isn't keeping peoples' "feet to the fire".

That's the thing about metaphors, they can be used to misrepresent reality without actually making false statements about reality.

Since nobody else wants to stay on topic - I'll chime in here too.

WHY does the argument always circle back to the insurance companies covering pre-existing conditions - why not ask the doctors and hospitals to cover these excess charges? If you are objective in your analysis - the insurance companies were not involved in a pre-existing situation - but the doctor MIGHT have treated the patient BEFORE the condition began - just saying.

 

[Al68]

Since nobody else wants to stay on topic - I'll chime in here too.

WHY does the argument always circle back to the insurance companies covering pre-existing conditions - why not ask the doctors and hospitals to cover these excess charges? If you are objective in your analysis - the insurance companies were not involved in a pre-existing situation - but the doctor MIGHT have treated the patient BEFORE the condition began - just saying.

Good point. Why not ask my car mechanic to pay my medical bills for a pre-existing condition? He's just as responsible for it as an insurance company. Oh, wait, that is exactly what Obamacare does. Never mind.

 

[turbo]

Since nobody else wants to stay on topic - I'll chime in here too.

WHY does the argument always circle back to the insurance companies covering pre-existing conditions - why not ask the doctors and hospitals to cover these excess charges? If you are objective in your analysis - the insurance companies were not involved in a pre-existing situation - but the doctor MIGHT have treated the patient BEFORE the condition began - just saying.

If all Americans had access to basic preventative-care, you might have a point. If you expect doctors to provide free preventative care to uninsured patients, I fear that you will be sorely disappointed. Preventative care is a whole lot cheaper and more effective than Emergency Room interventions after criticality. Our system is designed to funnel uninsured people into ERs, driving up the costs passed on to all of us who actually have insurance.

Once again, there are a LOT of things that we really cannot to finance piece-meal. We need to source and finance some things collectively in order to foster efficiency and control costs. Roads, bridges, defense (Please! no more wars of aggression!), public education, public water systems, public safety (fire police, rescue), sanitation, etc. Why, oh why, cannot the people on the right wrap their heads around the concept that we might be able to reduce our health-care expenditures by including a public option that covers all people? I can't understand the mind-set, apart from attributing it to an Ayn Rand-like aversion to egalitarianism and altruism. "I've got mine" is not a rational argument against making improvements in a health-insurance/health-supply system that is broken with rocketing costs.

 

[WhoWee]

If all Americans had access to basic preventative-care, you might have a point. If you expect doctors to provide free preventative care to uninsured patients, I fear that you will be sorely disappointed. Preventative care is a whole lot cheaper and more effective than Emergency Room interventions after criticality. Our system is designed to funnel uninsured people into ERs, driving up the costs passed on to all of us who actually have insurance.

Once again, there are a LOT of things that we really cannot to finance piece-meal. We need to source and finance some things collectively in order to foster efficiency and control costs. Roads, bridges, defense (Please! no more wars of aggression!), public education, public water systems, public safety (fire police, rescue), sanitation, etc. Why, oh why, cannot the people on the right wrap their heads around the concept that we might be able to reduce our health-care expenditures by including a public option that covers all people? I can't understand the mind-set, apart from attributing it to an Ayn Rand-like aversion to egalitarianism and altruism. "I've got mine" is not a rational argument against making improvements in a health-insurance/health-supply system that is broken with rocketing costs.

Did you respond to MY post?

I'm talking about responsibility - if the patient isn't responsible - maybe the doctors, nurses, pharmacists, clinics, hospitals and any other healthcare providers in the life of the patient have responsibility?

Asking the insurance company to cover a pre-existing condition is comparable to asking them to cover a house that has already been damaged by fire - it's neither fair nor correct.

 

[Al68]

Why, oh why, cannot the people on the right wrap their heads around the concept that we might be able to reduce our health-care expenditures by including a public option that covers all people? I can't understand the mind-set, apart from attributing it to an Ayn Rand-like aversion to egalitarianism and altruism.

The real question is: why do left-wingers pretend to be so incapable of understanding basic libertarianism? Why do you ask the same questions that have been asked and answered repeatedly for centuries?

"I've got mine" is not a rational argument against making improvements in a health-insurance/health-supply system that is broken with rocketing costs.

Why do you feign such an inability to comprehend the obvious, in favor of such contorted strawmen?

The arguments of the right must be pretty damned good for so many people to engage in such tactics to avoid addressing them.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I might be a lot more inclined to consider a unversal healthcare program when:

1. The federal budget is at least balanced, or has a surplus capable of funding such a program.
2. Everyone in the country pays at least some amount of money towards the programs they consume. Almost 50% of people currently pay no federal income tax... How would that count as "paying into the system" for the purposes of a federal insurance program? And would at-risk individuals (such as drug users) be forced to pay more into the system?
3. Since when does ANY federal mandate or program make a product cheaper?

I mentioned in another thread talking about American taxation I think a great option would be a flat tax of around 15% (no deductions, no exceptions) if only to change the political climate from "putting money in people's pockets" back to "leaving money in people's pockets." People who are dependent on government programs will tend to want to maximize their payouts through the system, where as people who earn their money and pay taxes will tend to want to minimize what they pay into the system.

 

[WhoWee]

If all Americans had access to basic preventative-care, you might have a point. If you expect doctors to provide free preventative care to uninsured patients, I fear that you will be sorely disappointed. Preventative care is a whole lot cheaper and more effective than Emergency Room interventions after criticality. Our system is designed to funnel uninsured people into ERs, driving up the costs passed on to all of us who actually have insurance.

I have specifically called for tax credits for doctors that do provide free care to uninsured and Medicaid eligible folks in several threads - to ELIMINATE (outlaw/forbid/stop/halt/prohibit) ultra-expensive emergency room visits for colds and other routine care.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Another point- any "universal healthcare initiative" should require proof of citizenship to allow particicpation (e.g. you should prove you're actually paying your premiums, not mooching the system). I think you know what I'm getting at there...

 

[WhoWee]

Another point- any "universal healthcare initiative" should require proof of citizenship to allow particicpation (e.g. you should prove you're actually paying your premiums, not mooching the system). I think you know what I'm getting at there...

Hold on a minute Mech - as per the OP - you might have identified the China's secret to success - MAYBE they allow people to sneak across their borders to gain free healthcare, food stamps, free education, and subsidized housing?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Hold on a minute Mech - as per the OP - you might have identified the China's secret to success - MAYBE they allow people to sneak across their borders to gain free healthcare, food stamps, free education, and subsidized housing?

China's immigration laws (and Mexico's for that matter) are far more strict than the United States. I think we should adopt immigration laws that mirror Mexico's; after all, the Mexican president claims our immigration laws are racist and discriminatory, maybe he thinks his own country's laws are more just?

EDIT: Linky: http://www.as-coa.org/articles/3446/Latin_American_Countries_Protest_U.S._States_Tough_Immigration_Laws_/

In a speech delivered in San José, California, earlier this month, Mexican President Felipe Calderón implored U.S. policymakers to view immigration as a natural social and economic phenomenon that cannot be stopped with “discriminatory anti-immigrant laws that have so ferociously erupted in some U.S. states.”

EDIT EDIT: Summary of Mexican imimgration law: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632

 

[WhoWee]

China's immigration laws (and Mexico's for that matter) are far more strict than the United States. I think we should adopt immigration laws that mirror Mexico's; after all, the Mexican president claims our immigration laws are racist and biased, maybe he thinks his own country's laws are more just?

The Mexican president seems to talk out of both sides of his mouth - IMO.

I'm trying to stay on topic as per OP and this healthcare debate was injected. Accordingly, (tongue in cheek) I guess we concur the secret to China's economic success probably isn't an open border/free healthcare strategy?

I wonder - does anyone think a policy whereby 10 to 30 million people entered China illegally and were given healthcare, food, education, and housing welfare programs as a reward would HURT China economically?

 

[Ryumast3r]

As far as I'm aware, illegals do not receive Social Security, food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc. If they are, they aren't supposed to (by law, as far as I'm aware). The only treatment they receive is emergency medical care if they are brought to a hospital (though it seems like we're trying to avoid healthcare now).

Ok, just looked up more sources and found one that says the total net federal spending on illegal households is approx. 10.4 Billion, whereas others say 1.- billion, and the CBO saying: "that impact is most likely modest" and "no agreement exists as to the size of, or even the best way of measuring, that cost on a national level."

One thing they all seem to agree on though is this: most of the money that is going to "illegals" is going to the benefits of their legal children in the form of medicare/etc (since the children are born in the US and therefore citizens).

 

[vici10]

Regarding health care, there is an interesting article in msnbc.
Man robbed the bank in order to get an access to health care in jail.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43479572/ns/health-health_care/"

"(This is the) first time I've ever been in trouble with the law,” James Verone said from the Gaston County Jail on Friday. “I'm sort of a logical person and that was my logic. (That was) what I came up with.”

That is how Verone said he came to the decision to rob the RBC bank on New Hope Road on Thursday, June 9.

He didn’t have a gun and he handed the teller a rather unusual note.

"The note said ‘This is a bank robbery. Please only give me one dollar,’" Verone said.

Then he did the strangest thing of all.

"I started to walk away from the teller, then I went back and said, 'I'll be sitting right over there in the chair waiting for the police," Verone said.
...
Verone said he doesn’t have medical insurance. He has a growth of some sort on his chest, two ruptured disks and a problem with his left foot. He is 59-years-old and with no job and a depleted bank account, he thought jail was the best place he could go for medical care and a roof over his head.

This article reminded me a story of O'Henry when an unemployed and homeless person tries to get into a jail to survive winter.

 

[mege]

Regarding health care, there is an interesting article in msnbc.
Man robbed the bank in order to get an access to health care in jail.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43479572/ns/health-health_care/"



This article reminded me a story of O'Henry when an unemployed and homeless person tries to get into a jail to survive winter.

I think this just means we need to be jailing criminals more prudently and making jails less desirable to live in (I do NOT mean removing health care from jails, but if this guy had to wear a pink jump suit and live outside in the desert, he probably wouldn't have pulled this stunt - also note that he isn't being sent to jail because of the circumstances).

I agree with Mech_Engineer, esspecially his third point - I believe part of the reason that we're having issues with our health care system is BECAUSE of government involvement via medicare/aid. They disrupt the market by being a major pay source and unnaturally manipulating the prices of services and goods. Why are the insurance and pharm companies FOR obama care? Because they just got 50million new customers. This hasn't done anything to reevaluate the prices or cause insurance companies to be liable for their insured's claims.

To pull this back full circle and relate to the OP - this is just one more hurdle the US has which other countries do not in implementing a single payer health system. I still stand by that the US is in a unique position and we definitely need to treat it as such. The US has a developed health care economy, many of the other countries with nationalized health care implemented them before they were totally privatized as an industry.


Something that I wish the US would do that is somewhat common in other countries: mandatory military and/or civic service of some sort. I know it will probably never happen in the US except in draft-situations, but there is something to be said about actually having to GIVE something to your country before you live your life taking.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Something that I wish the US would do that is somewhat common in other countries: mandatory military and/or civic service of some sort. I know it will probably never happen in the US except in draft-situations, but there is something to be said about actually having to GIVE something to your country before you live your life taking.

The military hates this, and actually, when asked, declines any offer for a requirement to serve (except in draft situations). The volunteer force wastes less money (doesn't purposely miss shots, doesn't excessively shoot, doesn't go *as* mentally insane, etc), is more "professional" in how it operates, meaning that they shoot to kill, they are better with the tactics/coming up with their own. They volunteer, so training isn't spent forcing them to accept the chain of command, etc etc etc. The list goes on and on.

 

[mege]

The military hates this, and actually, when asked, declines any offer for a requirement to serve (except in draft situations). The volunteer force wastes less money (doesn't purposely miss shots, doesn't excessively shoot, doesn't go *as* mentally insane, etc), is more "professional" in how it operates, meaning that they shoot to kill, they are better with the tactics/coming up with their own. They volunteer, so training isn't spent forcing them to accept the chain of command, etc etc etc. The list goes on and on.

Also why I included civic service in there as well. In an american implementation expand it to include the Peace Corp, Law Enforcement, etc. I know it's not feasable, but it's something that I do admire in other countries on principle.

 

[vici10]

Something that I wish the US would do that is somewhat common in other countries: mandatory military and/or civic service of some sort. I know it will probably never happen in the US except in draft-situations, but there is something to be said about actually having to GIVE something to your country before you live your life taking.

I agree with you. In this case US Army would be more people's army. And may be then we would see less wars of "bringing democracy" to other countries, since people would not want to die in pointless war. One can see such resistance during Vietnam war when there was a draft.

 

[Zarqon]

I think this just means we need to be jailing criminals more prudently and making jails less desirable to live in (I do NOT mean removing health care from jails, but if this guy had to wear a pink jump suit and live outside in the desert, he probably wouldn't have pulled this stunt - also note that he isn't being sent to jail because of the circumstances).

I'm a bit amazed (and almost scared) by some of the posts in this thread. Making jail even worse than it is would basically just mean that the man could chose between dying in the streets and dying in jail. Is this the choice you envision the "greatest nation on earth" to give its citizens? Doesn't sound all that great to me. I would rather prefer that the system was changed/improved such that it was possible to get proper health care without needing to go to jail (and I think this man would prefer that too).


OT: I also think the reason why it's so hard for people to get back on topic is that the topic is rather oxymoronic. The title states "What are other countries doing that the U.S. should be doing?" and getting universal health care, as has been discussed in the thread, is in my opinion a very good answer to this question.

The OP then states an emphasis on getting the economic growth to match that of china or similar countries. But in my opinion, this is something the US should NOT be aiming for, because first of all, I don't think it's a realistic goal given that the US already left the stage of development that china is currently in, and secondly because I believe there are far more pressing things to do in the US in order to create a nice place to live for everyone, which includes fixing the health care system.

 

[mege]

I'm a bit amazed (and almost scared) by some of the posts in this thread. Making jail even worse than it is would basically just mean that the man could chose between dying in the streets and dying in jail. Is this the choice you envision the "greatest nation on earth" to give its citizens? Doesn't sound all that great to me. I would rather prefer that the system was changed/improved such that it was possible to get proper health care without needing to go to jail (and I think this man would prefer that too).


OT: I also think the reason why it's so hard for people to get back on topic is that the topic is rather oxymoronic. The title states "What are other countries doing that the U.S. should be doing?" and getting universal health care, as has been discussed in the thread, is in my opinion a very good answer to this question.

The OP then states an emphasis on getting the economic growth to match that of china or similar countries. But in my opinion, this is something the US should NOT be aiming for, because first of all, I don't think it's a realistic goal given that the US already left the stage of development that china is currently in, and secondly because I believe there are far more pressing things to do in the US in order to create a nice place to live for everyone, which includes fixing the health care system.

Making everyone buy health care to 'solve' health care is like solving the homeless issue by making everyone buy a home. It's just going to entrench an already poor system. Making the US a single-payer system (or the voucher/exchange Obamacare system) still has the same flaws. The US is fundamentally different than other countries to the point that it has to solve it's problems differently. Those european countries wouldn't be able to support their socialized health care systems without the US's innovations in technology and support. Access to health care is assuridly an intrinsic right that Americans have, and it's the government's job to protect that right - not hand the service over on a silver platter shouldered by 1/2 of potential taxpaers in the country.

Noone wants this guy to die or suffer, but we're looking at his situation in a vacuum and not taking into account everything he's done in his life to leech off of the system already. The article doesn't say why he doesn't have a job any more - maybe he was fired for a reason? He seems awfully willing to go to jail, has he been there before? Maybe he is a model citizen, and if that's the case then there needs to be a safety net in place for him that works - not just one that makes a politician and his lawyer buddies think they're doing good.


Edit: I found this article which is illustrating a good American innovation. Health care coverage (yes, coverage) without traditional insurance. While the system described in the article has it's own faults, it's an example of how we can change things for the better, ourselves.

 

[Al68]

Is this the choice you envision the "greatest nation on earth" to give its citizens? Doesn't sound all that great to me.

The U.S. has historically been the "greatest nation on earth" for those who love liberty, not for those who demand the involuntary servitude of others. The U.S. was chartered to be a bastion of liberty, a place to escape from the type of government you advocate.

The U.S. was created specifically to be the worst place on the planet to be for advocates of government controlling society by force (and conversely the best for libertarians), and it was for most of its history.

 

[Al68]

Access to health care is assuridly an intrinsic right that Americans have, and it's the government's job to protect that right - not hand the service over on a silver platter shouldered by 1/2 of potential taxpaers in the country.

Have you forgotten that the left doesn't use the word "right" to refer to intrinsic, or natural, rights? They use it to mean "a legal entitlement to the involuntary servitude of others".

And as has been evidenced in past threads, many are seemingly unable to comprehend the obvious conceptual difference between the two. I'll even go so far as to predict the same in this thread.

 

[daveb]

I'm constantly amazed by the use of the word "liberty" coming from the right when referring to America exclusive of all other words.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Yes, liberty is in there, as is the common defense (and I for one do not believe in nation building unless it is for the common defense), and I am a huge proponent of it. But there are other words in the preamble that are important as well. It calls for a balance between liberty and government control of those thins necessary for the general Welfare.

We are a Union, but at the same time, a nation of individuals. This requires a balance as well.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm constantly amazed by the use of the word "liberty" coming from the right when referring to America exclusive of all other words.



Yes, liberty is in there, as is the common defense (and I for one do not believe in nation building unless it is for the common defense), and I am a huge proponent of it. But there are other words in the preamble that are important as well. It calls for a balance between liberty and government control of those thins necessary for the general Welfare.

We are a Union, but at the same time, a nation of individuals. This requires a balance as well.

What do you think "promote the general Welfare" means?

 

[daveb]

In the context of constitutional law, it means health and general well being (see Ellis v City of Grand Rapids). This was an eminent domain case (which the Consitution expressly allows). In this ruling, the court pointed to the Preamble's reference to "promoting the general Welfare" as evidence that "health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers", and that the "public use" of eminent domain was within the scope of the Constitution.

"The concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare.'"

However, in another case (United States v Kinnebrew Motor Co.) the court held the preamble alone is not enough to give the government powers not delineated elsewhere in the Constitution. In this case, the government argued that the Commerce Clause gave it authority to set car prices during the depression, and that the Preamble meant controlling prices to aid the economy was within the context of the Preamble. The court held, however, that the only relevant issue was whether this was a case of Interstate Commerce.

This is the crux of the debate on Health Care reform - does it fall under the Commerce Clause? There are valid arguments on both sides. I personally believe it does, but I can see the other side. As for the mandate, the government mandates a lot of things - who does/does not pay taxes, voting rights of ex-convicts, etc.

In my opinion, the only valid debate about the reform bill is if it is within the cope of the Commerce Clause.

 

[WhoWee]

It seems to me the "framers" did not address healthcare or welfare in the manner it's attempted today. Apparently, those ideas were popularized in the 1800's?

http://www.naph.org/Homepage-Sections/Explore/History.aspx

http://www.welfareinfo.org/history/

 

[daveb]

Well, Hamilton for one didn't even want a Bill of Rights, claiming that by putting one in there, it gave the impression that there were no other rights (I believe Federalist 84), so the framers didn't address a lot of things, but because of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, they did try to address everything they could think of (that would actually pass - slavery was off the table since including that would have meant the Constitution would never have been ratified).

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

 

[Al68]

But there are other words in the preamble that are important as well. It calls for a balance between liberty and government control of those thins necessary for the general Welfare.

No, the preamble doesn't "call for" anything. It describes the purpose(s) of the constitution.

The constitution does, elsewhere, delegate certain powers to the federal government (for those purposes), and prohibit the exercise of any power by government not delegated to it. That's the balance "called for", or specified by the constitution.

 

[mege]

This is the crux of the debate on Health Care reform - does it fall under the Commerce Clause? There are valid arguments on both sides. I personally believe it does, but I can see the other side. As for the mandate, the government mandates a lot of things - who does/does not pay taxes, voting rights of ex-convicts, etc.

For a federal income tax to be legal, there was a constitutional ammendment.

Also, convict-voting laws are state-by-state, not a federal mandate. While it wouldn't be popular or worthwhile, states could restrict voters based on any non-protected grouping. If a state wanted to say 'only former military can vote' - they legally could because it's not a protected status: race, sex, age, former slave, etc.

The federal government mandates almost nothing of individuals. Selective Service registration is the only compulsory federal program that I can think of (aside from Federal Income Taxes). There are other contingent mandates based on enrollment in other government programs, but nothing that applys to every citizen as a blanket law.

 

[Zarqon]

The U.S. has historically been the "greatest nation on earth" for those who love liberty, not for those who demand the involuntary servitude of others. The U.S. was chartered to be a bastion of liberty, a place to escape from the type of government you advocate.

The U.S. was created specifically to be the worst place on the planet to be for advocates of government controlling society by force (and conversely the best for libertarians), and it was for most of its history.

As I see it, the biggest issue is that Liberty is not quite as straightforward to define as it may seem. There are in fact two common forms of liberty, positive and negative, with the definitions:

Negative liberty: The freedom from something, i.e. the absence of obstacles to perform actions, e.g. the absence of government control.

Positive liberty: The freedom to do something, i.e. the possibility to perform actions.

In the US, liberty means almost always the negative kind, and consequently, people think the government should do as little as possible. However, in my opinion this is a flawed way of thinking, because how can you be considered free, even if you have no external obstacles preventing you from doing something, if you have no possibility to do it?

For example, people in the US are not specifically prevented from getting a good education or from obtaining a health insurance, but the fact is that people that are born into poverty have a lot less possibility of getting either of those. And so I would argue that those people are NOT free to what they want, simply because they are not given the same possibility as people who were born richer.

If liberty is defined as the positive kind, which it is in many of the european countries, then a strong government is required to act as an equalizer and provide freedom by helping the people who had less possibility to start with. It's not that I disagree with you that liberty is nice to have, it's just that I think liberty should be for everyone, and not just the lucky two thirds of the population.

 

[mege]

As I see it, the biggest issue is that Liberty is not quite as straightforward to define as it may seem. There are in fact two common forms of liberty, positive and negative, with the definitions:

Negative liberty: The freedom from something, i.e. the absence of obstacles to perform actions, e.g. the absence of government control.

Positive liberty: The freedom to do something, i.e. the possibility to perform actions.

In the US, liberty means almost always the negative kind, and consequently, people think the government should do as little as possible. However, in my opinion this is a flawed way of thinking, because how can you be considered free, even if you have no external obstacles preventing you from doing something, if you have no possibility to do it?

For example, people in the US are not specifically prevented from getting a good education or from obtaining a health insurance, but the fact is that people that are born into poverty have a lot less possibility of getting either of those. And so I would argue that those people are NOT free to what they want, simply because they are not given the same possibility as people who were born richer.

If liberty is defined as the positive kind, which it is in many of the european countries, then a strong government is required to act as an equalizer and provide freedom by helping the people who had less possibility to start with. It's not that I disagree with you that liberty is nice to have, it's just that I think liberty should be for everyone, and not just the lucky two thirds of the population.

Put another way: is it the government's role to GRANT you liberties or to PROTECT your liberties?

The first presumes that individuals do not have intrinsic rights, the second does. That's the ultimate hang-up. I think that's a fundamental difference between the US FG and most other neodemocracies. In the US, the government was built from scratch and was meant as a protecter of rights. Many European countries simply 'evolved' from their dictitorial ways and started 'granting' rights rather than just setting up the government to protect them. This difference of mindset is still present today, and why I continue to emphasise that the US needs to innovate on it's own rather than 'model' after another country.

My personal mindset is that the US is politically divided between collectivists and libertarians when you remove the (I believe overemphasised) moral issues. This distinction embodies what I believe you were trying to say, but without the perjorative of associating positive and negative.

 

[WhoWee]

As I see it, the biggest issue is that Liberty is not quite as straightforward to define as it may seem. There are in fact two common forms of liberty, positive and negative, with the definitions:

Negative liberty: The freedom from something, i.e. the absence of obstacles to perform actions, e.g. the absence of government control.

Positive liberty: The freedom to do something, i.e. the possibility to perform actions.

In the US, liberty means almost always the negative kind, and consequently, people think the government should do as little as possible. However, in my opinion this is a flawed way of thinking, because how can you be considered free, even if you have no external obstacles preventing you from doing something, if you have no possibility to do it?

For example, people in the US are not specifically prevented from getting a good education or from obtaining a health insurance, but the fact is that people that are born into poverty have a lot less possibility of getting either of those. And so I would argue that those people are NOT free to what they want, simply because they are not given the same possibility as people who were born richer.

If liberty is defined as the positive kind, which it is in many of the european countries, then a strong government is required to act as an equalizer and provide freedom by helping the people who had less possibility to start with. It's not that I disagree with you that liberty is nice to have, it's just that I think liberty should be for everyone, and not just the lucky two thirds of the population.

We are not specifically prevented from owning helicopters either - they just cost more than most people can afford. We are not prevented from spending weekends in top hotels either - again, it costs a lot of money. We are not prevented from owning 100' sail or power boats - but they cost more than the average person can afford.

 

[daveb]

We are not specifically prevented from owning helicopters either - they just cost more than most people can afford. We are not prevented from spending weekends in top hotels either - again, it costs a lot of money. We are not prevented from owning 100' sail or power boats - but they cost more than the average person can afford.

Nice job equating helicopters and top hotels with education and health insurance.

 

[WhoWee]

Nice job equating helicopters and top hotels with education and health insurance.

Thank you - would new $200,000+ condos under Section 8 be a better comparison?

There has to be limits - somebody has to pay.

Children that can't read when they "graduate" from high school should not receive any assistance for college - IMO. People who choose not to work (for the wage offered), fake disability, rotate in and out of jail, spend years on unemployment (work just long enough to be eligible) - don't deserve free healthcare - IMO.

As for "free" healthcare - it's a misconception - nothing is free as someone has to pay. When there is no responsibility (Medicaid at the emergency room for instance) combined with the ability to seek damages - the costs increase. Again - IMO.

 

[Ryumast3r]

It seems to me the "framers" did not address healthcare or welfare in the manner it's attempted today. Apparently, those ideas were popularized in the 1800's?

http://www.naph.org/Homepage-Sections/Explore/History.aspx

http://www.welfareinfo.org/history/

Some framers also wanted the constitution to change every 20 years or so for the very reason that the framers themselves could never identify with every situation that comes up in 30 years, not to mention 200 (and every generation should be allowed to rule themselves differently, right?). Others thought the constitution would be totally perfect on its own and should not be allowed to change at all (no amendments).

Put another way: is it the government's role to GRANT you liberties or to PROTECT your liberties?

I think it's more like: Is it the government's role to grant you access to the liberties, or simply protect them? The first involves a lot of government helping mostly impoverished people so they can read/write/etc, the second involves minimal government.

The first presumes that individuals do not have intrinsic rights, the second does. That's the ultimate hang-up. I think that's a fundamental difference between the US FG and most other neodemocracies. In the US, the government was built from scratch and was meant as a protecter of rights. Many European countries simply 'evolved' from their dictitorial ways and started 'granting' rights rather than just setting up the government to protect them. This difference of mindset is still present today, and why I continue to emphasise that the US needs to innovate on it's own rather than 'model' after another country.

If we look at it the way I have looked at it, then your first sentence would be incorrect, otherwise correct. The US is also very different from most other countries (I'd say Australia is pretty similar, in terms of conservatism, but that's about it), and European countries did start granting rights, however I think it's become more than that in their society today. I'd also agree that the US needs to look for unique solutions, since it is a unique problem, however, learning from what has worked elsewhere isn't a bad place to start.

For example: European jails, they have a lot less recidivism - mostly because it's not focused on punishment, but rather rehabilitation. While in jail, you slowly work up from a cell to an apartment and a good job. If you screw up, well, back to the cell for you. It takes all the low-class criminals and gives them a reason to not commit crime. We could learn from that system, instead of trying to make our prisons worse.

You're never going to stop the crazies, but why hurt the other 90% of the people in jail because of one guy who really wants a lump checked out?

 

[Al68]

As I see it, the biggest issue is that Liberty is not quite as straightforward to define as it may seem. There are in fact two common forms of liberty, positive and negative, with the definitions:

Negative liberty: The freedom from something, i.e. the absence of obstacles to perform actions, e.g. the absence of government control.

Positive liberty: The freedom to do something, i.e. the possibility to perform actions.

In the US, liberty means almost always the negative kind, and consequently, people think the government should do as little as possible. However, in my opinion this is a flawed way of thinking, because how can you be considered free, even if you have no external obstacles preventing you from doing something, if you have no possibility to do it?

Easily: by understanding the conceptual difference between liberty and entitlement. The "positive liberty" you refer to is an entitlement, which is a fundamentally different concept from a natural right/liberty.

For example, people in the US are not specifically prevented from getting a good education or from obtaining a health insurance, but the fact is that people that are born into poverty have a lot less possibility of getting either of those. And so I would argue that those people are NOT free to what they want, simply because they are not given the same possibility as people who were born richer.

That makes no logical sense. They are perfectly free to obtain those things. You just stipulated that the reason they couldn't get the education was lack of financial means, not lack of liberty. Those are two different concepts.

 

[Al68]

I think it's more like: Is it the government's role to grant you access to the liberties, or simply protect them?

The former makes no sense, since liberty is not a substance to have access to, it's the freedom to perform an action unrestrained. We naturally have the ability to exercise all natural rights: that's why they are called natural rights.

 

[Ryumast3r]

The former makes no sense, since liberty is not a substance to have access to, it's the freedom to perform an action unrestrained. We naturally have the ability to exercise all natural rights: that's why they are called natural rights.

Can't get an education if you're poor and all education is private, that is to say - you have no freedom (no choice) to get an education because you can't afford it. This leads to a cycle where your family members will almost always stay impoverished since none of them can afford education to become better.

If the government grants you access to the liberty to choose to become educated (public education), then you can choose to receive schooling or not, but the choice is now up to you, not the owner of the private school.

We naturally have the RIGHT to exercise our natural rights, but sometimes we do not have the ABILITY to exercise them due to the circumstances. If someone, or something changes those circumstances and grants the ability, then a person can now physically exercise that right. The government can do it, or a private citizen/group can do it.