Healthcare going forward

[nycguydowntown]

Obama won---because he got the ball rolling in this country by pushing thru his health care bill---he lost the house and senate because of it which is one reason he is getting the Profile in Courage Award---repubs are stupid but after all this debate they are coming around to understanding health care----I tend to agree with the right winger on Fox news who said he thought that within 7 years the USA will have single payer----americans have to take the long road to smart but if it were not for Obamacare ---repubs wouldn't even be talking about it----they had power for many years and did nothing---now they may say they are repealing it but actually some of the bones of ACA are still there----the meat has been taken off. But eventually this country will follow the lead of all the smarter western democracies---we just took the long road to smart.

 

[KaraBulut]

About the only way to accomplish it would be what my dad argued as the only way: require every citizen and legal resident to do two years of national service, whether in the military or Peace Corps or Americorps or whatever...

Worth mentioning: the Trump budget cuts funding for volunteer organizations like Americorps. There's also some question about the future of the Peace Corps.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-budget/

Fortunately the Constitution prevents your totalitarian schemes such as mandatory national service, involuntary servitude and deprivation of liberty without due process. No, military draft is not a precedent, since the constitution specifically authorizes the raising of armies and a navy, which implies a draft if necessary.

Daniel Webster made this same argument about military conscription and compulsory service over 200 years ago, yet we've had conscripted armies several times since then and the Supreme Court found that the practice is constitutionally allowed.

In the 1960s, both Peace Corps and VISTA were proposed as alternatives to conscripted military service in Vietnam. It's also been proposed multiple times by Charles Rangel in the past decade without much pushback on the constitutionality question.

...I actually think that the real stumbling block in the US was not only differing public attitudes and trust in government, but our differing party systems...

During the year when the ACA hearings were underway, there were some very good and substantive discussions. The resulting legislation was flawed but there is good that came of it- changes that setup a system based upon outcome-based reimbursement and reductions in the overall deficit.

The biggest weakness of the ACA was the piss-poor way that the rollout was done (remember the Healthcare.gov go live?) and the grossly inadequate way that the Obama administration sold the legislation to the public.

The lesson learned from the ACA rollout is that even if you do a year of hearings, it's a bad idea to rush through the legislation before you have bipartisan support and the public behind the legislation. Healthcare legislation affects 17% of the GDP of the nation. It's an issue that riles up the American public like no other and it's a complex issue that very few Americans grasp fully.

Apparently, the Republicans failed to learn the lessons from the ACA rollout. They will pay the price for the passage of the AHCA.

 

[Benvolio]

As I said, the difference is that the Constitution empowers the Federal Government to raise armies and a navy which implies the right to conscript if necessary. Enslaving young people because the liberals think it would be nice or as an instrument of class warfare is hostile to the prohibition against involuntary servitude and deprivation of due process. It is an idea directly from the Hitler youth and the Communist equivalent. Every totalitarian society has mandatory servitude for young people, so of course liberals think it is a great idea.

 

[frankfrank]

The lesson learned from the ACA rollout is that even if you do a year of hearings, it's a bad idea to rush through the legislation before you have bipartisan support and the public behind the legislation.

Maybe so, but The ACA was passed at the very last possible moment - wasn't it passed, I think, on Christmas Eve 2010? That was during the very last gasp of Democratic control of both houses of Congress, because a new Republican congress had just been elected.

It was passed just before the Christmas/holidays recess, and that Republican majority in the new Congress would be in place after the recess, immediately.

Obama was still going to be president for two years, but once the house went Republican it would have been impossible to pass anything good in health care.

 

[DantheManFL]

This guy wins the internet today.

 

[rareboy]

 

[Kulindahr]

Fortunately the Constitution prevents your totalitarian schemes such as mandatory national service, involuntary servitude and deprivation of liberty without due process. No, military draft is not a precedent, since the constitution specifically authorizes the raising of armies and a navy, which implies a draft if necessary.

"Totalitarian"?

Actually mandatory national service is a very capitalist sort of concept: if you don't contribute via national service, why should you get any benefits such as voting?

It's also a concept you should support, as it would require immigrants to put in the same national service in order to be legal residents.

 

[Kulindahr]

You may be right and what you described, provincial controls, VAT, etc., I would enthusiastically endorse that approach here, as I consider myself a conservative who favours broad state autonomy in such matters. I just believe health care is a right under natural law, not a privilege. As for expanding Medicare, my understanding is that is how the Canadians did it; slowly expanding Medicare, (As it is also called in Canada.) under federal guidance and assistance with provincial initiates as well, to eventual universal coverage.

Health care can't be "a right under natural law" because it does, as Ben correctly points out, require people to labor for each other.

But if a nation wants to be a people, not just a jungle of competing individuals, then health care is an obligation requiring people to labor for each other. So what this fight is really about is not rights, but whether or not the U.S. can any longer speak of "we, the people" -- and the GOP answer is that we are not any longer a people, because they deny any obligations.

 

[Kulindahr]

Thank you for your response. It was very informative and I don't disagree with it, necessarily. I actually think that the real stumbling block in the US was not only differing public attitudes and trust in government, but our differing party systems. As you point out, in the US, our system is much more consultative and has been so hamstrung with the widening political division, Left/Right, because of that fact. We also have a very weak party system were it is more like 535 individuals who run and rely on their personal ties to special interests whereas Canada as a parliamentary, party rule system, where the party is the most important entity of a campaign, and once in power, MP's are beholden to the party and it's leadership, much more than they are to any single special interests.

(emphasis mine)

That's a superb statement of the disintegration of American politics! It covers nicely the concerns of whether democracy can survive the internet.

 

[Kulindahr]

As I said, the difference is that the Constitution empowers the Federal Government to raise armies and a navy which implies the right to conscript if necessary. Enslaving young people because the liberals think it would be nice or as an instrument of class warfare is hostile to the prohibition against involuntary servitude and deprivation of due process. It is an idea directly from the Hitler youth and the Communist equivalent. Every totalitarian society has mandatory servitude for young people, so of course liberals think it is a great idea.

LOL

Mandatory public service is a concept that goes a lot farther back than that!

And it's a very capitalist sort of idea: it's based on the premise that you don't get something for nothing -- that if you want to be a citizen, you have to contribute.


Oh, BTW, you're wrong on your claim about totalitarian societies; they use such service as a way to achieve your idea of society, a division between the "assimilated" and the not-really-human 'others'. Neither the Hitler Youth nor the young Communists were mandatory membership organizations -- indeed the Hitler Youth was explicitly NOT mandatory.

 

[Benvolio]

LOL

Mandatory public service is a concept that goes a lot farther back than that!

And it's a very capitalist sort of idea: it's based on the premise that you don't get something for nothing -- that if you want to be a citizen, you have to contribute.


Oh, BTW, you're wrong on your claim about totalitarian societies; they use such service as a way to achieve your idea of society, a division between the "assimilated" and the not-really-human 'others'. Neither the Hitler Youth nor the young Communists were mandatory membership organizations -- indeed the Hitler Youth was explicitly NOT mandatory.

I cannot imagine a Conservative, or a libertarian approving of the deprivation of liberties involved in mandatory national service, and it is clearly unconstitutional. It is decidedly a Marxist idea' from each according to ability, to each according the needs of the party. That is why democrats love the idea. Keep in mind that if the government has the authority to take the best two years of you life they can take the best 10 or 20. Will of you brush aside the Constitution, there is no limit. I

 

[Kulindahr]

I cannot imagine a Conservative, or a libertarian approving of the deprivation of liberties involved in mandatory national service, and it is clearly unconstitutional. It is decidedly a Marxist idea' from each according to ability, to each according the needs of the party. That is why democrats love the idea. Keep in mind that if the government has the authority to take the best two years of you life they can take the best 10 or 20. Will of you brush aside the Constitution, there is no limit. I

If you can't imagine that, then you're incredibly out of touch with conservative and libertarian thinking, because the matter has been discussed by both for longer than there has been a United States -- definitely before Marx came along.

It's just a matter of contractual obligations in order to gain the benefits of an association. Conservatives have argued for obligatory national service on the premise that the benefits of citizenship should not come merely from being born on a certain side of a line but should be earned, libertarians on the premise that a nation is essentially a contractual corporation and only those willing to put in real participation in the corporation should be included as partners.

Nor does it have anything to do with Marx anyway; it isn't "from each according to ability", it's "from each according to choice", and once the choice is made it's "from each according to a single standard".

 

[patrickj]

Health care can't be "a right under natural law" because it does, as Ben correctly points out, require people to labor for each other.

But if a nation wants to be a people, not just a jungle of competing individuals, then health care is an obligation requiring people to labor for each other. So what this fight is really about is not rights, but whether or not the U.S. can any longer speak of "we, the people" -- and the GOP answer is that we are not any longer a people, because they deny any obligations.

I confess, my view is of a traditional conservative and Catholic teaching on the issue but that we must all labour for it, does not mean it isn't still an individual right. We must labour to provide each other with mutual defence, legal justice, environmental protection, safe working conditions, etc. but people have a right to live in safety, to justice under the law, to breath clean air, to work in a safe environment, etc. That doesn't mean individuals don't have their own obligations under those rights, however.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/pope-says-universal-health-care-inalienable-right

 

[KaraBulut]

That's a superb statement of the disintegration of American politics! It covers nicely the concerns of whether democracy can survive the internet.

It's particularly scary since everyone seems to have their own facts these days, too.

And when confronted with facts, rush the legislation through before the CBO report comes out.

And then celebrate today and pretend there's no tomorrow?

 

[Kulindahr]

I confess, my view is of a traditional conservative and Catholic teaching on the issue but that we must all labour for it, does not mean it isn't still an individual right. We must labour to provide each other with mutual defence, legal justice, environmental protection, safe working conditions, etc. but people have a right to live in safety, to justice under the law, to breath clean air, to work in a safe environment, etc. That doesn't mean individuals don't have their own obligations under those rights, however.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/pope-says-universal-health-care-inalienable-right

Pope Rat never earned much respect from me.

That aside, if something that requires labor from others can be a right, then slavery can be legitimate.


BTW, breathing clean air doesn't require others to do something, it requires them to NOT engage in harmful behavior. The same is true of your other examples.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's particularly scary since everyone seems to have their own facts these days, too.

And when confronted with facts, rush the legislation through before the CBO report comes out.

And then celebrate today and pretend there's no tomorrow?

Yeah, and go on national TV Sunday morning and lie, lie, lie about the legislation. I actually sat and watched Ryan and Stephanopoulos, and was astounded at the level of mendacity Ryan indulged in.

 

[patrickj]

That aside, if something that requires labor from others can be a right, then slavery can be legitimate.


BTW, breathing clean air doesn't require others to do something, it requires them to NOT engage in harmful behavior. The same is true of your other examples.

But we all are already required to labour for others. We must pay our taxes or face prosecution. We do so for the common good and specifically to fulfil our obligation to the rights of others. The State, (through taxes which we must labour to pay, and through it's right to regulate, which we must labour to fulfill), keeps us safe from enemies abroad and crime at home. They make sure that airlines, hospitals, coal mines, food manufacturers are regulated in order to protect the rights of people to health and safety. They already tax for health care for the elderly and the poor. Man everywhere and always, has lived in natural commonwealth. Even before there was a concept of a State, man in his tribes, clans, etc., understood that all within the tribe had a right to enough food, health care, and justice. Hence, natural rights and natural law.

I realize we started to get off on a slightly different issue but I tried to bring the two together here.

 

[KaraBulut]

Yeah, and go on national TV Sunday morning and lie, lie, lie about the legislation. I actually sat and watched Ryan and Stephanopoulos, and was astounded at the level of mendacity Ryan indulged in.

That's also the way that I feel when I watch Tom Price tell full-on falsehoods on the Sunday shows.

Paul Ryan has gone from right-wing think tank darling to happy budget committee warrior to reluctant Speaker to reluctant Trump supporter to some amalgam of desperate-looking politician and former-altar-boy-who-is-dreadful-at-lying. It's been sad to watch.

 

[Benvolio]

But we all are already required to labour for others. We must pay our taxes or face prosecution. We do so for the common good and specifically to fulfil our obligation to the rights of others. The State, (through taxes which we must labour to pay, and through it's right to regulate, which we must labour to fulfill), keeps us safe from enemies abroad and crime at home. They make sure that airlines, hospitals, coal mines, food manufacturers are regulated in order to protect the rights of people to health and safety. They already tax for health care for the elderly and the poor. Man everywhere and always, has lived in natural commonwealth. Even before there was a concept of a State, man in his tribes, clans, etc., understood that all within the tribe had a right to enough food, health care, and justice. Hence, natural rights and natural law.

I realize we started to get off on a slightly different issue but I tried to bring the two together here.

A major problem is that in the US, relatively few pay significant taxes. The cost of health insurance will be born by less than half of the people. As it is, many live on welfare generation after generation, and more are coming in and going on welfare from day one. Others live on crime, while others live in the underground economy and pay no income tax. Once a system is in place, it will be adjusted year after year to shift the burden to fewer and fewer people as an inducement to voters, and as a means of redistributing income.

 

[gsdx]

A major problem is that in the US, relatively few pay significant taxes.

Like billionaire Donald J. Trump who doesn't pay any taxes at all?