Get a clue America

I'll admit to not caring a whole lot about how Americans go about their business (although for the record I will state that I live in a country with socialised health care that has enormous population density, has a huge number of immigrants, is NOT bankrupt and I have never had anything but positive experiences of our healthcare system).

It seems to me that the economic and patient care arguments offered by some are only a thinly veiled cover for the ideological problem that they have with providing those less well-off with some of their hard-earned dollars. I can completely understand that to an extent! There is one thing that I think is fundamental though and I just don't understand it...

Those of you who don't want your health to be placed in the hands of the state because it will be expensive, unreliable etc. - how are you so happy then to allow your treatment to be dictated by a company that has a vested interest in one thing only - making money?

If you pay your dues to the state, the worst that happens is that the money is lost through incompetence or frittered away on bureaucracy. You are GUARANTEED care in return and if the system is established correctly, that care will be of a high quality, irrespective of how many of your tax dollars the government spend on wars etc. No matter what your financial position at the time. No matter what health issues you may have had in the past, you will be treated without question. Why would you rather pay vastly inflated prices to a make somebody rich who may well tall you 'you're not covered' when it comes down to it? You've got to admit that on paper it sounds crazy! You're paying vastly more than will probably ever be necessary and you're STILL not in ultimate control of your healthcare?

I don't understand.... Please explain! Sorry if it's been covered in the last 15 pages

Originally posted by Dr. N


It seems to me that the economic and patient care arguments offered by some are only a thinly veiled cover for the ideological problem that they have with providing those less well-off with some of their hard-earned dollars. I can completely understand that to an extent! There is one thing that I think is fundamental though and I just don't understand it...

It's illegal for the Fed Govt to do what is being proposed.

I support Jim Demitt's bill that is in the Senate.

reply to post by VinceP1974


What exactly does the law prohibit? And is it actually illegal or 'unconstitutional' in some vague interpretation? You'll need to elaborate for us less well informed folk I'm afraid!!

Is it the collection of taxes from individuals with the specific aim to redistribute them among society? I can see the argument, but surely social security already contravenes this if that were the case? Or is it the removal of an individuals right to choose their healthcare or something along those lines? You could still buy private health insurance if you wanted so surely this does not apply?

reply to post by Dr. N


First, I'll restate my position regarding issues on the table, I support Jim Demitt's proposal in the Senate.

Regarding the legality, Constitutionality, and principles:

From
www.learntheconstitution.com...


Samuel Adams said the ideas of a welfare state were made unconstitutional by the Founders:

“The utopian schemes of leveling (redistribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (central ownership of all the means of production and distribution) are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. (These ideas) are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.”

The Founders had a deep concern for the poor and needy. Disciples of the collectivist Left in the Founders’ day as well as our own have insisted that compassion for the poor requires that the federal government become involved in taking from the “haves” and giving to the “have nots.” Benjamin Franklin had been one of the “have nots,” and after living several years in England where he saw government welfare programs in operation, he had considerable to say about these public charities and their counterproductive compassion.

Franklin wrote a whole essay on the subject and told one of his friends: “I have long been of your opinion, that your legal provision for the poor (in England ) is a very great evil, operating as it does to the encouragement of idleness. We have followed your example, and begin now to see our error, and, I hope, shall reform it.”

A survey of Franklin ’s views on counterproductive compassion might be summarized as follows:

1. Compassion which gives a drunk the means to increase his drunkenness is counterproductive.
2. Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counterproductive.
3. Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counterproductive.
4. Compassion which smothers the instinct to strive and excel is counterproductive.

Nevertheless, the Founders recognized that it is a mandate of God to help the poor and underprivileged. It is interesting how they said this should be done.

Franklin wrote: “To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? When ever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence , and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.”

Nearly all of the Founders seem to have acquired deep convictions that assisting those in need had to be done through means which might be called “calculated” compassion.

Highlights from their writings suggest the following:

1. Do not completely care for the needy–merely help them to help themselves.
2. Give the poor the satisfaction of “earned achievement” instead of rewarding them without achievement.
3. Allow the poor to climb the “appreciation ladder”–from tents to cabins, cabins to cottages, cottages to comfortable houses.
4. Where emergency help is provided, do not prolong it to the point where it becomes habitual.
5. Strictly enforce the scale of “fixed responsibility.” The first and foremost level of responsibility is with the individual himself; the second level is the family; then the church; next the community; finally the county, and, in a disaster or emergency, the state. Under no circumstances was the federal government to become involved in public welfare. The Founders felt it would corrupt the government and also the poor. No constitutional authority exists for the federal government to participate in so-called social welfare programs. (Making of America p 218-220)

The U. S. Constitution states in Article I, section 8: The people of the states empower the Congress to expend money (for the enumerated purposes listed in Article I, section 8), provided it is done in a way that benefits the general welfare of the whole people. Thomas Jefferson explained that this clause was not a grant of power to “spend” for the general welfare of the people, but was intended to “limit the power of taxation” to matters which provided for the welfare of “the Union ” or the welfare of the whole nation. In other words, federal taxes could not be levied for states, countries, cities, or special interest groups. (Making of America p 387)

The Court unlawfully laid the foundation for what turned out to be an amendment to the Constitution in the 1936 Butler case, where “general welfare” was twisted to allow “special welfare”, and the federal budget jumped from six billion to six hundred billion in one generation. (Making of America p 255) Should the Federal Government be involved in Social Welfare, you be the judge.

Thank you for the interesting post.

Although I see where you're coming from, I would argue that there is a fundamental difference between the social assistance that you have discussed above and healthcare. With healthcare it is far easier to discern who needs help, who doesn't, who is responsible for their own ailments and who is truly unfortunate. Much of the discussion in your post returns to the principle of dependancy e.g. "Compassion which gives a drunk the means to increase his drunkenness is counterproductive. ".

Well, this principle does not apply to providing people with medical assistance in the same way that it applies to providing them with money... If a man drinks himself half to death, continues to drink and requests a new liver, in a socialised system he won't get it, period - whereas he would if he was well insured. Although if he is on benefits the state will, no doubt, continue to provide him with the money to fund his habit, these are different issues. I suppose you could argue on that basis that the only people who would suffer under socialised healthcare are those who intend to actively impair their health! A little simplistic I suppose... Although I would argue that those people are free to purchase their own medical insurance.......

I suppose I'm also one of those people who think things change, and we need to change with them. I'll never understand the American vice like grip to the constitution which, although still a sensible and informative document to live by (like the bible I suppose), also bares very little relevance to society today (much like the bible...). You could say things would be better if we stuck rigidly to both, but I wouldn't agree. A difference in perception and vision for humanity I guess.

Dear OP,

I understand your frustrations towards my country. Believe me, there are alot of us frustrated here, but, I do not believe that you can point the finger at all of America.

Not everyone here talks down to our brothers across land, or sea, (so dont base it all off the internet if thats what your doing) not everyone here hates Obama or thinks hes the anti-christ (even though theres piles of evidence against him) not everyone thinks they are better just because they are classified as "American." Personally, this materialistic life many Americans live have blinded them, and they have in fact lost the meaning of what life really is. We are hated on by so many countries for reasons the civilians arent aware of, we cling to the media, we base our life off of movies and pop-culture (many, not ALL) not everything here in America is sunshine and rainbows.

We have had our revolutions, we have had our riots, we have and still have our wars, but what we dont have and what we all want, is the truth.

We are all here to seek the truth, and I hope your post helped you vent, but I do not feel as if it were necessary to post it here on this website, perhaps a myspace blog or facebook note would be better.

All your post does here is create boundaries, hate (breeding more hate) and separate us from each other.

I Hope you do not hate me because I am American, I simply had no choice.

reply to post by Dr. N


At the end of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Ben Franklin "Well, doctor, what have we got?," The response:
"A Republic, if you could keep it"
So from the very beginning, a challenge from the Founding generation to the all the generations to follow.... do you have what it takes to maintain this Republic.

A Republic has been established in a land with practically no bitter history of war. No established ethnic tribalism. No baggage of centuries of bad blood between the peoples of Atlantic North America.
It was refuge from the conflicts in Europe that the rediscovery of the Bible had brought. A refuge for people who fell on all sides of that conflict. The Puritans, the Catholics, the less Pure Protestants, and even undoubtedly, those who with no faith at all
The Great Thinkers of the 13 newly indepndent and sovereign States along the East Coast had decided that they would need one another to be secure and to prosper. But they hardly agreed on anything more than that.

How were these 13 independent States to join in a Union and yet have none of them feel the oppression of the other 12 imposing upon them a system and its laws that they do not desire.
.

They tried the Articles of Confederation... it was failing. It was so weak, the nation could not afford to build a navy. A navy sorely needed because the United States was no longer being protected from Islamic Terrorism by the bribes of tribute that Great Britain was making to the Terrorist North African Islamic states.
Reality compelled the 13 to return to the drawing board and come up with something better.

A Republic

A Republic is a country under the obedience of citizen to the Law. It not rule by Men but by Law. It is not rule by Majority but by Law. It is not Rule by Fad or Passion but by Law.

A Federation

A Federation is when a group of States , having maintained their claim to a substantial amount of sovereignty choose to delegate some of its sovereign powers to a National Govt that it and other States agree to establish and be subordinate to.

The Framers drafted a most unusual form of government in the late 1700s...a Federal Republic. A nation designed to maximize Liberty and minimize Statism.

Both American Republicanism (rule of law) and American Federation were designed to establish systems of Govt that would structurally be designed to tamper the Govt's natural tendency to enlarge itself.
What were they afraid of?

Democracy

Democracy was detested by the men who gave us our country. The Founders knew history very well and they all agreed on one thing.
When the Govt becomes a Welfare State,.. Liberty is dead.
Democracy ushers in the Welfare State which ushers in Tyranny.


Thomas Jefferson has said:

Mankind soon learn to make interested uses of every right and power which they possess, or may assume. The public money and public liberty, intended to have been deposited with three branches of magistracy, but found inadvertently to be in the hands of one only, will soon be discovered to be sources of wealth and dominion to those who hold them; distinguished, too, by this tempting circumstance, that they are the instrument, as well as the object of acquisition. With money we will get men, said Caesar, and with men we will get money. Nor should our assembly be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes, and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price.

Ben Franklin
When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic

Jeffferson
Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.

John Adams
no good government but what is republican... the very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.'

Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

John C. Calhoun
The government of the absolute majority is but the government of the strongest interests; and when not effectively checked, is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised... [To read the Constitution is to realize that] no free system was ever farther removed from the principle that the absolute majority, without check or limitation, ought to govern.

James Madison
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.

Daniel Webster
Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.

John Adams
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide

Ben Franklin
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!


Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

We have not kept what was given to us.

H. L. Mencken in The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

That day has come.

I'm a little confused...

You're clearly not arguing that everything was fine and dandy in the world of the federal republic until very recently and it's only socialised healthcare that's rocking the boat, so you must be acknowledging that the system has been broken almost from the beginning... :

"a land with practically no bitter history of war. No established ethnic tribalism. No baggage of centuries of bad blood between the peoples of Atlantic North America.
It was refuge from the conflicts in Europe that the rediscovery of the Bible had brought."

Well that was all soon rectified!! If you look at the activities of the US today, does it really bare any resemblance to what was written down by the founders? Clearly it doesn't, so in trying to conform to the constitution you will never find resolution. With the constitution you have a custom-made solution for a context that hasn't existed for a long time. It seems that all you have provided evidence for is that the ideology failed very early on..... In that case, isn't it time to diversify?! I really cant see socialised healthcare making things worse purely from a 'constitutional conformity' perspective and given the alternatives (see opinions in previous post...), isn't it worth some thought?

Originally posted by eradown
I think it is funny you know who our president is. You really should not. Regardless of whither you love Obama or hate him, he won't help you at all. We in America prefer to mind our own bussiness or maybe we really are too big to ignore.

...we in America prefer to mind our own business...

Well, maybe 150 years ago when you were busy to kill each under during civil war... from that moment on US did everything except mind its own business... just a few example: Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iraq, Afghanistan, Italy (yes, Italy where 60 years after the end of WWII we are still forced to keep thousand of US soldiers and even your atomic bombs on our soil) and almost all the rest of the world nations have seen how much you mind your own business... in others' home.

Please...

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I for the life of me don't understand why other countries care about or think they should have some influence on health care policy in America.

I'm not interested in changing the Canadian or UK health care system. Why are you so interested in changing mine?





[edit on 17-8-2009 by jjkenobi]

At the end of the day, I don't. Clearly you didn't read my post.

What I care about is American's ignorance towards other nations and their way of doing things. I'm not a fascist or a communist and my government doesn't own me because we have socialized medicine.

That's where you're wrong...

They do own you, and can do whatever they please with your body.

Just as you're tired of us criticizing your health care system, we're tired of hearing from you. We will vote in what we believe to be the most fitting system.

the problem with socialist healthcare (i'm also from canada), is that it encourages everyone to get fat and lazy and diabeetis, since they get free treatment. Now were a nation fattened like lams to the slaughter

Just another anti American rant. We are the freeist nation on the planet and plan to keep it that way. You can keep all your socialized Goverment run policies. Let your elderly get death counciling instead of help, we don't want that here. Keep your long waits for health care and everything else that your Goverments foul up. The best solution is less Goverment, for everyones problems.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by weird_travels]

It's very easy to point out what's bad in the USA. It is also politically acceptable to say anything derogatory, ignorant or plain hateful about the nation. This is disturbing because it is becoming more and more prevalent around the world. "What's my problem? Eh probably because of those dumb greedy Americans who think it all revolves around them..."

The USA has done a lot of wrong and made many mistakes. Though it is not the only country to do so, it is the one that usually cops the most flak and receives the most criticism when it occurs.

A lot of people forget about the good that the USA does because they get distracted and caught up with the bad. The fact is that if it weren't for America, sites like ATS probably would not even exist - or at least for us in the West. The USA has made life easier and more enjoyable for people in countries where English is the native language.

Think about it for a minute, do you think things like Wikipedia, Google, Apple, Sourceforge.org would have had the appeal and effect in the West (and the world) if it were not for the support of USA companies?

I respect the wishes of proximity related countries such as the USA, in areas that effect peoples there.
Where a government (Bush2) can spend a trillion tax dollars on the invasion of a seriously redundant military force such as Iraq, while their (U.S.) peoples and their family cannot receive continued medical services due to financial cost is awful. Its worse than awful its almost third world.

For all the Americans hoping Pres Obama succeeds with true HC reform, I hope your wishes are fulfilled.

Decoy

Originally posted by Dr. N
I'm a little confused...

You're clearly not arguing that everything was fine and dandy in the world of the federal republic until very recently and it's only socialised healthcare that's rocking the boat, so you must be acknowledging that the system has been broken almost from the beginning... :

I have no idea what you're talking about. You asked what the background was for my statement that State run medical is illegal.

"a land with practically no bitter history of war. No established ethnic tribalism. No baggage of centuries of bad blood between the peoples of Atlantic North America.
It was refuge from the conflicts in Europe that the rediscovery of the Bible had brought."

Well that was all soon rectified!! If you look at the activities of the US today, does it really bare any resemblance to what was written down by the founders? Clearly it doesn't, so in trying to conform to the constitution you will never find resolution.

See above statements about Rule of Law vs Rule of Man. Rule of Law remains no matter how old unless the law be changed. To ignore the law and act in the passion of the day is what they were trying to avoid.

Did you understand what they meant in those quotes? Everything you're saying, they were convinced leads to the loss of Liberty.

With the constitution you have a custom-made solution for a context that hasn't existed for a long time. It seems that all you have provided evidence for is that the ideology failed very early on..... In that case, isn't it time to diversify?! I really cant see socialised healthcare making things worse purely from a 'constitutional conformity' perspective and given the alternatives (see opinions in previous post...), isn't it worth some thought?

The 50 States of the United States retain the most fundamental claim to soverignity. It was not delegated to the Fed Govt to get involved.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Health care programs are unsustainable , especially in a country with abortion and birth control.

The Fed Govt is already bankrupt. And it already has programs for the old (Medicare), the poor (Medicaid), and the young (SCHIP).. it's aready neck-deep in illegal entitlement programs and cannot afford any more.

Plus the various States that have tried health plans of their own quickly find themselves being drained of budget money within years of their establishment

There is no where a working model of govt run system.

Ultimately when you're talking about a service that everyone will engage in, there is no economic model that finds the govt in a major position that doesn't involve rationing and other market distortions. Everyone must pay their own way as a general rule.

If people find the Constitutional prohibition to be something they are not willing to abide by, there is an Amendment process. A little gang isn't going to be able to dictate to the country that they're going to destroy our government, the Amendment process allows for the States to consent or reject the proposed change.

I find it bizarre that people seriously call for unlawful government actions. This is how it must have been like in the beginning of the National Socialist rule in Germany.

Originally posted by Spiritfilled
the problem with socialist healthcare (i'm also from canada), is that it encourages everyone to get fat and lazy and diabeetis, since they get free treatment. Now were a nation fattened like lams to the slaughter

Sorry but this statement makes no sense whatsoever.
Americans CURRENTLY do not have free health care yet we are FATTER then ever. I would like to actually see a scientific study that links free health care to "encouraging everyone to get fat and lazy and diabeetis". Have you ever seen one or is your statement just made up based on what you perceive to be real?

I would love to have socialized health care here in America, I don't know why everyone is so against it. But the rich man above us doesn't care,and I am not talking about the president. I personally believe you can not make an intelligent decision on this subject until you talk to people on both sides, and I have noticed every time I talk to someone from Canada, or France or any other place that has socialized medicine they are much happier and healthier. I hate our health care system it gets real old shelling out 400 dollars a month for family insurance and then still having to pay 25 to 150 dollar co pays at one time and then there's the deductible of 500 dollars, so it gets real old,I believe our government should pay for any medical related problems, they need to realize they are killing people with the high price of health care, but honestly they don't care as long as there wallets are fat.

Originally posted by brooklyn87
I would love to have socialized health care here in America,

Try reading your own signature.

Talk about intelligence! Maybe you should work on coherence first.

that has nothing to do with me wanting socialized medicine, u need to get a clue we are having a healthy debate there is no room for people like you.

reply to post by brooklyn87


Should I euthenize myself.. is that what the State will do to those it finds in its way?

Or how about the Joe the Plumber scenario.. if political bigots like you are working in the Govt would you leak someone's medical records as a way to get htem to shut up so you can have your intelligent debate on how to totally disregard this country has a Constitution?