danivon wrote:So, because my position is not popular with the Sell-outocrats, it's not worth even thinking about?

It's fine to think about it ... it's just hard to hear given what we've been through over here. Obama bet his Presidency on a poorly considered health care proposal. We now have even more of a political mess, both in terms of deficits and in terms of partisanship.

I'm not sure that the 2009 reforms make much difference, although some of it is only coming into effect now, so it's early to be definite on the outcomes - all we have is guesstimation on both flanks.

It's quite clear to me that Obama's health care proposal will cost in the range of $1 trillion over 10 years, and more after that. The reality is that he abandoned his long term care proposals which were included as net savers. (This was hypocrisy of the tallest order ... anyone can make an insurance program break even after 10 years if they ignore the back end liability.) In addition, he has already put in the doctor fix the latest budget go arounds, and we continually scramble to pay for it, part of the reason for these protracted deficit negotiations. He balanced (sic) the health care legislation by claiming that the doctor fix was unnecessary.

bbauska wrote:Envious? Hardly.

I am arguing for EQUALITY. All men are created equal. It says that in our founding documents.

While the Declaration of Independence is important, it is not binding, and was clearly superceded by the Constitution.

Besides, I don't believe for one moment you actually would agree with the likes of me about the definition of equality. All men may be 'created' equal, but they are clearly not all equal all of their lives.

If some get support from the government, it should be available for everyone. To pick one economic strata over another is wrong and discriminatory.

If I get your logic correct, you are saying that financial support for the poor should be withdrawn, because the rich cannot get it.

Discrimination comes in two forms - unfair discrimination and fair discrimination. Unfair discrimination would be where you take into account factors that are not related to the issue or if you were to prejudice a decision. So, making a racial distinction would be unfair on a question of whether someone gets financial support.

But, if you have means-tested benefits, and someone who has more means does not qualify, that is indeed discrimination, but it's also due process.

As too being too well off, hardly. I am debt free because I am austere with my finances. I am not rich by any US Standard.

By well off, I meant not poor. That's not the same as being rich.

I don't see what luck had to do with my decisions. It was my decision to pay for 4 years of employment disability insurance at my job at that time. It was my decision to work for 20 years in the military and be away from my family for the benefits of a later lifestyle.

I mentioned not just 'luck', but the decisions of others. For example, you talk about your decision to work in the military for 20 years. Surely there was a corresponding decision (or set of decision) which led to the US military employing you for that period. That includes the decision made to fund the military to the extent that it is, paid for by a load of other taxpayers. They didn't all get a 20-year career out of it - is that 'fair' by your definition?

At one point you say it is 'My own decisions' and in the next sentence you mention that there was assistance/support from family and church. Again, that wasn't you then, was it?

And the influence of 'luck' is all over the place. The place and time of your birth, who your parents are, whoever paid for your early years care and education, I don't think these were all down to you - at least not at the time. Some of it is just luck, some of it is down to the behaviour of others.

It was my decision to pay the entire ambulance bill and have a crappy Christmas because we did not have the money to pay it all at once.

Envious? Puhleeze.
Responsible? Definitely.
Lucky? Not at all.

Ok. So because you had a 'crappy Christmas' you think it would be better if more people had the same thing happen to them (being charged for ambulance costs). All the clever decisions you made to be insured, and you didn't choose a policy that covered ambulance costs? Was that an oversight on your part, was it a limitation in the offered policies, was it legal fiat demanding that you can't insure against the cost in any possible way?

There was perhaps another reaction to the 'crappy Christmas' that resulted from the cost. Perhaps you could have figured "hey, if it can happen to me, frugal, responsible, self-reliant me, it could happen to other people too, and maybe they aren't as able as I am to be so self-reliant".

Let's for a moment consider a family just like yours except with a less frugal Brad. Not-Brad may well be at fault for not setting up the same provision. He may well end up with big debts for medical expenses. Maybe there would have had to have been tough choices made about the care that the three situations led to. Now, for Not-Brad, we can say well, that's fair enough. Unlike you, he didn't provide for himself, so if his spinal problems led to extra hardship that's his look out.

But Mrs Not-Brad and her caesarean? I guess we can fault her for marrying a spendthrift and not a responsible guy like you, but it seems a bit harsh.

And little Not-Brad jr? Well, the baby was just born. He didn't have anything to do with Not-Brad's decisions, did he? So why should he have to be subject to inferior care because of that? If Not-Brad decides that he can't afford the same level of care as your insurance provided for your child, and as a result the hypothetical chap has a worse start in life than your kid, who suffers? Not the guy making the decisions.

Now, please don't think I'm making any personal attacks here. I know full well that you try your best for your family. I know that if a relative or a fellow churchmember had the same problem you'd do just as they did for you in your hour of need.

I just think that you are not opening your mind to consider that not everyone had the same chances and opportunities in life that you did.

Even your current livelihood is likely to rely not simply on your own efforts and genius. If you are selling something, you depend on buyers (and on competitors not outdoing you). What happens to the wider economy will affect your business.

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:So, because my position is not popular with the Sell-outocrats, it's not worth even thinking about?

It's fine to think about it ... it's just hard to hear given what we've been through over here. Obama bet his Presidency on a poorly considered health care proposal. We now have even more of a political mess, both in terms of deficits and in terms of partisanship.

My view is that the mess was caused by two problems:

1) Obama and the Dems were too ready to compromise. Only a small group of legislators were putting forward something like single-payer, and they were outnumbered on their own side, let alone by Republicans. Just like with the budget shenanigans, they not only think two moves ahead, they play two moves ahead, and expect the opposition to do the same. When the Republicans open as if it's the start, they then act all surprised that the negotiating ground is all on the right, and don't understand why trying to dig in looks bad.

2) Related to the above, the various powerful lobbies around the industry got their claws into the debate and twisted it. As before (the early 1990s), the insurance companies started to spin scare-stories eagerly taken up by the right and too easily capitulated by the Dems. Then there were the lobbies that got to the Dems in the first place to ensure a safe place for them (tort reform being out because lawyers argued against it?).

There were basically two outcomes, both would have left a worse political situation. Either they soldiered on and got 'something' through, or they gave up (as happened the previous time). They chose the 'something' line, and had to fudge like crazy to get it through. And are now fighting rearguard actions against a Republican House and legal challenges just to keep what they can in. No wonder it's a complete mess.

But hey, someone might look at this from afar and think "perhaps the US political system is totally nutso, and that's why major issues like healthcare, budget reform, etc can't be settled without both main parties becoming entrenched and the whole thing being made worse", rather than "hmm, healthcare reform is a bad thing in itself".

bbauska wrote:Danivon.
Your position is noted, and to banter back and forth about this and that will not change either of us. As I said earlier, it is a values difference.

I feel it is the government's responsibility to have as little to do with people's day to day lives as possible, and you think the government should be more responsible for those that choose to not be self reliant. I would be much more supportive of people getting assistance if they provided a service to the government is exchange for their assistance. But we have been up and down that road as well.

So far so good. But I'm also concerned for people who can't be self-reliant. And who aren't in a position to trade 'assistance' to the state in exhange for it's intervention.

Basically, I think it's more than a 'values' difference. I think you are assuming that everyone actually is created with the capacity for self-reliance, that they all have the same opportunities, and that all of their bad fortune is caused by themselves just as all of your good fortune is down to you. I think that's not a realistic view of the world.

BTW, I look for more opportunity to help than just church members and family. As Christians, we are called to help all people. As a Government, we are not. I can point to the biblical reference for my statement. Can you show me where we are to help all people in government documents?

Government is but a tool. But there is this thing you have in your country called the 'Constitution' which has the following language:

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.

As I understand the terms, 'We the People', 'form a more perfect Union' and 'promote the general Welfare' suggest that it's about setting things up so that all the people are helping everyone.

Perhaps you read it differently?

bbauska wrote:Would you be willing to stipulate that there are people who choose to not work, but would rather just receive a check? If so, should they be on the dole? I am for helping those who are disabled, but look to curb the misuse by those who are able to work, but choose not to. Have you seen people like that? Should they be supported by you or me?

Of course there are lazy people. I know there will be fraud, and there will be the 'undeserving'. But I would rather accept that as long as those who do deserve help get it. There's no way to draw the line perfectly, not without employing huge numbers of people to monitor everything.

As for "General Welfare", let us break up the term, as I do look at it differently:
General: "involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole"
Welfare: "the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_general_welfare_mean#ixzz1k26bojVC

Jeebus! So, if welfare can mean 'the state of doing well in respect to ... well being', and general applies to the 'whole', and the source of the quote is 'We the People', can't you join the definitions back up and grok what it means?

I do not believe in Corporate Welfare, Welfare for one class of people, economic strata, or region. There should be roads for everyone to use, police protection for everyone, a common military for everyone's safety.

I agree, along with healthcare system that everyone can access. That's what I was brought up with, and when I pay my taxes towards it, I don't begrudge other people getting free treatment (partly because I know I am entitled to the same thing).

danivon

I agree, along with healthcare system that everyone can access. That's what I was brought up with, and when I pay my taxes towards it, I don't begrudge other people getting free treatment (partly because I know I am entitled to the same thing).

And the interesting thing about this is that universal access supported by taxation has created by far the most cost effective and cost efficient systems . Making it a better choice when measured under the metrics usually reserved for business, and market based metrics.

I am a bit surprised that you are so critical of Obama regarding helath care reform, Monte. What were his choices? He could have done nothing--that certainly is not acceptable. He could have passed a single-payer option--that would have political suicide for himself and the Democratic Party, as the health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies would have spent billions to defeat him and other democratic candicates. He chose the third optkion which was to get everyone covered and keep health insurance companies. I believe that once we get everyone covered that either insurance companies will get very efficient at controlling costs or eventually we will go to a single-payer system. And if Obama's health care plan does not work, well we can alwasy try something else. What we can't do is sit still with the present system.

Let me put my two cents regarding this argument between Brad and Dan.. I would recommend Bred consult a book by Annette Leadreau called Unequal Educations. What she did was follow a number of ppor and middle-class families to see how they raised their children. Her conclusions about middle-class families were as follows:

1. parents cultivate their child's abilities
2. Parents heavily involved in organizing activities for children
3. Parents negotiate with their children
4. Childrren used to dealing with adult figures/dealing with institutional authority. Parents help children to get what they with regard to institutions.
5. Children get sense of entitlement

Poor families on the other hand are structured of follows:

1. Natural growith philosophy. Parents help children to grow but do not cultivate chiildren's abilities
2. Parenst give directives to children
3. Children are unsed to dealing with adult authority figures. parents have sense of powerlessness and frustration in dealing with institutions.
4r.Children play on their own usually with their own kin
5. Children get idea of constraing not entitlement

Of course the schools that middle-class kids attend tend to have more parental involvment, there is more money that parents contribute to help the school with activities; salaries are lower at poor urban schools, there are teacher shortages, etc. Also kids from wealhier families are more likely to be prepared for school in for instance already being able to read, know their abcs, etc. Their is a noticeable gap between

children of poor families and middle-class families with regard to academic performance when they first start to attend school (a gap that closes during the school year and increases between academic yeas when kids go on vactation. By high school SAT scores between poor and middle-class kids with SAT differ by about 150 points. Kids from more educated parents tend to have more books in their homes and they talk to more to their kids (increasing their vocabulary)

As the book says a middle-class kid is born on third base and thinks he hit a triple

freeman2 wrote:I am a bit surprised that you are so critical of Obama regarding helath care reform, Monte. What were his choices? He could have done nothing--that certainly is not acceptable. He could have passed a single-payer option--that would have political suicide for himself and the Democratic Party, as the health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies would have spent billions to defeat him and other democratic candicates. He chose the third optkion which was to get everyone covered and keep health insurance companies. I believe that once we get everyone covered that either insurance companies will get very efficient at controlling costs or eventually we will go to a single-payer system. And if Obama's health care plan does not work, well we can alwasy try something else. What we can't do is sit still with the present system.

I'm beginning to understand that it depends on which promises of Obama you listened to. If you heard Obama say he would expand access because the system is unfair, then he basically followed his promises. However, if you heard him say I will bend the cost curve down because the current system is a financial train wreck, then he severely disappoints by accelerating the trains. I think that you primarily heard the former whereas I primarily heard the latter.

I think you're probably right I placed a higher level of priority on getting everyone covered. I think in our wealthy country there are four basic rights: (1) food, (2) shelter, (3) education (at least through high school), and (4) health care. So Obama delivered on covering everone. However, I was initially very disappointed that he did not push for a single-payer option. However, I now see that it was politically impossible. If single-payer had been passed the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies would have spend massive amounts of money to defeat Obama and Democratic candidates, likely delivering the Congress to the Republicans and also the presidency (wih single-payer then being repealed) . So Obama came up with a plan that would cover everyone without having the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry going nuts. I now think Obama did the politically possible. Once he get this plan started and people like the fact that they are covered, they like the fact that they don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions, then at some point we will need a bipartisan approach to deal with the reality of controlling costs

The only alternative I see for Obama was to have done nothing. So if you're critical of Obama in that his plan is worse than doing nothing--that's fine. I just don't see any other criticism, given political realities.

Brad, the US Constitution does not provide an exhaustive list of rights that are 'given' to the people. The 9th Amendment is clear that other exist. The 10th makes clear that not all of these are held as state powers.