Originally posted by Blaine91555
I see it more as a renovation and each item as a leak to be fixed or a door to be replaced.
That's a mighty big leak then, but I'll take this at face value.
It is impossible to have a discussion without some part of what we say agreeing with one side or the other. It does not mean a person is
pandering. If you see merit to idea's from both sides, a person will always be thought to be siding with one side or the other due to the prejudices
the others bring to the debate. I need not attack either side to discuss the issue.
I attack no one, and you miss my point. There are many more than two sides or options in this debate, but the only two I hear is Republican (some
government power added) and Democrat (loads of government power added). This is the reality of the debate and I see neither side as having any sort
of good end.
I have no prejudice, however I do want to reframe this debate. It's the only way to discuss it properly in my mind.
That is a false conclusion based on your personal prejudices. You are trying to pigeon hole me into one point of view or another. I am not
anti-government. It is common sense we need laws and regulations to have a civil society. We do not need however people in power controlled by special
interests who do not have our best interest at heart.
I pigeon holed no one and assume nothing. I will quote for you what I mean:
-
"Government has never successfully run a business without massive waste and fraud. Not once in its history has it done that. To think they can
do it now is delusional."
-
"Government funded health care ONLY for those who can not pay themselves and nobody else. "
-
" Open competition with no artificial borders at state lines legislated to reward special interests. "
To name a few. You are still mired in the idea that the solution lies at the Federal level. THAT is the problem, nothing else.
The reason you have state line seperations is because each state has it's own licensing, health regulation, and financial restrictions. The
companies must, therefore, conduct business differently in each state according to it's respective laws.
The only way to circumvent that (not even sure it'd be constitutional), would be for the Federal government to strip the states of some more of it's
power or to bribe them into selling that power (like with federal road funds, etc).
Not the best idea in my opinion.
When we categorize one another we make honest debate impossible.
Do not be guilty of your own assumptions. Labels mean nothing to me.
In a way you are pointing out the exact same thing I am. We actually agree in that we need less laws. We need more effective and fair laws.
The quickest way to put an end to the ambulance chasers is to simplify the law and remove the loopholes they use.
One of the biggest lies going is that laws need to be complex or written in a way that not everyone can understand. It is a bald faced lie to protect
the attorneys ability to empty our wallets. Most cases other than criminal cases should not even require an attorney. Courtroom trickery could be
eliminated easily and to say otherwise is yet another lie.
First off, in a free society, the civil court system is vital. I'd think very carefully about approaching the issue with tort reform rather than the
"Great Legislative Purge" as I like to call it.
Tort reform is dangerous, and removes some of the power of the people to gain recompense for damage to their property.
Not really. If it was a genuine pool with the risk shared by all, no matter age or behavior, it could be cheaper for everyone. We would pay the
same from birth to death no matter who we are and there is no way that would not benefit us. The only reason we see this debate is people can not see
past their own prejudices to understand how it could be. Without shared risk the whole concept of insurance is a farce.
Let me paint a picture for you. There are 50 opportunities to run 50 different health care models. Mass. could have state run/taxed universal care
(single payer), while New Hampshire could have no state tax for this and no shared care.
No medicaid or medicare or Social Security is needed as the state simply assumes that role and may correct it, phase it out, or ramp it up as it and
it's citizens so choose.
You would then have freedom to choose the type of system you choose to live and get taxed under.
Or, serve the people and do the jobs they were elected to do. Just because it is one way now does not mean it MUST be that way. Fatalism is giving up.
I don't buy into that argument. You do frame the problem very clearly however.
Wrong. It is that way and will always be that way. That is the function of government, force. It is the collective population's pressure on
ourselves and the world around us. That force can be good when used in a sparing and prudent manner.
Realism and fatalism are not the same.