(09-19-2018 09:06 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2018 11:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2018 07:03 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, but I absolutely can't get behind that,
It opens up the proverbial can of worms.
You have access to healthcare right now. What you're talking about it other people PAYING for that healthcare. I have a REAL problem with me being required to pay for my insurance plus being required to pay for others as well just because my income is above some arbitrary line.
The problem is... what's next? So your healthcare is provided. Should healthy food be provided? How about adequate shelter? Utilities? Clothing? Transportation? Where does it stop? Where is the line drawn where it's no longer government's responsibility?
Sorry, it's not a "right" to have others pay your bills. It's not government's job to take care of you.
I'd go the opposite route and add to the new constitution that it's, in fact, NOT government's job to provide, but rather get out of the way so YOU can provide for yourself.
I'm going to agree in part and disagree in part. Nobody has the right to require someone else to pay his/her bills. That's not a right, that's extortion.
At the same time, it is not unreasonable for society to agree that some things provide sufficient benefit to all that it is reasonable to pay for them as a group rather than having each individual pay for his/her own--national defense, public safety, those sorts of things. I further think that it is not unreasonable to conclude that society benefits sufficiently from maintaining some base levels of health and income across the board--you just avoid a lot of problems with bigger price tags. That's why I support a subsistence-level universal income and Bismarck universal private health care, funded by consumption taxes.
Where I drop my support is for things designed more to be massive government redistribution of income and wealth, rather than universal safety nets.
I support, "Everybody benefits and everybody pays," more the European approach.
We economically benefit from a healthier workforce that is more productive.
No health care system is perfect. As with all mass societal systems, there will be winners and losers and those who fall through the cracks. The goal should be to limit the numbers of losers and people who fall through the cracks.
For me, the best way to do that is a hybrid public/private system that guarantees primary and preventive care for everyone while allowing for private insurance for everything else.
Also, we need to find a way to no longer make health insurance employment based. Aside from being from limiting wages and being a pain in the ass on our workforce, it is also a major economic problem for our companies. There is a cheaper and easier way to do this.
The fear I have with any government run insurance program is that when you rely on them for something, they get to make the rules.
We still (arguably) live in a free society. Any time you involve government, you involve POLITICS. Private insurance companies are profit which makes it a consistent in my book. With politics, what "matters", what gets the "attention", and where the $$$ goes depends on the whims of who's in charge. I don't want to be in a situation where my disease/condition is suddenly downgraded on the totem pole because it doesn't suit some politicians campaign promises.
I also fear that as costs start to spiral out of control, we will see "panels" deeming what lifestyle choices one must make in order to be "covered". Oh, I'm sorry, your in violation of the red meat ordinance, that condition won't be treated. I'm sorry, you didn't exercise the mandated 1 hour per day, you're on your own.
At least when I pay, I can set the conditions. I know I'll pay more if I smoke or drink, but at least I have that choice.
(09-19-2018 12:00 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ] (09-19-2018 09:06 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2018 11:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2018 07:03 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, but I absolutely can't get behind that,
It opens up the proverbial can of worms.
You have access to healthcare right now. What you're talking about it other people PAYING for that healthcare. I have a REAL problem with me being required to pay for my insurance plus being required to pay for others as well just because my income is above some arbitrary line.
The problem is... what's next? So your healthcare is provided. Should healthy food be provided? How about adequate shelter? Utilities? Clothing? Transportation? Where does it stop? Where is the line drawn where it's no longer government's responsibility?
Sorry, it's not a "right" to have others pay your bills. It's not government's job to take care of you.
I'd go the opposite route and add to the new constitution that it's, in fact, NOT government's job to provide, but rather get out of the way so YOU can provide for yourself.
I'm going to agree in part and disagree in part. Nobody has the right to require someone else to pay his/her bills. That's not a right, that's extortion.
At the same time, it is not unreasonable for society to agree that some things provide sufficient benefit to all that it is reasonable to pay for them as a group rather than having each individual pay for his/her own--national defense, public safety, those sorts of things. I further think that it is not unreasonable to conclude that society benefits sufficiently from maintaining some base levels of health and income across the board--you just avoid a lot of problems with bigger price tags. That's why I support a subsistence-level universal income and Bismarck universal private health care, funded by consumption taxes.
Where I drop my support is for things designed more to be massive government redistribution of income and wealth, rather than universal safety nets.
I support, "Everybody benefits and everybody pays," more the European approach.
We economically benefit from a healthier workforce that is more productive.
No health care system is perfect. As with all mass societal systems, there will be winners and losers and those who fall through the cracks. The goal should be to limit the numbers of losers and people who fall through the cracks.
For me, the best way to do that is a hybrid public/private system that guarantees primary and preventive care for everyone while allowing for private insurance for everything else.
Also, we need to find a way to no longer make health insurance employment based. Aside from being from limiting wages and being a pain in the ass on our workforce, it is also a major economic problem for our companies. There is a cheaper and easier way to do this.
The fear I have with any government run insurance program is that when you rely on them for something, they get to make the rules.
We still (arguably) live in a free society. Any time you involve government, you involve POLITICS. Private insurance companies are profit which makes it a consistent in my book. With politics, what "matters", what gets the "attention", and where the $$$ goes depends on the whims of who's in charge. I don't want to be in a situation where my disease/condition is suddenly downgraded on the totem pole because it doesn't suit some politicians campaign promises.
I also fear that as costs start to spiral out of control, we will see "panels" deeming what lifestyle choices one must make in order to be "covered". Oh, I'm sorry, your in violation of the red meat ordinance, that condition won't be treated. I'm sorry, you didn't exercise the mandated 1 hour per day, you're on your own.
At least when I pay, I can set the conditions. I know I'll pay more if I smoke or drink, but at least I have that choice.
That's why I prefer the Bismarck approach.
Bismarck system actually covers a wide array of systems. For example all members of a union might be one plan (most EU countries are heavily unionized) with some sort public or private catch-all plans for others. Some are regional plans or there may be multiple regional plans organized as not-for-profit entities. Many feature some sort national or regional price control.
One of the common features is it shifts disputes. In the US if your Doctor orders Z priced at $850 expecting to receive $360 from insurance and $40 from the patient and insurance rejects coverage as unneeded insurance pays $0 and the Doctor bills the patient $850. In most Bismarck systems the doctor sends an invoice to the insurer and if the insurer rejects the claim the patient never gets involved it's a provider vs insurer battle.
Back to the Constitution project.
Change
Add section that provides that if a budget is not approved for any agency, department or branch of government is not adopted the previous spending remains in effect.
Reasoning. The "shutdown" has become political theater. The government never shuts down. The FBI keeps investigating, the Border Patrol stays on duty, Customs still inspects entering ships and planes and their goods. The air traffic controllers stay on the job and so on and so forth. What happens is a bunch of clerical type staff goes home and we close the gates of the national parks, monuments, and museums. It's all a show.
Even in the biggest battles of the "shut down" game, the only elements of the battle have been how much to increase spending overall (none has cut total spending) and the reallocation of spending from one purpose to another,
Locking spending at current levels takes away the expensive show of sending people home, takes away the video of the family from Maryland that drove for days to get to Yosemite just to be told they can't come in. It actually holds spending where it is and forces Congress or Congress and the President to work something out or live under the last deal. It removes the panic to force a side to give in because the public blames them. Belgium once went over two years operating in this manner.