Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It takes no money to get up and exercise. It takes no money to not eat a bag of Cheetos. It takes no money to money to not drink or do drugs. Just a few examples of free and responsible decisions all of which lead to a healthy lifestyle.
You could exercise all you want. You can forgo Cheetos all you want. You get hit by a bus or beat up by a group of thugs, that lifestyle goes out the window. What if your children are born with conditions that require surgery and/or long-term care? What if your wife gets cancer? What if you get cancer? I hate to tell you this, but you cannot totally control your destiny, no matter how many miles you run, how many drinks you don't have or how many Cheetos you don't eat.
There is a correlation between exercise and good health. But there is no guarantee of good health, no matter what you do. You could still get sick.
When you can't even decide on what it broken, how do you fix it? Is it the medical industry? Is it insurance?
It's both.
Quote:
Because the solution isn't the same for both. Also, when the government "fixes" something, they never, ever, ever get out of they way. When given power, when do they ever give it up?
If these industries don't fix it, government will have to. There is no choice.
Not the general welfare of the citizens, the general welfare of the country. Same way that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 - "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" gets abused. Regulate means to control if you ask anyone today. In the late 1700's it meant to make regular. If there were any impedance to commerce then the government had the power to step in. Like if Pennsylvania wanted to go use a different measurement system for grain from the other 12 states. The government could step in and do something about it. If there is nothing impeding commerce, then the federal government should have no say in the matter.
You want us in a 1 size fits all healthcare system but you seem to be an individualist and very independent in your personal life.
No, Robert, you continue to jump to conclusions. On one hand, yes, I am very individualist and independent. But I also want America to have in place a system that guarantees access to healthcare for all. If you want to go on the market and buy insurance or pay retail, you have the right and option to do that and opt out of the national system. But for those citizens for whom the single-payer system would be a better bet, it would be available. Right now, that option, which would make healthcare available to all citizens, is not there.
Quote:
Not the general welfare of the citizens, the general welfare of the country. Same way that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 - "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" gets abused. Regulate means to control if you ask anyone today. In the late 1700's it meant to make regular. If there were any impedance to commerce then the government had the power to step in. Like if Pennsylvania wanted to go use a different measurement system for grain from the other 12 states. The government could step in and do something about it. If there is nothing impeding commerce, then the federal government should have no say in the matter.
So basically, the way you are interpreting this passage is that the general welfare of corporate entities, rather than the general welfare of the citizenry, is the responsibility of the government. Unfortunately, there are lots of people who agree with you.
The people who shouted yes, more importantly, were happy to be allowing death. Paul carries his beliefs IMO to irrational lengths, but I did not sense any barbarism from him. I sensed far too much of it from the TP crowd. It should NOT have been an enthusiastic choice on their part.
That is what I think as well. HE didn't say to let the guy die, I think it was posed by Wolf and the TP folks in the crowd cheered. It was disgusting. Granted, it wasn't a huge number in the crowd but it was cheered and made me a bit sad. How many of these people pretend to be religious? How many of these people would feel the same way about a family member? And yes, I did watch the entire thing even though I won't vote for any one of them.
The only one I would vote for is Romney, and only if he did not pair with a TP favored VP. This group, truthfully, cannot win a national election, nor can the GOP, until it disentangles iteself from them. This was the most immoral reaction I have ever heard at a presidential primary debate.
Wow, listen to these fools. Ron Paul is out of his mind. He actually thinks churches will pay peoples medical bills. The teabagger crowd cheered for this nonsense and the rest of the candidates appeared to agree. Just let the uninsured die, which includes children. It's a damn shame that we've reached this point where people such as this are vying for an opportunity to be the leader of our country.
Not much different than thinking the chinese will pay for your future nefits in medicare;SS or medicaid by lending money to us for ever;really.Remmeber they cherred with Obama presnet when democrats deaclred war on the tea party.
No, Robert, you continue to jump to conclusions. On one hand, yes, I am very individualist and independent. But I also want America to have in place a system that guarantees access to healthcare for all. If you want to go on the market and buy insurance or pay retail, you have the right and option to do that and opt out of the national system. But for those citizens for whom the single-payer system would be a better bet, it would be available. Right now, that option, which would make healthcare available to all citizens, is not there.
I did not mean to jump to conclusions. Sorry. But how can the market which is profit driven, compete with the government? They can insure people at a loss? If most people take the less expensive government option, then the market for other companies shrinks to nothing eventually. Then we have another massive bureaucracy like the IRS, DMV or any other alphabet agency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario
So basically, the way you are interpreting this passage is that the general welfare of corporate entities, rather than the general welfare of the citizenry, is the responsibility of the government. Unfortunately, there are lots of people who agree with you.
You are jumping to conclusions now. Keeping people healthy is individual welfare. The general welfare of the US is keeping the borders safe and providing a starting point so that everyone can pursue their dreams. If that dream is starting a software company in a house in New Mexico and becoming the richest software mogul in the world or just getting by and not bothering anyone else, it is that individual's dream. It makes no distinction about individuals or even people.
Robert J"But how can the market which is profit driven, compete with the government? They can insure people at a loss?"
They would not need to lose, insurance companies have heavy SG&A ration, while medicare's administration cost is a fraction of any of the major insurance companies SG&A. Perhaps we should be asking why a competitor has not come in with lower SG&A which would undermine the market rates for insurance amongst those presently in the field. (Just as Southwest is the reason the old hub-spoke airlines now operate lower cost options (regionals, becuase SWA would have driven their revenue down to unsustainable levels.)
That is what I think as well. HE didn't say to let the guy die, I think it was posed by Wolf and the TP folks in the crowd cheered. It was disgusting. Granted, it wasn't a huge number in the crowd but it was cheered and made me a bit sad.
It was a loaded question. Did this fictitious young man make the choice to spend his money elsewhere and not prepare for the future? If he had chosen to pay for a nice house and an expensive car and skimp on insurance because he did not need it then that is 100% his fault. His actions had consequences. Should I be on the hook for his bills because of his choice? Why? Don't tell me that I already am because of of higher medical bills. If that's the case, why don't we all not get insurance and watch the system break down?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillz
How many of these people pretend to be religious?
I thought this was an economics discussion. I attend church for weddings and funerals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillz
How many of these people would feel the same way about a family member?
At least 1. My sister has less than a year due to colon cancer. She lead a hard life of drinking, drugs and other various abuses of her body and now she wants someone to fix it for her. On the other hand, my father-in-law had the best care from one of the best brain surgeons in the entire world and the brain tumor still took him in less than 5 months from diagnosis.
Either way, now my wife and I are purchasing cancer insurance. It's the responsible thing to do based on recently events. I am giving up money I would spend on fun things like guns and ammo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
